The inclination of his paradigm is that one culture must win and another must lose. His hypothesis thus promotes political actors, policy makers and citizens to understand cultural dissimilarities as devastating and to support such differences. Consequently, his civilizations approach may not provide a standard paradigm, but it may add to realist and liberal approaches to explain international relations. – 3
“We Saved The World” WWI can help explain the debate and tension between Wilsonian idealism and realism. This tension takes place when America rose to power and influence during WWI, as the U.S. transitioned from unilaterism to internationalism. Also, each theory tries to reshape America’s national interest differently. Wilsonian idealism says U.S. national interest should be based on values like democracy, self-determination, human rights, and freedom. As a result, Wilson argues that America needs to be more engaged in internationalism.
As previously mentioned, realism ignores many of the important issues within the field of international relations. These issues include sub-state actors, alternate goals of states, the importance of change in the global arena to improve the quality of the world, and the collective good. It is because of the complexities of the international stage that we must not assume that one view of world politics is correct and the others are wrong. We must take into consideration each school of thought in order to understand how the world works.
And states seek security through balancing the distribution of power. Second, polarity, which is determined by distribution of, has a significant impact on the choice of balancing behavior of states. And consistent with the history, this theory suggests that states are more likely to go to war under multipolarity while a bipolar system is relatively stable because of security dilemma between two great powers. After this, I will discuss two liberal critiques of the theory and further explain why realist theory best explain the onsets of these events. First, both liberals and realists agree that international system is anarchic and survival of the state is the primary interests (Marten 9/19/2011).
Doyle is cognizant of the limitations of his Democratic Peace Theory, stressing that protection of liberalism’s heritage of democratization may in fact ensure the adverse consequence of stimulating illiberal practices (Doyle, 1983). The significance of a peace theory which concludes its own underlying principles may actually engender belligerent behavior is questionable. Doyle’s Democratic Peace Theory offers an interesting starting point in the study of the relationship between democratic nations and conflict; however, his suppositions should not to be valued as law.
Both of these are international relations theories. International relations theories aid the individual in better understanding why states behave the way in which they do and “several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize” (Slaughter 1). That being said, to understand offensive neorealism, one must firstly be able to know the basis of realism in itself, as well as differentiate neorealism from neoclassical realism. Stephen G. Brooks argues in his article “Dueling Realisms” that both “neorealism and postclassical realism do share important similarities: both have a systemic focus; both are state-centric; both view international politics as inherently competitive; both emphasize material factors, rather than nonmaterial factors, such as ideas and institutions; and both assume states are egoistic actors that pursue self-help” (Brooks 446). Structural realism is another term for neorealism, and both will be used interchangeably in the following case study.
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.
For the purpose of this essay, I will assess the strengths and weaknesses of Neo-Classical Realism; focusing on the theory’s core assumptions about the International System and how it interacts with units. I will discuss the theory in relation to the international politics of the region, with particular reference to the build up to the Iran-Iraq war. Neo-Classical Realism has updated and systematized certain insights from Classical Realism , as well as incorporated key tenets from other Realist paradigms. For Realists, the International System is anarchic; creating the conditions of self-help and a balance of power, both of which determine state behaviour . Proponents of Neo-Classical Realism contend that it is relative power in particular which determines a state’s foreign policy .
Despite the emergence of alternative approaches, realism remains the dominant theoretical perspective towards world politics. Realism is the traditional path that emphasizes the centrality of the state on the world stage and the pursuit of national self-interest above all else. Realism tends to be extremely pessimistic, hence the influencers of realism: Thomas Hobbes and Hans Morgenthau believe that humans by nature are selfish, aggressive, violent, unlikely to change, and that conflict is inevitable. Why have people become like that? What are major predictions by realism?
He also argued that morality is a preference on the part of the people. He departs from non-realist theorists when he argues that morality has no place in measuring or comparing states with one another: “Here no other criteria, sadder, more limited, more practical, must be allowed to prevail.” Realists’ tenets, fundamentally, are that states should act in their self-interest and that states in the world have to focus on their survival. Realists hold that we live in an anarchic system, and as such... ... middle of paper ... ...heories outlined in this paper. One of the defining principles of realism is that the state is paramount to anything else, including morality. Realists argue that deviation from the state interests in an anarchic system creates vulnerability.