Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Realism and liberalism international relations
Comparing between liberalism and realism in international relations
Comparing between liberalism and realism in international relations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Realism and liberalism international relations
The security dilemma can be used explain and predict ethnic conflict within a given state. Posen’s argument is supported by the belief that the basic tenets of realism provide a clear view of the security dilemma and its relationship with ethnic conflict. I believe the security dilemma in general is largely based in realist theory, and therefore fails to view international relations fairly. I believe that liberalism offers important insight into dealing with conflict that Posen fails to address.
Realist theory believes that one states military improvements are undistinguishable as offensive or defensive, and are seen as threats to another state. This, in turn, requires the opposing state to improve its military to ensure its own self interest. Posen argues that when an empire falls, there will be a power struggle between competing groups, within a state, as a result of the anarchy left by the failing empire. It is argued by Posen that the competing groups variations in the history of their group and whatever military power they may have will threaten other groups, creating a security dilemma, which results in ethnic conflict.
I believe the security dilemma is shaped by realist theory because it presupposes military improvements will be seen as threats. It has been shown that military improvements are not always seen as threats, for example the United States is not threatened by Pakistan having nuclear weaponry. Mutu...
Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush administration’s rationale for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq was based on two misleading assumptions: firstly, Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (along with Iran and North Korea) and secondly, that it was aiding and protecting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Such a conjecture based on unsubstantiated evidence helped Bush administration conjure up a dystopian situation which justified 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of “security maximization”. This explanation was given in pursuance of the realist assumption that States’ as rational actors always act in accordance with their national security interests.
middle of paper ... ... Unfortunately, this idea of a zero sum military power game does not match up with reality. Each state takes actions based on the given situation and neo-realism misses this nuance. Constructivism actually considers this more by analyzing the actors at play and their identities and interests.
Concerns are very important but the Realists perception as described earlier is very important, who believe that internal structure of the state and the government is also important in the development of ethnic politics. The domestic political environment of divided states characterizes the development of ethnic politics.
By the end of the Cold War the literature focusing on strategic studies has highlighted transformational changes within international system that affected and altered the very nature of war. As a result many security studies scholars have renounced traditional theories of strategic thought. Clausewitzian theory, in particular, has taken a lot of criticism, regarding its relevance to modern warfare. (Gray, How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?, 2005)
However, difficulties come about when we question why wars break out. A realist would posit that war is linked with human behavior, so wars are naturally occurring phenomena, and also that the system of anarchy resulting from the absence of a higher power leads to a state of war (Lisinkski). So realism offers a rather cynical explanation: we are destined to wage wars, since all politics is a struggle for both power and survival. Wars may be fought either to protect or expand security of the states – both the aggressor and the defender may fight to protect their security – one to defend its country directly, the other by eliminating the threat the other country poses to its security or interests (Lisinski).... ...
Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde attempt to structure a fundamentally new approach to the study of security issues by attempting to incorporate traditional notions of security analysis into a broader understanding of international security that incorporates non-military threats. Their neo-security complex theory does provide substantive insight into how the process of securitizing issues occurs and how one can address non-military existential threats within a security studies framework; however, there are some substantive problems that require greater theoretical precision in order to prevent making the securitizing process they describe nothing more than a residual category. Ultimately, Buzan, Waever, and de Wilde need to incorporate both temporal elements as well as and probability into their approach in order to disaggregate existential threats. Without such modifications, the existential threat posed by an incoming nuclear or chemical warhead is equivalent to increased levels of radon in the home.
Realist thought on international relations fit comfortably within the context of the great wars of the twentieth century. Powerful nations possessing massive military forces took aim at one another to affect the hierarchical structure of the international system for the good of their own security and power. These wars, however, differ greatly from today’s unconventional war on terrorism. Therefore, the realist theories of yesterday, while still useful, require at least some tweaking to fit the present situation.
This examination of realism theory is based on evidence of which the global community has already presented. First, ethnic tensions spiraling into conflict are nothing new and prior conflicts do frequent history textbooks. However, Israel and Palestine cannot simply be compared to the Hutu and Tuts...
When talking about the Middle East, most of the people that come to mind are images of war and bloodshed. Indeed, the Middle East has long been complicated, changeable and volatile situation on the ground. It has been used to look at the changing international situation even politicians, are reluctantly teasing Middle East is the elusive "political quicksand", who are difficult to predict what will happen in the Middle East. Historically, the Middle East is a focus worldwide attention hot spots, is a lot of ambition to conquer the empire reconciliation, the strategies they have used to land.
The Cuban Missile Crisis exhibits the struggle for power between the two dominant powers of the time. The realist theory believes that world politics is a repetitive struggle for power and or influence. Power, in politics is largely perceived as influence and military capability. Power in mass amounts are located in objects such as nuclear missiles that have an immense influence on others. (Schmidt, 2007; Sterling-Folker & Shinko, 2007). This is clearly depicted through the actions taken by both leaders, as the simple placement of a missile had such a tremendous effect.
In the past ten years the Afghan Government has been dealing with a number of issues that have caused problems for the country, problems such as illegal drug trade, terrorism and violence. But nowadays they are fighting a problem that has long existed between people, and quite recently has taken a whole new aspect to it. Ethnic conflict is the destructive factor that has caused problems between people for generations, often leading to fights, outbreak of violence and grudge between different ethnicities.
One of the biggest questions plaguing most political theorist is what will be the source for future conflict in this increasingly globalized world. Samuel Huntington a prominent political scientist in the U.S tried to answer this question in 1996 when he published the “Clash of Civilizations” which discusses the primary source of future global conflicts. In it he mentions religion and cultural differences as being the main source of conflict in the post cold war world. In evaluating Huntington’s theory you must evaluate modern conflicts and global issues of the present and compare them to the ideas held in his theory to see if his beliefs hold up to the substantial weight of the evidence. In critiquing Huntington’s argument you must also be
...reted without reference to domestic politics or leadership. Realists argue that the interests of states transcend domestic politics and leadership change because that the broad orientation of foreign and defense policies are unchanging. Although the realist model may be most appropriate for analyzing actions when vital interests are at stake such as in times of crises, it seems to have little explanatory power for national security policy making in times without crisis.
Realism is a theory essentially about power and security, states seek power and security because they exist in a self-help system, people seek power, people seek prestige most of all they seek autonomy. Realists don’t believe in the utopian levelled ‘scheme that would provide a perpetual peace in the world, all states are alike functionally, they all need to perform similar tasks to function. With this in mind Power is historically unsurpassable, which is why the realists believe that if states do not have the capability to protect themselves with special regards to their military capabilities, their nation will not be secure nor will they be able to perpetuate themselves in an anarchic international system.
The causes of ethnic conflict cannot be generalised to fit all incidents, as the conflicts in Sri