Book Review: Jack Donnelly, Realism and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 231 pp., no price given pbk.)
| Date | 01 December 2000 |
| Published date | 01 December 2000 |
| DOI | 10.1177/03058298000290030913 |
| Author | Anders Wivel |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Book Reviews
949
Jack Donnelly, Realism and International Relations (Cambridg e: Cambridge
University Press, 2 000, 231 pp., no price given pbk. ).
Jack Don nelly’s Realism and International Relations is a hi ghly critical, yet
clearheaded , discussion of the realist tradition in internatio nal theory. It surve ys the
realist positions on human nature and state mo tivation, internat ional anarchy and
order, the b alance of power, interna tional institutions, and intern ational society and
morals and fo reign poli cy, and assesses t he logic and applicability of realism to
each of these issue s.
Donnelly’s own position is ‘undeniab ly non-realist’ or even ‘anti-reali st’ (p. 5),
and he views realism ‘as an exaggerated an d dangerously one-si ded set of insi ghts
rather than a successful ge neral theory of intern ational relations’ (p. 2). Thus, h e
explores th e tradition throug h ‘a primarily criti cal engagement: careful ly studying,
and deep ly appreciatin g, but ultimately rejecting reali sm’ (p. 200). The po int of his
rejection is not that realism is wro ng and some other approach is right—Donnelly
explicitl y discards this ‘glad iatorial’ view of in ternational rel ations—but that the
claims of realis m are dange rously e xaggerated (p. 196). Thus, realis m has an
important role i n the IR discipline: it warns ag ainst the dangers of excessi ve
legalism and extreme prog ressivist optimism, and reminds us of the continued
importance of po wer politics. However, a narrow focu s on the importance of power
politics is just as dangerou s as a narrow foc us on th e importance of internati onal
norms and institu tions. Inste ad o f ch oosing o ne of these perspectives over the
other, we should accept the dialecti c betwee n the m ackn owledged by c lassical
realists like E.H. C arr and others.
A se cond purpo se for realism, acco rding to Donnelly, is to develop mid-ran ge
theories. Thus, rath er than trying to identify timeless l aws of international relations,
realists s hould focus on issue-specific do mains where the y can make a substantial
contributi on. Donnelly is parti cularly fond of Gl enn Snyde r’s work on alliances,
but more influen tial examples would be Stephen Walt ’s b alance of threat theo ry,
the work of Robert Jervi s, Charles Glaser, and others on t he security dilem ma and
the offenc e-defence balance, a nd Stephen Van E vera’s work on the causes of war.
It seems odd that the work of these scholars i s only awarded a marginal role in the
discussion s if Don nelly believe s that th is is where realists might c ontribute most
fruitfully.
The book is generally of a high quality, although the organisation of the
argument is so mewhat controversial. Donnell y finds that reali sm is best understood
through a sur vey of the work of Th ucydides, Mach iavelli, Hobbe s, Morgentha u,
and Waltz and of the p risoner’s dilemma. He successfu lly re-introduces the work
of pre -twentieth century re alists and questions t he wa y th ey are used in
contempora ry discourse. His discussions of the use and abuse of these scholars in
realist d iscussions of moti ves and morals in foreign p olicy and inte rnational
relations are particu larly interestin g. However, t he emphasis on the philosophica l
roots of realism and the ir continued importance see ms to consume his interest a t
the expense of more recent perspectives.
To continue reading
Request your trial