Understanding International Relations Through Liberalism and Realism
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. 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. If the reason for the friendly relation between the two countries are due to the balance of power to counter the Chinese interest, this would be the perspective of the realist. But if the economic interdependence between the Japan and Korea caused the peaceful relations, this is the view of the liberalism. Contemporary society analyze certain issues of international relations with different perspective, but it is utterly important for individuals to approach issues of international relations from one perspective and approach from contrasting critic view to study international politic.
argues that America needs to be more engaged in internationalism. On the other hand, realism
New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Silver, Larry.
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
During Ambassador Power’s speech, she discusses her beliefs about Russia as a threat to the international community and the United States by prominently expressing thoughts that are similar with the liberal theoretical tradition, additionally, due to intellectual pluralism, Ambassador Power briefly expresses thoughts that are similar to the theoretical tradition of realism. There are four basic assumptions that realism and liberalism share—states live in an international system based on anarchy, states seek power, states are rational actors, and states are the most born actors. However, these rational acting states have varying views of what anarchy is and they act in different ways to attain such anarchy. In this paper, I will explain how
Mearsheimer J. J. (2010). Structural Realism. International Relations Thoeries, Discipline and Diversity (Second Edition), p.77-94
From all that has been mentioned above, one has to conclude that personality does have an effect on a countries foreign policy. A leader will have an impact on how his or her country relates with other nations. Liberals and realists also have different views when it comes to foreign policy. However both views agree that peace has to establish though they may not agree on the means. Today, most of the conflict in the world is as a result of leaders failing to agree on certain decisions for example whether intervention is justified. There is no doubt half of the problems would be solved if there was only one ideology followed by all statesmen. However this cannot happen and therefore conflict is and will continue to be inevitable.
The prominent scholar of Political Science, Kenneth N. Waltz, founder of neorealism, has proposed controversial realist theories in his work. Publications such as "Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis", "Theory of International Politics” and “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate,” demonstrate how Waltz's approach was motivated by the American military power. In acquaintance of this fact, the purpose of this paper is to critically analyze Waltz theoretical argument from the journal "Structural Realism after the Cold War". Firstly, this paper will indicate the author's thesis and the arguments supporting it. Secondly, limitations found in theoretical arguments will be illustrated and thirdly, synergies between the author's thesis and this analysis will be exposed.
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.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
Regarding Brexit, realism and liberalism have different viewpoints. Particularly, since realism claims that a state’s ultimate goal is power, realism suggests that
Realism is one of the important perspectives on global politics, it is a notion about the conservative society and political philosophy (Heywood 2011: 54; Shimko 2013: 36). Besides, Gilpin (1996) claims that “realism…, it is not a scientific theory that is subject to the test of falsifiability, therefore, cannot be proved and disproved.” (Frankel 1996: xiii). The components of the realist approach to international relations will be discussed.
In conclusion, Realism is able to explain the outcomes, actual and hypothetical, of NK policies, since its common assumption matches the centrality of the nuclear issue to the agenda of the country. In addition to that, Neoclassical Realism also provides a valuable explanation for some of the nation more relevant foreign policy patterns of behavior.
Three levels of analysis, each with its own distinct strength, reveals three different ways of understanding international relations. The first states that all nation-states behave similarly, the second emphasizes the unique internal factors of a nation-state, while the third level of analysis focuses on the individual deciding a state’s course of action. Each level of analysis is useful in the study of international relations. Indeed, used all together, it is not long before arriving at a point where a vast number of explanations for the actions of a country are brought to light. However, to best understand international relations, one level of analysis is more useful than the rest, because it provides the most comprehensive investigation into the conditions which influence a nation’s actions. This, most involved level, is the third level of analysis: it takes into account the not simply the individual who ultimately makes the decision, but the individuals who influence the decision-making individual, as well as what might influence those who exert their influence. Because the third level of analysis is so in-depth, it can discover the deeper reasons behind an action taken by a nation, even possibly finding fault in a conclusion made by the first or second level of analysis. More so, what makes this level the best means to understand international relations is that because the third level of analysis considers what influences might effect the decision-making individual, and therefore it can be seen upon a closer examination that the inferences found in first and second levels of analysis can furthermore be found within the third level of analysis. So then, the third level of analysis is the best level at which to approach the study of international relations.
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).