Following the collapse of the bipolar world realist approaches were placed under close scrutiny by neoliberals and constructivists. The legacy of the realist school actually became an object of numerous attacks, which were undertaken to demonstrate its discrepancy with new international realities.
In the course of sharp debates proponents of realism managed to show the weakness of neoliberal argumentation and, further, to testify that a number of high-sounding neoliberal theories are poorly- grounded. At the same time, realism’s supporters proved themselves to be incapable of defeating constructivists. The new opponents persuasively revealed the apparent though neglected earlier controversy between the basic materialist assumptions of the realist school and the not entirely materialist tool of their reflection in the international relations, i.e. the concept of power.
Only after a time realists managed to find some credible theoretical ground and make first effective steps towards building a consistent system of counterarguments against constructivism. However, ‘the constructivist assault’ caused a profound review of the realist theoretical and practical apparatus. Among currently relevant applied propositions of the school we should name assumptions of statism, of anarchy, of the significance of the power factor (while recognising the dual nature of power in international relations) as well as the ‘relative gains problem’.
Key words: International relations, neorealism, structural realism, neoliberalism, constructivism, a system of international relations, the relative gains problem, balancing, international structure, democratic peace.
References
1. Kissinger H.Nuclear weapons and foreign policy. New York, Harper and Row, 1957. 455 p.
2. Fukuyama F. The End of History and the Last Man. New York, Avon Books, 1992. 418 p.
3. Huntington S.P. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, University of
Oklahoma Press, 1991. 366 p.
4. Buzan B., Waever O. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. New York, Cambridge
University Press, 2003. 570 p.
5. Buzan B. The Inaugural Kenneth N. Waltz Annual Lecture. A World Order Without Superpowers: Decentred
Globalism. International Relations, 2011,vol. 25, no. 1. P. 3–25. Available at: http://ru.scribd.com/
doc/148502411/Buzan-2011-a-World-Without-Superpowers-1#scribd (Accessed 14 May 2015).
6. Doyle M.W. Kant: Liberalism and World Politics. American Political Science Review, 1986, vol. 80, no. 4. P. 1151–1169. Available at: http://www.ir.rochelleterman.com/sites/default/files/doyle%201986.pdf (Accessed
2 May 2015).
7. Gilpin R.G. The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism.International Organization, 1984,vol. 38, no.
2. P. 287 – 304.
8. Gilpin R.G. War and Change in World Politics. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1981. 271 p.
9. Gowa J. Anarchy, Egoism, and Third Images: The Evolution of Cooperation and International Relations.
International Organization,1986,no. 40. P. 167 – 188.
10. Grieco J. M. Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.
International Organization, 1988, vol. 42, no. 3. P. 485 – 507.
11. Guzzini S. The Enduring Dilemmas in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations,
2004, vol. 10, no. 4. P.533-568.
12. Legro J., Moravcsik A. Is Anybody Still a Realist? International Security, 1999,vol. 24, no. 2. P. 5–55.
13. Mearsheimer J. Conventional Deterrence. New York, Cornell University Press, 1983. 289 p.
14. Oneal J.R. Assessing the Liberal Peace with Alternative Specifications: Trade Still Reduces Conflict. Journal
of Peace Research, July, 1999, vol. 36, no. 4. P. 423 – 442.
15. Oren I. The Subjectivity of the ‘Democratic’ Peace: Changing U.S. Perceptions of Imperial Germany.
International Security, 1995, vol. 20, no. 2. P. 147–184.
16. Owen J.M. How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace? International Security, 1995,vol. 20, no. 2. P. 87 –
125. Available at: http://www.metu.edu.tr/~utuba/Owen.pdf(Acessed 12 May 2015).
17. Russett B. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War Worl. Princeton, Princeton University
Press, 1994. 192 p.
18. Vasquez J. The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative vs. Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of
Neotraditional Research on Waltz’s Balancing Proposition. American Political Science Review, December,
1997, vol. 91, no. 4. P. 899 – 912.
19. WaltzK.N.TheEmergingStructureofInternationalPolitics.InternationalSecurity,1993,vol.18,no.2.P.44–79.
20. Waltz K.N. Structural Realism after the Cold War. International Security, 2000,vol. 25, no. 1. P. 5 – 41.
21. Waltz K.N. Theory of International Politics. University of California, Berkeley, Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, 1978. 251 p. Available at: http://ru.scribd.com/doc/40007016/Kenneth-Waltz-Theory-of-
International- Politics#scribd (Acessed 22 August 2015).
22. Wohlforth W.C. Gilpinian Realism and International Relations. International Relations, 2011, vol. 25, no. 4.
P.499-511.
23. Wohlforth W.C., Little R., Kaufman S.J., Kang D., Jones C.A., Tin-Bor Hui V., Eckstein A., Deudney D., Brenner
W.L. Testing Balance-of-Power Theory in World History. European Journal of International Relations, 2007,
vol. 13, no. 2. P.155-185.
24. Young O. International Regimes: Toward a New Theory of Institutions. World Politics, October, 1986, no.
39. P. 104 – 122.
