This school of thought focuses on ways in which power affects the international arena by assessing how states influence each other as the most important actors in world politics. Realpolitik pays attention to political power matters such as military preparedness and industrial capacities, ignoring issues of morality, ideology and other social aspects as reasons for actions of states. In this way, realism sets up a strong framework for understanding short-term, interstate relationships, yet leaves the comprehension of deeper, long-term issues weak in the background. Power politics maintains that human nature is generally selfish. This belief comes from their understanding of the trends in international relations.
Utilizing an absence of conflict between democratic nations as the basis for the theory, Spiro identifies that proponents of Democratic Peace assert two aspects of the theory (Spiro, 1994). One is an institutional or structural belief, whereby such factors as public opinion, or checks and balances amongst the government constrain the likelihood of war. The other, is an ideological belief, whereby the liberal values of such regimes strive for peaceful interactions and constrain conflict. Democratic Peace Theory would therefore discredit the realist perspectives for interstate conflict which focus upon a sovereign state’s strategic interest within an anarchic world sphere. The theory has achieved status of dogma in many circles, but nevertheless has its share of critics who subscribe to the realist theory such as David Spiro and Bruce Russett.
They can argue that it is not to be the “world police,” and they can argue that entangling alliances, like the League of Nations, hinders American sovereignty. Realists critique the idealist for thinking that the U.S. foreign policy is about morals and democracy. Most importantly, what is the role of the United States? What will its national interest be? The United States can engage in real politik and use force.
Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security. The theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism place strong emphasis on the structural level in order for a country in the international system to gain as much benefits as possible and prosper. Both theories believe interactions between countries will set them better off than an isolated country would, such as North Korea. Although Liberalism places a much higher emphasis on international organizations, institutions, and trade in order to promote peace than that of Neo-realism, Neo-realist also benefit from international organizations.
This theory in contrast with the other previous mainstream theories broadens the aspect of hegemony. Historical bloc refers the way in which a relationship is established over the contending social forces; simply saying it as the political alliance (Budd, 2013). A truly hegemonic society will establish when the state would protect the wo... ... middle of paper ... ... forces, forms of state and the world orders. The theory provides a significant and decisive framework that facilitates the market analyst to presume that inter-state co-operation is plausible without even a single hegemony. It exposes that the cultural, political and economic struggles among social forces and state clarify the emergence of international regimes and global civil society.
Web. 12 Apr. 2014. Lechner, Frank, and John Boli. "Globalization Debates."
First, both liberals and realists agree that international system is anarchic and survival of the state is the primary interests (Marten 9/19/2011). Contrary to liberalism, realists believe that international anarchy encourages states to concern about relative gains and distribution of power given the fungible nature of power (Jervis 2011: 335). However, thinking of international relations as a zero-sum game does not necessitate mindless offensive actions. Instead, just as Mearsheimer suggests, states “think carefully about the balance of power and about how other states will react to their moves” (35). As a result of these power considerations, the balance of... ... middle of paper ... ...11.