Martin Wight describes international relations as "power politics", in which there is no place for the rights, justice, or morals, but there is a place for the power, on which these relations are based3. However Niebuhr and to some extent Morgenthau have tried to develop the realism based on morals.
Jack Donnelly approves that the theory of realism is the old and well-known theory of the international relations, whereas human rights became the problem of world politics of last fifty years4. However it is possible to approve that human rights in inter-state system have appeared not together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The rights of minority and mainly concept of "self-determination of the individual", which has entered in Westphalia state system in the beginning the twentieth century, were the first serious challenge to the modern international system. It was a kind of break through for two reasons: first, it was support for people by providing them with their rights with respect to the state. It was a challenge to the idea of realists that the state is a basic and unitary character in the world policy. Secondly, it has begun the development of other rights and has helped the dissemination of the concept of human rights.
The other turning
The other turning point of realists is that they consider the world as what it is, instead of what it should or can be. Therefore, in their opinion, the policy and ethics/morals are hardly capable to be united.
Kennan is the one of the "tough" realists, who completely rejects morals in inter-state relations. He approves that the government in itself is not moral, and its main purpose is to protect national interests, instead of moral beliefs. He goes even further, approving that there are no universal standards of morals. Therefore the states should not rely on moral abstraction in the foreign policy5. Hans Morgenthau in his work "Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace" declares that the usage of moral principle in the world policy is a kind of "national suicide"6. The distinction between these two realists is that Kennan does not believe in existence of the international moral principles, and Morgenthau believes in their existence, but considers that they should not be applied in the world policy.
The other reason, on which realists reject application of moral principles in the international relations, roots in the subjective character of moral values. And consequently they cannot be applied to other countries and cultures.
Probably, because of a human nature (classical realism) or international anarchical structure (neo-realism), or because of them both realists consider that realities of the world policy demand exception of morals of foreign policy.
The international realism basically gives a priority to the personal interest above morals, power above validity, and to the state above people. The realism tends dehumanize world politics.
Realists face to the moral dilemma (or the moral problem). On the one hand, they approve that the morals is too subjective for policy, on the other hand, as it provides stability among mercenary and egoistic persons in policies of force, they regard realism as the maximum moral paradigm7.
From among few theorists deal with a "moral problem" in realism, Niebuhr has developed