ABSTRACT
This chapter presents the author's analysis, which focuses on the differences between realism and just war reasoning as prescriptive doctrines, that is, as sources of guidance for policy formulation and decision. The contemporary realism is a discrete political doctrine distinct from others, and in particular it sets itself apart from doctrine's admitting of a place for ideals and moral judgments in politics. Three distinct sorts of challenge have emerged, targeted on the weaknesses of realism. First, various forms of utopianism continue to be urged as more adequate ways to conceptualize how to conduct politics so as to move beyond the status quo to a more desirable world order. Second, the ability of realism to serve as a doctrine its ability to provide, distinct, an accurate picture of international political affairs has been strained by the emergence. The third, realism as a prescriptive doctrine source of "oughts" and "ought nots" for those persons engaged in formulating policies and making decisions.
