International Relations theorists include the ancient Greek historian Thucydides whose ideologies touched on aspects of the discipline. However, it was only until the early 20th century that the discipline emerged with two very distinct schools of thought. The liberal school, views strengthened international law and international organizations as instruments of peace and many view Kant and Rousseau as the classical theorists of this school; while Hobbes and Thucydides are seen as the classical proponents of realism which, emphasizes that nations will always be engaged in an international power struggle and stronger states will use their power to achieve goals and maintain a balance of power among competing states. International Relations while it has several theories is mainly centered on the two opposing schools of thoughts, that of liberalism and realism. Realism views, international relations as a state-centric discipline and as such the state is the core entity of the system.
This majorly entails elements of war. This idea is strengthened by the fact that relations between states in an international setting are not provoked by benefits of one nation being a burden to another. Instead, these relations are based on a mutual benefit and togetherness. If that proposition is anything to go by, it loses it meaning when states behave contrary to what they suggest on an international platform. The internal structures of a state are paramount to such an atmosphere and when they lead a different style of relationship with other states, the theory of perpetual peace fails to hold any water.
Realism is the contrast of the Idealist conception that society can change on the foundation of an idea. The “Clash of Civilizations” by Samuel Huntington is a brilliant illustration that exhibits the power of ideas that has vastly influenced both foreign policies of countries, but also the discipline of International Relations. Samuel Huntington's “the clash of civilizations,” is based on the hypothesis: “In the post-Cold War world the most important distinctions among people are not ideological, political, or economic. They are cultural”. (Huntington, 1996, p. 21) Huntington recognizes the significance of the realist approach that the nation states will stay as the most influential actors in international relationships, but he refutes that nations’ interests can be described without any reference to culture (Huntington, 1996, p. 34).
In conclusion, economic structuralists contend that peace must be accomplished if there are equivalent dispersions of fortune. Generally, the favoritism in economic status will in the end lead to conflicts and even war. Given economic structuralism's standardizing positions, it is questionable that international associations may without a doubt be serving the motivation behind the Core. Foundation, for example, the World Bank and IMF who lectured battle neediness have not prepared critical effects, while we see the world powers continue to flourish. In place words, the economic crevices between the rich and the poor have continued to augment.
It goes all the way back to ancient Greece and BCE. Thucydides (460-411 B.C.E) wrote History of the Peloponnesian War and it has inspired scholars today and also Thomas Hobbes. History was more than just a timeline of events, it explains how decisions were made. Realism was shown in the first speech in a debate in Sparta right before the war took place. Realism is also shown in History while Thucydides explains the causes of the war.
Although far from peaceful, international politics falls short of unrelieved chaos, and while not formally organized, it is not entirely without institutions and orderly procedures. Although it is misleading to label modern international politics as anarchic, the absence of a universal international law prohibits well-regulated behavior. But, international regulation is not completely absent from world politics. With the end of the Cold War, the ground seems ready for an acceleration of this century’s trend in increasing international regulation of more issues once typically seen as part of state domestic jurisdiction. But as international law embraces new actors and a growing range of forms, topics, and technologies, and as it moves further away from strictly "foreign" concerns to traditionally domestic areas, its proponents must increasingly confront new obstacles head-on.
For liberals, economic interdependence - sometimes referred to as capitalist peace theory - is believed to discourage state conflicts by affecting the material power of both states. Second, democratic peace theory, or the belief that democratic states are inherently more peaceful than those governed by authoritarian regimes is also an important facet of liberal IR theory. Not only does this imply that democracies are inherently more peaceful than other types of regime, but also that the accountability placed on leaders in democratic systems will entice them to not enter conflicts. Liberal theorists for the most part do not condone violence, but it is important to note that they do support the use of force to prevent the violation of fundamental human rights. This type of intervention is seen as legitimate to liberals because the force is enacted (or resolved) through collectively formed international institutions, like the United
This includes international institutions being involved. Without international institutions, especially ones in the general area, it can be costly and not in the best interest for one state to get involved. It shares the weight of the intervention. Ultimately, we have a rule of non-intervention because unilateral intervention threats the harmony and concord of the society of the sovereign states. If, however, and intervention itself expresses the collective will of the society of states, it may be carried out without bring that harmony and concord into jeopardy.
As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories. The liberalism and the realism approaches the international relations from very different perspective, and even though many of its views contrast from each other, the ... ... middle of paper ... ... between the theory of liberalism and realism to find which one of the theory gives better explanation and prediction of the international relations. For instance, each theories would approach the explanation for the peaceful relations between Republic of Korea and Japan different.
I will argue this claim by showing that too much of an idealistic point of view will result in naïve thinking and too much of a realistic view will result in a distant global relationship. I will compare and contrast the scholarly works of Mordecai Roshwald and Jack Donnelly and their thoughts on Realism and Idealism in politics; Charles W. Kegley and his thoughts on realism and its challenges; and J.A. Hobson’s view on idealism in International relations. I will then connect all the scholarly works together and construct my own proposal and my contribution to this topic of idealism and realism in International Relations. Both realism and idealism... ... middle of paper ... ...s we should carefully study and understand both views but ultimately dispose realism, Kegley disagrees, and believes that neither realism nor idealism can be seen as correct on an individual viewpoint, and in order to ensure the optimal view and explanation in International Relations, a good balance between both is needed.