the link is broken.
what do you mean by "realism" - seems to be some ontological thesis in the background of this debate, and the question of the methodology of explanation. 

I corrected the link. Follow this one and chose Seminar 5 from the list. I hope it works.

As regards the definition of realism, I was referring to the political concept currently prevalent in US foreign policy (I suppose). When I suggest to take a sympathetic stance at it I mean to use it as a set of instruments to explain why states act the way they act. In a nutshell, these are its key defining ideas:

- states are the principal actors on the international stage (in that sense, economy does matter, but in the end, it?s always states taking decision along their interests)
- states pursue interests, their top interest is survival in a dog-eat-dog-style Hobbesean world
- states are "black boxes": how their acts are created is of no matter, what matters is what comes out of that box
- states make rational calculations on what will most likely strenghten their positions
- realists will in this regard refuse any moral imperatives directed at states, as the only guiding principle will be their self-interest. 

ok, i see what realism means here, though i think, as i take it to be an epistemological term or one from the theory of explanation, it is not necessarily bound to hobbesean scenarios or any moral thesis. you might call a hobbesean-like description realistic as well, but that's another point. i agree that simplicity has its merits and concepts like this can - and actually did - prove useful. and although i adhere to those kinds of explanations, i find it irritating that this kind of "realism" applied to states, at least seems to imply a new kind of mysterious collectivism.