Chapter 3 Review questions

  1. Briefly outline the basic ideas and assumptions of realism. Which ones are most plausible? Which ones are less convincing? Explain.
  2. Why do realist theorists doubt and even deny that progressive change is possible in international relations? Are they right or wrong?
  3. Explain the core argument of one of the following classical realists: Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes.
  4. Why do classical realists, such as Machiavelli and Morgenthau, draw a firm distinction between political ethics and private morality? Are they correct in doing so?
  5. How plausible is Morgenthau's concept of neoclassical realist statecraft?
  6. Compare Machiavelli's Renaissance statecraft and Schelling's nuclear statecraft. How would you account for their areas of agreement and disagreement?
  7. What are the most important similarities and differences between Morgenthau's neoclassical realism and Waltz's structural realism?
  8. Waltz’s notion of theory has often been misunderstood. How does it differ from the behaviouralist idea that theories prove their worth by being tested against reality?
  9. Review Mearsheimer's neorealist stability theory. How realistic is it?
  10. Some realists criticized NATO’s humanitarian intervention in Libya; others have criticized the US involvement in the Vietnam War. What were the main grounds of their realist critiques of these foreign military enterprises?
  11. The only way to stop war is to be prepared to fight it. Discuss.
  12. What are Waltz’s main objections to integrating domestic factors into theories of IR? Are they good objections?
Back to top