Home > International relations > International relations – theories of Realism and Liberalism

Essay: International relations – theories of Realism and Liberalism

Essay details and download:

  • Subject area(s): International relations
  • Reading time: 8 minutes
  • Price: Free download
  • Published: 16 June 2012*
  • Last Modified: 23 July 2024
  • File format: Text
  • Words: 2,100 (approx)
  • Number of pages: 9 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 2,100 words.

Introduction

International Relations consist of a wide range of theories which deals with a variety of issues occurring in the politics of the world. The complexity of these issues forced scholars to develop different types of theories, each of which gives a unique explanation of world politics on the basis of various assumptions. Two major theories purposed by theorists are: Realism and Liberalism.

This essay is based primarily on comparing and contrasting these two theories. What assumptionsabout the nature of world politics are advanced by each tradition? How do these two schools of thought differ? Analyses are also done to determine which theory most accurately described the world during the Cold War era and which one most accurately describes the world we live in today.

Realism

Realism is one of the major theories which govern or dictates the behaviour of states on international platform. Realists believe that all states working on their own national interests are in endless conflict among others to attain more power and position in globe. [1] For realists, the main areas of interests are: state, Anarchy system, balance of power and alliances.[2]

Realism gives supreme importance to power in international relations. Most of people think that realism gained limelight in 20th century but it has its roots are linked to ancient history. The realistic theories can be easily found in Arthashastra, an Indian treatise written by Kautaliya in fourth century BC to teach politics of power and also in Chinese scriptures written by Han Fei and Shang Yang.[3] In realism state is considered as the most important actor on the world stage as state doesn’t answers to any supreme power. State has supreme power over its territory and people. As per realists states are in endless struggle of gaining power to achieve supremacy in world and protect national security.

Another key assumption of realists is that anarchy system is prevalent strongly in the world politics. In anarchy the states work on increasing their military power to prevent any attack on their territory.[4]

The realists also have the

World politics is a war of all against all

    • he primary objective of all states is to acquire power and to promote national interest

 

    • State should always be ready to use arms to maintain peace, law and order

 

    • State should never be hesitant to maintain and use power to deter attack by enemies and to maintain influence over others

 

  • Military growth has a prime importance in maintaining national security; Economic growth is required just to maintain State power.

 

Liberalism

“Liberalismis a paradigm predicated on the hope that the application of reason and universal ethics to international relations can lead to a more orderly, just, and cooperative world; liberalism assumes that anarchy and war can be policed by institutional reforms that empower international organization and law.” [5] Liberalism has its roots linked to thoughts of John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and Adam Smith.[6]Liberalism theory was developed to cope with the problems disregarded by realism. As per liberalists’ economic interdependence, international institutions and global norms play a special role in international relations. At the core, liberals believe in progress.

The liberalism consists of different set of assumptions. One of the main assumptions of Liberals is that the non state actors cannot be ignored in international relations. They are important entities in global affairs. In liberalism individuals, NGOs and IGOs are considered equally important as state actors. Liberals stress that MNCs also cannot to be overlooked as world economy is becoming interdependent day by day. Liberalists also believe that behaviour of state is regulated by its decision makers, bureaucrats and various other interest groups with divergent interests and goals.[7]

Another important assumption of liberals gives priority to economic prosperity over national security. [8]Liberals believe in collective gain of all. Liberals promote free trade or open markets with vision that economic interdependence creates incentive to resolve the disputes peacefully.[9] Liberals think that military intervention in international affairs reduces profit for the states as economic stability is hampered.

Third assumption of liberals focuses on importance of individuals in state. Liberals promote thought that the human beings should be treated as ends rather than means.[10] It was also once said by US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice “Fundamental character of regimes matters more today than the international distribution of power.” [11]

Liberals also assumed that improving the conditions in which people live can also work towards establishment of peace. In order to achieve this liberals promote establishment of democratic government. This thought was also bought forward by Woodrow Wilson when he said “democratic government will make war less likely.”[12] Most theorists agree that democratic governments also work more towards peaceful resolution of issues instead of following ideologies of military use.

 

Differences between Realism and Liberalism

Liberal school of thought originated to overcome the issues of the realism because of this there are several points of disinterest between these two schools. Liberalists strongly criticise some of the assumptions of realists. There are five major differences between these two schools of thoughts.[13]

First, core concern for both schools of thoughts is greatly different. The realists are primarily concerned with war and security. Realists focus on survival of the vulnerable, self interested states in the environment where there are uncertainties about intentions and capabilities of other states.[14] The liberals have motives of institutionalized peace. They focus primarily on achieving

peace and harmony though rules and organizations which ultimately paves way for collective gains.[15]

Second, as per realists state is the only key actor in world politics. Realists consider state as the most important actor on the world stage as state doesn’t answers to any supreme power. On the other hand liberalists believe that the states, international institutions and global corporations all play a critical role in international politics. Liberals criticize the role of state as a unitary actor.[16]

Third, realists have a strong belief in the anarchy system. In anarchy system there is no higher controlling power over and above the state. In contrast to this liberals emphasize on complex interdependence among states. As per realists state should be self dependant and always believe in self gains which receive an extensive criticism from liberals as it doesn’t satisfy their thoughts of togetherness and collective security.

