Introduction: the two realisms of international relations theory

Conventional wisdom conflates neorealism and classical realism (e.g. Gilpin 1986; Grieco 1993a: 135). But my interpretation suggests two clearly differentiated realisms and two distinct theories of the state, as revealed within the framework of the second state debate. These two positions are juxtaposed in figures 2.1 and 2.7 (p. 46). There is a relatively strong consensus among realists and non-realists as to what constitutes ‘neorealism’. I summarise the approach through ‘six principles’, outlined on the left-hand side of figure 2.1. In essence, neorealism is highly parsimonious, such that although the state has high domestic agential power (or high institutional autonomy), nevertheless it has no international agential power to determine policy or shape the international system free of international structural constraints. For neorealism, states are in effect ‘passive bearers’ (Träger) of the international political structure. This contrasts with what I call ‘the six principles’ of classical realism which boil down to the essential claim that while states' domestic agential power varies through historical epochs, nevertheless all states have at all times (albeit to varying degrees) sufficient levels of international agential power to shape the inter-state system. Both Carr and Morgenthau emphasise that, under certain circumstances, states can create a peaceful world. Morgenthau (1948/1978: chapter 32) argues that the regaining of high domestic agential power can enable the state to create the necessary conditions for a peaceful world (i.e. enable the generation of high international agential state power).