This is particularly the case with international institutions and organizations as an intervening variable, and in some cases one of several independent ones, in explaining state behavior in the international system. Third, while Neo-Realism, Offensive Structural Realism, Defensive Structural Realism, and Rise and Fall Realism effectively have no place for non-state actors other than being merely an epiphenomenon or extension of state power and interest, I argue that Classical Realism and Neoclassical Realism provide more analytical space for non-state actors. This is particularly within the context of its debate with neo-liberal institutionalism. However, as a matter of practice, not ontological, most scholars working within the Realist research program have tended to devote more attention to international institutions and organizations, rather than MNCs or NGOs. Instead, a more nuanced reading of Realism would suggests that: (a) as a research program, Realism is generally more concerned with issues and puzzles surrounding inter-state relations and major power interactions, especially with regards to war and peace, and not in explaining all issues of international politics, including the behavior of non-state actors and (b) several strands of Realism, most prominently the Neoclassical variant, are willing to give analytical and theoretical space for non-state actors as one of the components or potential variable in explaining state behavior in international politics (i.e. I argue that this is a “straw man” that Realist critics have occasionally employed to discredit the research program. This does not suggest that Realism simply dismisses non-state actors, or that they somehow simply do not matter.

Second, as a meta-theoretical whole, most scholars working within the Realism camp generally do not place non-state actors at the center of their theoretical propositions. While all these different strands share common starting assumptions, disaggregating Realism is a necessary task to better place non-state actors’ analytical value within the major research program. Following Elman (2008), this paper considers six different primary variants of Realism: Classical Realism, Neo-Realism, Defensive Structural Realism, Offensive Structural Realism, Rise and Fall Realism, and Neo-Classical Realism. As a meta-theoretical unit, what International Relations (IR) scholars consider as ‘Realism’ actually consists of different strands with different focuses, propositions, and policy prescriptions. In applying Realism to the analysis of three sets of non-state actors (international organizations or institutions, non-governmental organizations or NGOs, and multi-national corporations or MNCs), I submit four primary inter-related arguments.įirst, there is no coherent single theory called ‘Realism’.

The great realism overhaul