A Comparison Of Liberalism And Realism

Conservatism is a classic ideology that defends and promote existing traditional arrangement by encouraging structured community is maintained while ensuring common values to the people. They tends to oppose liberalist as the see liberalism as an ideology that preaches individualism rather than encouraging more benefits that a group of people or society can bring to people in general. The benefit would be much, should such group exists and well maintained within the society (Shively,

Liberalism was previously a projection of how international relations ought to be; now, liberalism is a modern theory towards peace attained with a state’s ambition for dominance. “Self-interest” has two definitions in accordance to liberalism and realism. Liberalism considers the measure of power within states through stable economies, the possibility of peace and cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms (human rights). Realism believes states are driven by competitive self-interest; international organizations hold little to no real influence because states are self-preserved. International relations is governed by states acting in their self-interest through liberalism; states act in their self-interest by cooperating with one another through international organizations, transnational advocacy networks, and non-governmental organizations. International organizations, normative values, and terrorism are all examples of how international relations is progressing into liberalism.

Realism and Liberalism are two extremely prominent theories of international relations. These doctrines exhibit sagacious perceptions about war, foreign affairs and domestic relations. The fundamental principles of protocol in which we rely upon aren’t always apprehensive (Karle, Warren, 2003). By interpreting the data one could fathom these ideas. The assessment of these faculties wield noteworthy dominance about the concepts of international affairs. In analyzing this data, you will comprehend the variant relationship between Realism and Liberalism.

Realism is a theory which believes that sovereign states are the primary actors in the international system. It also believes that the international system has always been anarchic due to the nature of states not trusting each other and each state seeking to gain or maximize its own power capability. The Realist approach to the Cold War was also that of an “anarchical constitutive” and had seen the Cold War as something that was not out of the ordinary. The realists believed that states are always competing to maximize their own power, “the basic premise of its understanding is that the Cold War was not historically unique. the Cold War rather reflected in general terms the ongoing logic of inter-state conflict derived from the anarchical constitutive nature of the international system, and the ‘power maximization’ policies of states” R.Saull (2001:7).

Realism is a theory that depicts world politics as a ceaseless repetitive struggle for power. In other words, political realism seeks to explain international relations between states in terms of power. Realist “views that nation-state as the most important actor…because it answers to no higher authority;” in other words, it is an anarchic system (Kegley, 27). Some traits of realism are that states are sovereign, non-cooperation among states, and the exclusion if morality in policies.

Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the

Realism, liberalism, and Marxism are all different perspectives that can be used to analyze situations and aid government officials to understandings and agreements in relation to trade. Lawrence Herman 's article focusses on the potential destruction of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) caused by the disturbing and unacceptable proposals by the United States president, Donald Trump. There are many different views on Free trade but three main perspectives are the realist views, which claim that all nation-states have to rely upon their own resources and security and act in pursuit of their struggle for power and self-interest, liberal views, which approve of free trade, and lastly, through Karl Marx’s theory of Marxism.

Compare and contrast Realism and Liberalism as theories used in the study of International Relations

In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst

In a world where the drive for power and the will to dominate are held to be fundamental aspects of human nature as the Classical Realists would argue, the necessity for International Organizations cannot be dismissed as some liberalists argue. According to Iriye 2002, IGO’s consists of institutions that come into existence through formal agreements among nations and represent their corresponding governments (Iriye 2002, Pg. 12-14). With that in mind, some liberalists argue that joining international organizations and institutions like the United Nations socializes some leaders so that their motivations are more benign (Dunne 2011, Pg. 103). I am convinced to a certain extent with this idea as I feel that even though classical realists argue that every man has within him the desire to rule or the desire for power (Dunne and Schmidt 2011, Pg. 90). When several leaders come together all from different IR theoretical backgrounds (liberalists, realists, constructivists) each decision they make comes collectively thus not leaving too much room for their individual biases based on their theoretical perspectives to impact important international relations issues "negatively". Although I highly doubt if anything can be done to control the human desire for power accumulation as a classical realist would say, a part of the psyche of man, I do believe the liberalists argument to be of substance.

Classical realist theory is based upon the idea that human nature is inherently bad and selfish, the international system is anarchic, and the state is the most important actor in international affairs. Basing policy decisions on human nature, the state looks to maximize it’s power and security within its geographic location. Realist theory sees all conflict deriving from power struggles between states, though it is not about fostering wars; rather the opposite.

In the current anarchic world, The United States acts as the global hegemon. However, China’s recent rise to power has lead international relations experts, Ikenberry, Mearsheimer, Subramanian, and Friedberg, to predict an upcoming power shift in the international system. China’s increasing control over the Asia-Pacific region has threatened U.S. power. According to Waltz, the realism paradigm interprets the anarchic structure of the international community, as a constant power struggle. Although each country may be different, to survive, they must all strive for power. Under the liberalism paradigm, the system is still anarchical but cooperation may be achieved by shared norms, and aligned political and economical interests.

Social humanitarian sciences focus on studying global political processes and the object of its research are social phenomena, which are defined as “international relations” in the world we know. International relations are comprised of many different categories, such as foreign policy, international politics or world politics. However, the central issue of international politics is the international relations. The term “international relations” has been first used by English philosopher J. Bentham at the end of 18th century. It is important to note that it is not accidentally that the term appeared at that particular time, as the border line of 18-19th centuries is marked by evolution of the international relations’

In examining Kenneth Waltz 's “Structural Realism after the Cold War,”1 and Andrew Moravcsik 's “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,”2 it is clear that theories presented in each (Realism and Liberalism) are at odds with one another in many ways. But why did the authors reach the conclusions they did about the way that states behave in the international system? This paper seeks to answer that question.

This assignment will be discussed about two theories of international relations ‎which are Realism the most important in international relations. Liberalism is the ‎second theory will be considered. The aim of this essay to compare between these ‎two theories. ‎