English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The development of political realism found mainly in English works determined the fact that the term “power” denotes a wide range of concepts which at times turn out to be contradictory. Among the deepest problems is the relation of the concept of political power (authority) and power as the capability to coerce (might). The realism studies of recent decades are aimed to criticize the perceived neorealist misinterpretation of power as a material capability. The figure of Hans J. Morgenthau, an acknowledged founder of the realist school of thought in IR, is used by the critics to redefine power and to criticize neorealism as “unfaithful to its origin.” This article analyzes the attempt to reinterpret Morgenthau’s concept of power with the help of Arendt’s notion of power. This re-interpretation results in the splitting of Morgenthau’s understanding of power into two concepts, one of which is devoid of violence and coercion. The author claims that Morgenathau’s notion of power is essentially violent, and therefore cannot be split into two on such grounds. An attempt to create a non-violent concept of power within Morgenthau’s theoretical framework results in the loss of the critical potential of his project of political realism.

Power and Violence in the Realism of Hans J. Morgenthau