Realism - The State is the most important actor IntroductionDuring the second half of the 20th century, realist theory was criticized as an obsolete method that no longer manages to sufficiently explain the actions of the global community. Critics point to liberalism, another widely accepted theory, as the successor to realism as the dominant theory of international relations. Opponents of realism claim that the theory of democratic peace is proof that the theory of realism is no longer complete. If realism were to exist on its own, this charge might have some validity. The development of neorealism helps to explain what realism could not, taking into account the global developments following the creation of the theory of realism. Therefore, realist philosophy, with the help of neorealism, remains a credible philosophy capable of addressing the challenges put forward by liberalist critics. This essay will examine realist theory, examine the challenges offered by its opponents through laissez-faire theory, and discuss how neorealist theory has denied these challenges and provided a new basis for the claim that states are the most important actors in world politics at the light of realist theory. a world in which armed conflict is no longer the main fixation of the world's states. BackgroundRealism is a theory that, although formalized in the 20th century, has a long history, dating back thousands of years (Kegley, 27). Realism theory states that “all [states] must have as their primary interest survival as independent agents” (Waltz ctd. Grieco 602). Since the primary interest of every state is its survival, states are obliged to protect their individual interests and maintain a fundamental independence for this purpose (Grieco, 602). the most important actor. Yet neorealists are quick to disavow Leviathan and an international controlling power, suggesting instead a set of rules for coexistence and a principle of non-intervention (Walter 73). Neorealism maintains strong opposition to any international actor's claim to have equal or greater power than the state. It does not deny the existence of international actors, but states that these actors cannot be more powerful than the state. International actors exist only at the behest of their state sponsors. State actors share the costs of running international organizations and ultimately have control over how international organizations are run (Grieco 618). Therefore, while international institutions exist and appear to operate independently, in reality they are dominated by their benefactor states.