Fourth, both schools of thought have different approach towards the peace. The realism is primarily focussed on the military preparedness and alliances where as liberalism stresses on maintaining peace and harmony. Liberals don’t give military a much importance in resolving the issues between states. Liberals believe that military is costly substitute of dealing with problems. Liberals focus on facilitating dialogue, diplomacy, peace keeping, conflict resolution and other non military means.[17] As per liberal school of thought international organizations, laws, and non state actors create stable environment for bargaining and increase effectiveness of non military methods of problem solving in international relations. Liberals are also supportive of open markets. Critics of liberalism contend that power hungry states are unlikely to see accomplishment of their national interests through international organizations. The followers of realist school of thought conclude that in case of security threats states will have a trust in their own power not in the promises of global institutions.[18] This is illuminated by words of former U.S president Jimmy Carter- “It’s important that we take a hard clear look…not at some simple world, either of universal goodwill or of universal hostility, but the complex, changing and sometimes dangerous world that really exists” [19]

Final, the realists and liberals are also differentiated on the basis of approach they have towards world affairs. Realists are known for their pessimism towards global affairs. Realists believe that each and every state of the world is participating in stern security competition. States are striving for power monopoly over the other in relentless manner. Contrary to this liberals are famous for their optimism. Liberals are worshippers of cooperation among humans. They advocate progress through cooperatives measures.

 

World during cold war:

At the end of World War-II United States and Soviet Union became two superpowers. Both powers followed their own ideologies. Soviet Union was a communist state whereas on other hand United Sates was a strictly a capitalist democracy. Difference in ideologies and hunger for hegemony engulfed these two superpowers into Cold War which begun in 1947. In 1947 Kennan sent a famous telegram to Washington assessing sources of Soviet Union’s Conduct which was followed later on by introduction of Truman doctrine.[20] Unites states President Harry Truman made a strategy that United States would support people who will ally with them against communism.[21]

Start of Cold War was much in line with beliefs of realists. The power transition at end of World War-II is considered significant cause of it. As per realists, the sense of fear developed among the superpowers and each of them tried to increase its sphere of influence. This competition eventually led to division of Europe, with USA and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on one side and Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact allies on the other side.[22]

Cold war was at its peak during two times. The first peak, between 1948 and 1954, was characterized by acute confrontations in central Europe, Korea and the Taiwan Straits.[23] The second peak, between 1958 and 1963, witnessed renewed confrontation in the Taiwan straits and central Europe and a war threatening crisis in Cuba.[24] Entrance of Soviet Union in nuclear race in 1948 fuelled the Cold War.

Until late 1980s foreign policy of Soviet Union was consistent with realist theories.[25] Soviet Union tried to increase its influence in Third world countries and strengthen its control over eastern Europe.[26]

 

World after the Cold War era

Realists and non realists are always been interested in understanding how and why the conflict between Soviet Unionand USA came to an end. In the past, collapse of major super power has always been accompanied by major warfare. The peaceful collapse of Soviet Union was mainly due to development of liberal democracies across the globe.

Mikhail Gorbachev was instrumental in resolving Cold War. His liberalization of the Soviet system, sponsorship of political change in Eastern Europe, and commitment to disarmaments were catalysts of accommodation. [27]

Criticisers of realism say that realism faced a great setback when Soviet Union retreated its forces from Eastern Europe. Realist state would never make any move to reduce its sphere of influence. Withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan, end of Soviet Union’s aid to Cuba also supports this argument.

Liberalism can

The realists on the other hand claim that there is a flaw in statement that realism has gone. As per realists the recent US wars against Afghanistan and Iraq clearly depict that state and power play prime role in the world politics. Iraq war which wasn’t justifed by United Nations, several other states and non state actors was still carried out by United States to fulfil its national interests. United States led Iraq war to fulfil its motives of anti terrorism without caring about international organisations and prevalent global norms.

Realism will continue to serve as a critical weapon for revealing interplay of national interest beneath the rhetoric of Universalist sentiments. Behind the rhetoric of universal values, the USA has used the war to justify a wide range of policy positions that strengthen its economic and military power while undermining various multilateral agreements on the arms control, the environment, human rights and trade.[28]

Realists believe that history will repeat itself. Development of multipolar system will eventually led to war. These global issues strongly suggest that realism will continue to be a dominant theory in the coming years. Although there are many changes to the original idea of realism but still the core still remains that states act like individuals in acquiring power. And the national interest of a state will still be survival and security.

 


[1]        Charles W. Kegley, Jr. and Shannon L. Blanton. World Politics: Trends and Transformation. (Belmont: Cengage Learning, 2009), 27.

[2]         Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 28.

[3]         Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 29.

[4]         Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 28.

[5]         Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 32.

[6]         Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 32.

[7]        Joshua S. Goldstein, International Relations. 2nd ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), 96.

[8]         Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 41.

[9]         Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 41.

[10]        Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 32.

[11]        Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 32.

[12]        Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 33.

[13]        Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 41.

[14]        Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 41

[15]        Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 41

[16]        Goldstein, 96.

[17]        Goldstein, 96.

[18]        Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 38.

[19]        Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 39.

[20]        Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 104.

[21]        Kegley, Jr. and Blanton, 104.

[22]        Goldstein, 40-41.

[23]        Richard Ned Lebow and Thomas Risse-Kappen. International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War. (New York: Columbia university press, 1995), 7.

[24]        Lebow and Risse-Kappen, 7

[25]        Lebow and Risse-Kappen, 34

[26]        Lebow and Risse-Kappen, 34

[27]        Lebow and Risse-Kappen, 7

[28]        Tim Dunne and Brian Schmidt, op.cit p.179

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, International relations – theories of Realism and Liberalism. Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/international-relations-politics/international-relations/> [Accessed 25-11-24].

These International relations have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on EssaySauce.com and/or Essay.uk.com at an earlier date than indicated.