The stronger individual being able to transgress more often and to a greater degree than a weaker individual. This domestic analogy is flawed however in that an individual person can hold beliefs and suffer, but nation states cannot believe in an absolute way in the way an individual does not suffer the way an individual does. Behind a nation state are millions of individuals with a varying beliefs and opinions these individuals are not all affected badly if a state makes a poor decision - nor may all support the poor decision. If this domestic analogy does not hold then a new theory to describe international relations must be developed. This would mean that political realism would have to reshape itself to accommodate the new theory (Alex Moseley 2003). So realism would appear to be too rigid to truly be a political theory that would stand the test of time. As soon as you change or modify this theory then it becomes something else.
Realists posit that no nation can advance without imposing on the interests of other nations. In this situation, the existing order can break down when nations compete for the same resources and conflict may follow, where nations have only themselves to rely on (Alex Moseley 2003).
This is however not always correct. Trade, for instance, is not necessarily parasitic, or beneficial to one party, it may be mutually beneficial.
Realism is a single-power orientated theory. As such, it does not explain the situation where power is grasped in a multi-dimensional way. Terrorist networks, for example, have a significant influence over the functioning of international politics. In most cases they have no true state and are not bound by geography. Instead they unite under a common interest and use violence to try to achieve their goals. Their motives do not always appear as rational to the general populace and, as expressed in the media, may appear unclear at best - these motives being the primary identifier for political policy.