> here you go: [link to Realism in Wikipedia] Realism is just one school of international relations; based on my limited understanding, it's not the most promi

> here you go: [link to Realism in Wikipedia] Realism is just one school of international relations; based on my limited understanding, it's not the most prominent; constructivism may be (and there are others too). > your point regarding trade is interesting, but it still falls within the zero-sum selfishness paradigm. trade implies a need which one party helps another to address, so it implies a reduction of autonomy, however small. Trade implies that the parties each have a comparative advantage in a different area, which is always true. > these things are theoretically inconveniences for governments because they restrict their range of actions The logical inference from the quoted comment is that anarchy provides the most freedom of action, but clearly it does not; it greatly restricts action. International institutions restrict countries' ranges of actions in some cases, and greatly expand them in more. Even the most powerful country, the United States, cannot make and enforce an international rule/law by itself; the United Nations can (though it doesn't always do it). The weakness of international institutions greatly restricts action on many issues, from health to climate change to resolving Russia's invasion of parts of Ukraine, Syria's civil war, and human rights violations in China (to pick just a few examples of very many).