Legro, Jeffrey and Andrew Moravcsik. "Is Anybody Still a Realist?". International Security, Vol.24, No.2 (1999): 5-55.

Legro, Jeffrey and Andrew Moravcsik. "Is Anybody Still a Realist?". International Security, Vol.24, No.2 (1999): 5-55.

• The authors complain that contemporary Realist literature has abandoned its core principles in favor of 'minimal realism' in which only rationality of states and anarchy are taken as assumptions in the international system, while traditional Realist conceptions of power are sidelined in favor of Liberal or Constructivist concepts (7, 20).
• The authors argue that rationality and anarchy are not unique enough to Realist theory to make minimal realism an effective paradigm. Instead, contemporary 'Realist' literature is not conceptually distinct from other paradigms, and the flat contradiction of the second two core assumptions of Realism in minimal realist theory makes it incoherent (20-21).
• Whether a paradigm is conceptually productive depends on its coherence and distinctiveness. Coherence here means that the theory does not contain any elements which contradict core assumptions, although associated theories within the paradigm can contradict (9). Distinctiveness just means that the theory must have distinct beliefs from other competing paradigms in the same field (10).
• Realism contains three core assumptions about the international system. The first is that states are rational, unitary political units operating in a state of international anarchy. The second is that state preferences are based on fixed and conflicting goals over the control of resources, with states always seeking security and power. Thirdly, that material realities of power are the primary factors influencing the international system, especially military force (12-18).
• Three other paradigms also exist in international relations [IR] theory besides Realism: Institutionalism, Liberalism, and the Epistemic paradigm. Institutionalism stresses the role of information, norms, and international organizations in governing behavior (10).
• The Liberal paradigm explains changes in inter-state relations by changes in the interests and preferences of states brought on by domestic or international changes in the relationship between state and society (10).
• The Epistemic paradigm contains theories which attempts to explain IR by changes in the ideas and beliefs that states hold about how they should interact. This is different from the Liberal paradigm because the change is not brought on by institutional changes, but by changes in ideas held by governments (11).
• The traditional Realist view on state behavior is that it is static and motivated by security and survival -- both of which require the accumulation of power, and can manifest in a wide variety of behaviors. Contemporary Realist theory rejects this assumption in favor of the Liberal conceptualization of interests as being based on domestic political systems or economic interdependence (22-23).
• The reactionary school of Neoclassical Realism also subverts some of the core assumptions held in traditional Realism. This theory returns to some of the human nature claims of Classical Realism, only instead claiming that all states want to wield external power, thus driving conflict. This is again placing domestic preferences at the forefront of explaining conflict, rather than material factors, thereby undermining the Realist paradigm (27-28).
• Realist ideas of power focus on the distribution of material resources, whose reality is not subject to beliefs or conceptualizations.  Many contemporary Realist scholars have instead started looking at perceptions of power and threat, degrading the coherency and uniqueness of the Realist paradigm. This has been particularly important in understanding that states do not objectively assess power, but do so through biased systems of judgement (34-36).
• A stunning and in depth account of each scholar and theory which the authors claim to be a symbol of the degradation and erosion of Realism is provided throughout the middle section of the article. Serious source mine on contemporary Realist literature.
• The authors bemoan to central attributes of contemporary Realist literature: the first is that too many scholars drawing from Realism label their work as 'Realist' despite significant differences with core assumptions of Realism; the second is that contemporary Realists are unwilling to test themselves against non-Realist theories, which should be the main test to determine whether a theory is any good or not (47, 54).
• The authors propose that Realism not be touted as a universal theory which explains all aspects of IR, but that instead it should be one amongst many theories, and used in specific scenarios relating to overt conflicts of interest. Other aspects of IR theory should be left to alternative paradigms (46, 49).