In International Relations it is commonly accepted that there is a wide range of different theoretical approaches which attempt to provide an explanation for the different dynamics of the global political system. Realism and Liberalism are well known theories which are considered to be two of the most important theories in international relations. They are two contrasting ideas when it comes to explaining how two states relate to each other in the absence of a world government. Both theories agree that the world is in anarchy and therefore it is helpful to start with a definition of anarchy and what it implies. This essay aims to discuss the contrasts between Liberalism and Realism as well as how these two theories agree that the world is anarchy.
WHAT IS ANARCHY
To begin with, anarchy refers to the world as a whole having no government. Individual states have varying degrees of supreme power or authority in their own land, but no single state may create laws for the whole world. However, while the theories discussed in this essay accept that the world is in a state of anarchy, what separates these two theories is how the government should deal with this problem. This essay tries to give an overview on the main assumptions of liberalism and realism and provide explanations of how they relate to one another as well as coexist, yet are opposite in theory. (IN TEXT)
REALISM
“Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man....To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent: that nothing can be unjust. The notion of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have...
... middle of paper ...
... governmental organisations .
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
At no time, in this natural state, is injustice even possible. As Hobbes so concisely states, "Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice." (Hobbes 188) Essentially, since every man is entitled to everything, he is also at liberty to exert any means possible -- including violence -- in order to satisfy all of his wants and needs. In this State of War, each individu...
In this essay, after defining some crucial concepts, such as peace, liberal and democratic governments, I’ll present arguments that support the idea that liberal democratic states are not inherently more peaceful then other states, but that they are, in fact, more likely to create conflicts between nations and different political systems. The focus will be attributed to U.S.’s policies and historical events that corroborate the idea expressed above.
The first school of thought that we will explore is the “Classical Paradigm” also known as “Realism”. Proponents of this school argue that its assumptions can be found as early as in the accounts of Thucydides nearly three millennia ago. (Nye 13) When examining Realism there are number of important factors to note. First Realists consider their perspective to be empirical rather than normative. Hans Morgenthau, one of the most influential figures in the realist school as established by recent polling amongst International Relations Experts (Maliniak, Oakes, & Tierny, 2007) stated, “Politics is…governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.” (Morgenthau, 1967)
Realism can be described as a theoretical approach used to analyze all international relations as the relation of states engaged in power (Baylis, Owens, Smith, 100). Although realism cannot accommodate non-state actors within its analysis. There are three types of realism which include classical (human
Realism is not only the pervasive approach in international relations literature but is accurate in describing and anticipating state actions. Constructivists need a genuine response to realism and, in order to do that, norms need to enter into the process of rational decision-making. This could take several forms including increasing costs of norm violation, introducing hegemonic power into the system, or redefining interests in terms other than material. Discussions in the literature analyze the impact of norms, regimes, ideas, or principles on international relations, but do not often take a critical enough look at what is at stake. Realist politics hinder progressive, humanitarian initiatives because of its marriage to power and material capabilitie...
Neo-realism and Liberalism both provide adequate theories in explaining the causes of war, yet Neo-realist ideals on the structural level and states being unitary actors in order to build security, conclude that Neo-realist states act on behalf of their own self interest. The lack of collaboration with other states and balance of power among them presents a reasonable explanation on the causes of war.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have the liberals who soundly believe that the state should have a very limited impact in the international political economic arena. They feel that the states interest and their goals change along with the context of the I.P.E. situation. The liberal perspective also offers the idea of cooperation among negotiating states that oppose the realist view that cooperation has an underlining meaning behind it.
The liberal paradigm contrasts the realist’s view of the state being the main actor in the international sphere, as liberalists argue that humans have ‘fundamental natural rights to liberty consisting in the right to do whatever they think fit to preserve themselves’. Although Liberals accept that humans and states both have the desire to increase their own personal interest and power, they also strongly believe in international cooperation, which can be made possible through organisations such as the United Nations. Humanitarian intervention is evidently better understood through the lenses of the liberal paradigm due to the moral obligation humans have to prevent mass killings and human rights violations resulting in humanitarian intervention,
Mearsheimer contends that successful theories originate from logical reasoning. He elaborates by saying, “since the predicted behavior of states is derived from the theories’ assumptions, offensive realism will be ‘crippled’ if it can be demonstrated that this behavior does not follow logically from its underlying premises” (Pashakhanlou, 2013). This quote illustrates how Mearsheimer ascribes considerable importance to the power of logic, but is ironic because he himself falls short of a logical and compelling argument by means of his first assumption of an anarchic international system. In other words, Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism fails to deliver a persuasive argument because it egregiously focuses on anarchy rather than hierarchy. Therefore, Mearsheimer’s argument is ‘crippled’ because he has not illustrated that his assumption of anarchy goes hand-in-hand with the way states act in real life (Mearsheimer 2001).
The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.
To define any perspective in International Relations, one must understand its’ origin and primary authors, including the context in which they were writing in. Liberalism is one of the more loosely defined perspectives as it has had a number of authors throughout history. Primarily, liberalism relies on the positive aspects of human nature. One of the most prominent liberal authors was Kant- who often wrote of the anarchical nature of international relations- referring to it as “the lawless state of savagery.” He also wrote of three primary routes to obtaining peace within this system, namely treating all aspects of human life with humanity, allowing for a federation of states and most importantly republican constitutionalism.
Liberalism and democracy are closely tied together in international politics. They have a central bond which brings out the notion of democratic peace. Today much of Latin America and the European Union practices democracy. The chances of these nations getting into an armed conflict are very scarce in today’s standards. Liberalism promotes the idea of human security and equality and democracy reinforces that idea into the political framework of governing bodies and their higher authorities. Liberalism leads to democracy which promotes democratic peace preventing conflict between nations. This article will look at how liberalism leads to democratic peace through the process of creating democracy.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).
Modern day society is engrossed in a battle for protection of individual rights and freedoms from infringement by any person, be it the government or fellow citizens. Liberalism offers a solution to this by advocating for the protection of personal freedom. As a concept and ideology in political science, liberalism is a doctrine that defines the motivation and efforts made towards the protection of the aforementioned individual freedom. In the current society, the greatest feature of liberalism is the protection of individual liberty from intrusion or violation by a government. The activities of the government have, therefore, become the core point of focus. In liberalism, advocacy for personal freedom may translate to three ideal situations, based on the role that a government plays in a person’s life. These are no role, a limited role or a relatively large role. The three make up liberalism’s rule of thumb. (Van de Haar 1). Political theorists have
The main purpose of conservative theories can be seen as the “explanation of political reality” and that they “help us to understand the world, and nothing more” (McGowan, Cornelissen & Nel, 2006). Conservative analysts state that a good theory can also assist decision-makers into creating better policies. Under the category of conservative theories falls realism. Donnelly (2000: 09) referred to realism as a “general orientation” that sees “international relations largely as a realm of power and interest.” This concedes that there is no concrete definition for realism, but it is rather a perspective on how political reality is shaped. Realists make certain assumptions on which they...