Realism vs liberalism essay. Liberalism and Realism Essay 2022-12-08
Realism vs liberalism essay Rating:
Realism and liberalism are two major theories in the field of international relations that have significantly shaped the way states interact with each other in the international system. These theories offer distinct perspectives on the role of the state, the nature of international relations, and the proper course of action for states to take in the international arena.
Realism is a theory that emphasizes the role of the state as the primary actor in international relations and the pursuit of self-interest as the driving force behind state behavior. Realists believe that the international system is characterized by anarchy, meaning that there is no central authority to enforce rules and regulate the behavior of states. In this context, states must rely on their own strength and resources to ensure their security and protect their interests.
Realists also believe that states are motivated by a desire to maximize their power and security in the international system, and will often engage in aggressive or selfish behavior in order to achieve this goal. This can lead to conflict and tension between states, as each tries to assert its own interests over those of others. Realists also argue that moral considerations and international law are often secondary to the pursuit of national interests, and that states should not be constrained by these considerations in their foreign policy decisions.
Liberalism, on the other hand, is a theory that emphasizes the role of international institutions, international law, and cooperation between states in shaping international relations. Liberals believe that the international system is not necessarily characterized by anarchy, but rather that states can work together to create a more stable and peaceful world through cooperation and the establishment of international norms and rules.
Liberals argue that states have shared interests and that cooperation can lead to mutual gains, rather than the zero-sum game often described by realists. They also believe that moral considerations and the promotion of human rights should play a central role in international relations, and that international institutions can serve as a means of promoting cooperation and resolving conflicts peacefully.
Despite these differences, both realism and liberalism have had a significant impact on the way states interact with each other in the international system. Realism has influenced the way states approach issues of security and self-interest, while liberalism has shaped the development of international institutions and the promotion of cooperation and mutual gain. Ultimately, the choice between these two theories often comes down to different priorities and values, with some states and policymakers prioritizing security and self-interest while others prioritize cooperation and the promotion of shared values and interests.
Essays On Liberalism Vs. Realism
This quote shows Realism in one way. Therefore, the rights arising from these disagreements may not proceed with this universal standard. Although liberals and realist share the common view concerning the importance of own national interest of a state, realists assert that the primary objective of every state is to protect its national interests, which dictate that all other objectives must be subordinated to that core goal. Liberalism is the theoretical idea that plurality of actors in the are very important in the international arena. This justifies the question of interest in the relations between states in the international system Waltz, 2000. The reforms will bring equality to the job market so that they do not oppress the immigrants while protecting the interest of the locals. Liberals are more understanding of the international system expressing their thoughts and relations peacefully seeking for collective security to reduce conflicts and maintain a balance of power among states.
Liberalism is a unique theory that is extremely democratic and applicable to modern international relations. Realism, on the other hand, individualizes situations and gives exceptions by stating that countries will always fight against each other irrespective of their political practices. Turn memo 2: Liberalists observe that there are many actors in the international system. This behavior by South Africa is seen as a national gain. In contrary, realists observe that the only actor in the international system is the state. The international system is a community of both states and human beings.
It is the responsibility of the state to decide whether to support a policy or not. Liberalism thus does not talk about competition, but togetherness to bring the gain. Realists believe that the end will always justify the means. The Hague is an international criminal court invented after the Rwanda Massacre, which led to the death of about 1 million people. The theory observes that there are many actors in the international system. United Nations , to regulations of international trade ex. Being that constructivism itself can be a confusing term because it is so broad and as a result may seem hard to disprove, to understand it, we must contrast it with the other schools of …show more content… His ability to be fluid in his decision-making mentality grants him the freedom to do what he sees best fitting encourages an epistemology that is arguably better than the one of realist and liberalist thought.
Liberals argue that as people make self-preservation for their individual needs, they retain and depict moral perceptions, reasons, and empathy. For example, other African countries do not have much impact in terms of investing in South Africa like Botswana. Inquiry, 55 2 , 71-193. The building blocks of the state are never considered as important because the recognized figure is the state. American Realist approach worked successfully as the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions and the economic strain of having to match the U.
While realism was clearly much more accurate in the descriptions of the world throughout most of the 20th century, this paper will argue that liberalism is much more precise in the explanations and its understanding of the world when it comes to current issues. Similarly, the rule of law would be the same in all nations even though they are controlled and directed by a different leader. . American domestic laws and civil society interaction are based on a liberalist philosophy while its external interactions have for the most part been based on a Realist approach. Whereas modern liberalism believes the state is necessary to develop individuals and create opportunity, this is known as positive freedom. According to Jan Jack Rousseau, people under the general will of the social contract must scarify some of their rights to the leader of the society to live under constant rules and regulations -liberals view of international system- to eliminate the state of nature where the stronger intimidate the weaker to be the dominant figure in the realm is the same condition realists view the interaction of states or international relations as an anarchical nature in the international system.
In the early years after its independence, the then-American leadership realistically combined the advantages of geographical isolation, vast natural resources and the need to build a nation rather than seek pre-eminence in the world. Germany, one of the most preponderant states at the time, strived for the success that England achieved with the Industrial Revolution. Thus, the belief of realism that the state is the most important actor in the global system is disproven. Moreover, liberal states are strong enough to solve disagreements without war, although, like realists, they realize that war and destruction may be real. Therefore, in order for an individual to reach his or her full potential, reform liberalism favors government intervention in order to ensure equality among… Pros And Cons Of Neo-Liberalism To continue, it should be stated that neo-liberalism differs significantly from the canonical liberal-idealistic paradigm. As studies have shown, invalid votes, valid votes and non-voters have varying level of support for various political systems.
To a certain extent, realism is about presenting a limited view because is very much about regionalism. International politics: Power and purpose in global affairs. The main agenda for developing such a system is to initiate cohesion between all nations and establishing independent organizations to solve conflicts between nations. Concepts of morality, ethics as understood by humanists, therefore take a back seat and are viewed in relative terms when compared to the fundamental national interests of the state Baylis, Smith and Owens 127. Looking back at the historical events and comparing them to the current international issues, there are many parallels to be noted as well as many contradictions in the ever changing global arena. On one side there are the classic liberals who believe in as little state intervention as possible, and on the other side there is the modern liberals who believe state intervention is necessary as it can develop people and create equal opportunity. There are a number of developments that have emerged in international politics, which seem to draw away the linear view about the interest of states.
Comparison between Theories: Realism vs. Liberalism
Liberalism and the comprehension of power On the other hand, liberalists approach the concept of power from an optimistic point of view. Liberalism argues for human rights, parliamentary democracy, and free trade, while also maintaining that all such goals begin within the state. In its turn, the state must prioritize national security and the prosperity of its own citizens. They argue that forming a functional universal system to be followed by all nations demands humbleness. Liberalism thus believes in possibilities that others find to be impossible with positive hopes that changes can happen. As such, they should make sure the citizens vote for party members since they will support the initiative to eliminate deployment of soldiers in a foreign land.
Thus, for realists, anarchy predisposes international politics towards conflict. The difference between the two is that liberalism is a belief that the government should only minorly interfere within the daily lives of its citizens and that socialism will assure an equal distribution of wealth and goods to the population. These are a perfect example of transnational unifications, which are absolutely borderless and are extremely powerful on the global arena. Realism can also be measured in terms of its machinery in the military and as well as its successful conflicts. Once again, it was a state against another state fighting for the most gains in order to be at the top of the anarchical international system. The key elements behind this particular theoretical system lie in the belief in anarchy, evil human nature, military power and the importance and the power of a state.