Secondly, theories of realist tradition that provides explanations on why conflicts and wars occur in the international realm remains as one of the most powerful up till today. According to Waltz, the anarchy in international politics leaves the states no room but to maximise its power by boosting their military capability to ensure its security and survival (Waltz, 1979, 111). However by doing so it gave rise to the what John Herz famously called as the ‘security dilemma’ (Baylis & Rengger, 1992, 9), which exist ‘when the military preparations of one state create an irresolvable uncertainty in mind of another as to whether the preparations are for “defensive” purposes only or whether they are for offensive purposes.’ (Wheeler & Booth, 1992, 30) As states find it difficult to trust one another means that the military preparation by one are likely to be matched by others. When this happen the states often find themselves unable to enhance their security even after building up the military capabilities. If this spiral out of control, states might take drastic actions such as declaring war to stop what it perceive as threats against their security. The Cuban missile crisis, might have led to a full-scale nuclear war if restrain were not exercised. India and Pakistan with their arms race and long-standing rivalry are another example
However there are also weaknesses in the realist tradition. Firstly, realists often have narrowly defined assumptions in their theories. For example, the power that states seek is mainly military capability. It is in realist tradition to propose that to ensure the survival of the states, the main way to do it is to maximise power through increasing military capability. However, this cannot be used to explain the collapse of Soviet Union. Though it can be argued that America has overtaken Soviet Union in term of military capability, this argument doesn’t stand well when the Soviets can still destroy the whole of America with their nuclear weapons despite the lead that America have. The realist tradition of maximising military power to ensure survival of state therefore had failed, as the facts have shown that despite being one of the military super powers Soviet Union still collapsed. Moreover it happened so swiftly and without any conflict, which defied all predictions by the realists.
Secondly, theories of realist tradition had also has underestimated the states abilities to overcome their differences and cooperate. The formation of European Union and its adoption of a single currency by most members would be impossible, if Realism were to hold true, as according to it the states would to be too preoccupied with their self-interest to cooperate in the way needed for it to work. Both acts requires a huge amount of cooperation within participating states and also the scarification some of their self-interest as they have to meet certain requirements to join the scheme (Owen & Dynes, 1992, 56-58) which is deemed highly impossible by realism. An example of this cooperation is the abolition of internal frontier within the European Union, which allows the free movement of person, goods, services and capital within the Union. (Owen & Dynes, 1992, 318-319)
Thirdly, realist tradition of regarding Statism as one of its core assumption had chose to totally disregard the fact that non-state actors play an increasing role in influencing global events. One of the most notable non-state actors in recent years was the terrorists. (Wilkinson, 1992, 229-256) The recent events in global politics have been dominated by the war on terrorism by America. America, as the world leading power in both economical and military spheres, has experience first hand how non-state actors can pose a threat to its security in the “9/11 incident”. Realist tradition placed too much emphasis on state, thus were largely unable to account for such problems caused by non-state actors much less to be able to solve them if the results of America’s campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan are anything to go by, with the blowing up of United Nations headquarter in Baghdad being the latest atrocity committed.
In conclusion, realist tradition has its strengths in its explanation of the occurrences of wars between states and its principle of self-help is still very much regarded as the way to ensure the survival of the state by most statesman. However, realist tradition was increasing being seen as unable to adapt itself to the “New world”, where states are cooperating in more ways than ever before, in the case of European Union, and the rise of non-state actors such as the terrorists playing more significant roles in world politics. Therefore realist tradition must reconstruct itself to take into accounts the new phenomenon that is happening in the world so as to not run a risk of becoming obsolete.