Guilhot, Nicolas. "Imperial Realism: Post-War IR Theory and Decolonization". The International History Review, Vol.36, No.4 (2014): 698-720.

Guilhot, Nicolas. "Imperial Realism: Post-War IR Theory and Decolonization". The International History Review, Vol.36, No.4 (2014): 698-720.

• Initiatives to 'decolonize' IR have been utterly inadequate and misguided, even in the more radical suggestions to eliminate discussions of rationality or science as Eurocentric concepts, because they ignore the fact that the essential goal of IR theory was to maintain European colonialism (699).
• The author asserts that the Realist school of IR was developed as a reaction by European intellectuals to decolonization and the expanding power of former colonies. Whereas ideology and international law had previously been the core elements of IR theory, Realist rejected them in the 1950s because old racial distinctions are now be removed. In other words, these institutions were now discredited in theory because they ceased to support European supremacy (700).
• The Realist school of IR theory has been, since at least the 1970s, opposed to imperialism and at odds with its core values, since it rejects the notions of historical purpose, ideology, and idealism that are used to justify imperialist domination and expansion (699).
• This opposition to imperialism in Realist IR theory is not on the basis of principle. Rather, it is a consequence of the international situation since the 1970s; when imperialism was seen as advantageous, as during the 1950s, Realist theory supported it (714).
• No major text or major scholar of the Realist school mentions decolonization during the 1940s or 1950s. Traditional explanations of this omission are either that scholars actively avoided the subject to cover-up extensive crossover between IR theory and racial science prior to WWII, or that the legal scholars who constituted the core of early Realist IR scholars were not interested in the subject (701-702). 
• The author asserts that discussions about decolonization are still present in early IR texts, but that they have been hidden within larger conceptualizations, like nationalism (702, 715).
• Scholarship during the 1950s sought to actively separate IR as a discipline from other fields of political science. IR scholars asserted that the changes wrought by decolonization were best studied by sociologists and area studies specialists, not IR scholars, who were broadly uneducated about regional politics (703).
• Realist IR theorists did not discuss decolonization because they had very little to say, since their epistemological basis did not allow meaningful discussion of moral issues or domestic colonial politics (707).
• Political scientists of the 1950s and 1960s overwhelmingly saw decolonization as a process caused by the diffussion of ideas of nationalism and modern governance from Europe to Africa and Asia. Its roots and aims were viewed as identical in Europe and elsewhere (704). 
• Realist theorists, like Hans Morgenthau, applied similar treatments to European and non-European nationalist movements, seeing nationalism as harmful and likely to promote war through cults of the state. They also strongly critiqued the idea of nationalism as progress, and the concepts of 'progress' and 'modernity' in history (704-705).
• Liberal IR theories adopted modernization theory, which saw the spread of nationalism as positive. They believed that in Europe and elsewhere, nationalism had created the conditions for modernity and industrialization. They viewed decolonization as being mainly driven by modernization along European lines, and the adoption of Western values by former colonies as evidence of historical progress (704-706).
• Early IR theory was relatively isolated from the process of decolonization in some part because the process of decolonization was actively occurring through bodies like the UN, and early IR scholars refused to taint their pure theory by becoming involved in the actual creation of foreign policy (706).
• Dealing with decolonization, or trying to retain colonial rule, were handled by a small number of powers through closed organizations, and did not base their decisions on public or scholarly discourse. IR scholars thus did not deal with decolonization because they did have access to these fora and these decisionmakers were not interested in their scholarly opinions (706-707).
• The behaviors of the early UN, Organization of American States [OAS], or other international organizations were very similar to imperialist powers in an earlier period. Interventions by the USA and the European powers continued, but this was now legitimated and facilitated by the institutional consensus of the international community (706).
• The terminology used by realist IR theorists during the 1940s and 1950s was not consistent with the discussions occurring about decolonization and empire. The most substantial work on imperialism, Hans Morganthau's 'Politics among Nations', defines 'imperialism' as policies aiming to upset the status quo of power distribution in a system. Dr. Morganthau specifically asserts that colonialism by major powers, like Britain, is not imperialist because it maintains rather than upends the distribution of power in a system (707-708). 
• This definition of imperialism is decidedly skewed in favor of the great powers -- meaning the European empires -- since it defines status quo in terms of their interests. The fact that the status quo of conquered nations is obviously upset is not considered in this formulation (708).
• Dr. Morgenthau and others also advantage imperial powers by discussing colonialism and imperialism in terms of strong states, the colonizers, and 'politically empty spaces', the colonized. This delegitimizes any polities existing prior to European conquest (709).
• To realist IR theorists thinking only in terms of balance of power, colonialism was an effective system for maintaining European peace. It allowed European powers to expand to balance against rivals without endangering core interests in Europe, since colonial territory could be exchanged instead (709).
• Many Realist IR positions implicitly supported colonialism because they specifically sought to banish morality from international politics during a time when colonialism began to be commonly viewed as immoral (710).
• The suggestion of scholars like Phillip Bell that the US develop foreign policy from its national interests rather than morality led to policy implications that supported the continuation of European colonialism against the dominant moral and political trends of the time (710-711). 
• The argument for prioritizing national interest over morality was often justified by reference to the threat posed by the Soviet Union, meaning that anything other than ammoral pursuit of national interest could imperil the US (711).
• Although less common, some realist IR theorists justified their recommendations through racial science. Racist beliefs about the inability of non-Whites to govern themselves led scholars to advocate for continued colonialism to avoid the race war that these scholars assumed would follow the end of legalized White supremacy, and would be against American interests (711-713).
• When Realist IR theorists did discuss decolonization during the 1950s, they usually supported the continuation of imperialism and colonial rule, often advocating for the US to assist in its maintenance. Their arguments that colonialism was in American interests often used racist assumptions of the incapable, inferior, or fragile nature of post-colonial states (714-715).