Is 'Realism' the Best Way to Explain International Relations?

Evaluating whether realism constitutes the premier theoretical framework for explaining international relations requires strict adherence to clear epistemological benchmarks: explanatory range, parsimony, and Lakatosian progressiveness. This essay argues that structural realism remains the superior general theory of global politics. By anchoring its explanatory architecture within a stable, parsimonious core defined strictly by systemic anarchy and the distribution of capabilities, realism accounts for the widest variety of macro-phenomena (including polarity, balancing dynamics, and security dilemmas) without sacrificing its structural utility. While prominent rival frameworks such as liberalism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism provide descriptive richness for localised interactions, they systematically trade breadth for depth by introducing redundant causal variables. Through a sophisticated Lakatosian methodology, this paper demonstrates how realism utilizes its positive heuristic to absorb empirical anomalies into a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses, successfully preserving its core structural baseline while generating independently verified theoretical progress.