近來現實主義典範退化與否的討論，成為國際關係領域新的論戰。Vasquez採取Lakatos所建構的科學研究綱領（research programs）方法論之標準，直指現實主義在這過去二十年來所明白展現的理論的豐富性，根本就是這個典範退化的表現。Vasquez就現實主義典範中之權力平衡研究綱領的理論系列為「攻堅」核心，以包括平衡（balancing）∕依附（bandwagoning）、結盟（chain-ganging）∕推諉（buck-passing）這兩組核心理論系列進行評估。其結論是，該研究綱領之一系列理論在整體上充滿著相互衝突的假設，但面臨經驗證據的考驗時，卻至少有一個可以通過測試。概率高，否證性低，沒有提供新事實，這是典範的退步。此一質疑，引來現實主義相關學者的強力回應。本文作者重新將Vasquez所運用的Lakatos研究綱領方法論放在科學哲學史的脈絡來理解，引介並評估這一論戰的內容。

Within international relations inquiry, the debate over the adequacy of the realist paradigm has been fairly extensive since the 1970s. While several analysts argue that, despite anomalies, the realism paradigm is dominant because it is more fertile than its rivals, Vasquez has challenged it. In order to test realism paradigm’s research program, Vasquez applies Laktose’s criterion that a series of related theories must produce problemshift that are progressive rather than degenerating to appraise the adequacy of realist-based theories on the balancing of power advanced by neotraditionalists. Vasquez’s conclusion is that the realism research program is seen as degenerating. Of course realism researchers, especially those whom he cited, do not accept this challenge. The purpose of this article is to analyze this new debate.