Abstract

ABSTRACTIn recent years, a wealth of new work has been published on political realism. Despite the undeniable merits of this scholarship in enlightening the richness of the tradition, realism remains a profoundly contested school whose distinctive properties are still uncertain. The present paper aims to argue that the numerous, opposing readings of realism are not simply a result of the richness and complexity of this tradition, but rather of its intrinsically indeterminate nature. In order to make the point, we compare the realist view on human nature, anarchy, and the balance of power with the theses of some of the fathers of liberalism, such as Locke, Montesquieu, Smith, Kant and Constant. In so doing, we also attempt to promote a reading of classical liberal thinking without the simplifications surrounding its conventional description.