The main explanations of imperialism can be divided into three general categories. Metrocentric theories focus on the provisions or internal characteristics of imperial states. John Hobson, for example, wrote in 1902 (1902/1965) that the motivation for expansion abroad was based on the need for advanced capitalist states to be able to export their surplus capital. This theme later became the basis of V. I. Lenin`s famous monograph, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, first published in 1917. Neo-Marxists later argued that the military-industrial complex and other characteristics of capitalist states actually created a need for capital, prompting states to create colonial and neocolonial relations with developing regions to extract wealth (see Magdoff 1969). Hans J. Morgenthau (1904-1980) developed realism into a global theory of international relations. Influenced by the Protestant theologian and political writer Reinhold Niebuhr and Hobbes, he placed selfishness and the thirst for power at the center of his image of man. The insatiable human thirst for power, timeless and universal, which he identifies with the animus dominandi, the desire to dominate, is for him the main cause of conflicts. As he notes in his magnum opus Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, first published in 1948, “international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power” (25). As mentioned earlier, realism has been the dominant theory of IR for nearly a century – particularly prevalent during the Cold War – but many IR researchers are wondering what the future holds for the theory and its role in the future of international security.

In a 2018 article in Foreign Policy, Stephen Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard, said that despite the administration`s claims to act on the basis of realism, Democrats and Republicans have shown a tendency to view foreign policy through the prism of liberal idealism and political climate as a rigid division between virtuous allies (usually democracies) and evil adversaries (usually dictatorships). to be designed. Realists often claim that statesmen are prone to realism, while realism is deeply unpopular with the public. [13] When statesmen take measures that deviate from realist politics, academic realists often argue that this is due to distortions due to domestic politics. [14] However, some research suggests that realist politics is indeed popular with the public, while elites are more engaged in liberal ideas. [15] Abrahamsen suggested that realpolitik for the Central Powers could include support for idealism and liberal internationalism. [16] The anti-realist who considers truth as epistemological is not necessarily much better equipped against skepticism. Although the actual justification does not guarantee the truth, it is the ideal justification, some anti-realists suggest. The challenge is to explain in detail what ideal justification is, in purely epistemic terms, without invoking a prior understanding of the concept of truth itself. This can be difficult, if not impossible. If we say that the ideal justification takes place in circumstances where all sources of error have been eliminated, and we understand this as circumstances in which there are no obstacles to obtaining the truth, then we have failed to rise to the challenge. However, not all realists deny the presence of ethics in international relations.

A distinction must be made between classical realism – represented by twentieth-century theorists such as Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans Morgenthau – and radical or extreme realism. While classical realism emphasizes the concept of national interest, it is not the Machiavellian doctrine “that everything is justified by the state” (Bull 1995, 189). Nor is it a question of glorifying war or conflict. Classical realists do not reject the possibility of moral judgment in international politics. Rather, they criticize moralism – an abstract moral discourse that ignores political realities. They attach the highest value to successful political action based on prudence: the ability to judge the correctness of a particular action among possible alternatives based on its likely political consequences. Neorealism also played an important role in demonstrating the reproductive nature of international relations. Here, theorists like Waltz argue that the model is different from wars, which demonstrate the functioning of associations within international relations systems. This theory captures the eternal aspects of international politics by thinking of all the centuries we can imagine. Other advantages of neorealism are; Theory helps to better understand the success and failure of the balance of power. The approach also uses more scientific deductive methods, that is.