International Relations’ Theories Realism vs. Liberalism

Even though realism finds itself deeply rooted in a utilitarian moral framework, critics arise as to such an outlook remains immoral (it is wrong to apply) at best. A major opponent theory is liberalism. Dismissing that conflicts are inevitable, liberals uphold that the spread of legitimate domestic political orders will eventually bring an end to international conflicts.[ Scott Burchill, “Liberalism” in Theories of International Relations, ed. Scott Burchill (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 35.] This approach involves embedding notions of democracy, human rights, and free trade. As a result, states will avoid ideology clashes and a universal state will emerge. Liberals might repudiate realism on its utilitarian ground: its consequential nature and lack of universal moral code. In this section, I will defend realism against some liberal criticism.

The foreign policy of realism and idealism have shaped the foreign policy of the US. The territorial expansion was motivated by both realism and idealism. Realism is the belief that international relations should be guided by self-interest and practical goals through the use of national defense and other resources. Realists believed that the expansion made the nation more secure because of the removal of foreign threats on its borders. Idealism is the belief that international relations should be influenced by moral values and promote America’s founding ideals.

For example the state articulates humanitarianism as its ends that are interpolated by the subject, which not only functions to justifies or pacifies them but even patronizes the public consciousness towards supporting the belligerency committed in the name of restoring peace or bringing western order to the backward or radical oriental barbarous. Intriguingly Meister claims, the Human Rights Discourse promises to extinguish evil and violence and repress anxiety but in such, feeds of compassion which is “both an affective symptom of such repressed anxieties and a mechanism of their repression through distancing in space and time” (Meister 2011 pg. 222). But yet another contradiction of humanitarianism lies at the fact, as Asad says, that its discourse, which is focuses on the alleviation of unnecessary suffering rest not only on the assumption of constitutes what is unnecessary, but also on what subjectively, quantitatively, and qualitatively constitutes suffering. Commonly this presupposed goodness (the antagonism of evil) is transmuted to sound rational and is then amalgamated further by the civil subject with a notion of truth, truth that is, in the morality of the violent

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

The article “The New Humanitarian Order” by Mahmood Mamdani, published in The Nation, dated September 10, 2008 based on the theory of international humanitarian order which titles responsibility for the protection of certain population around the globe which is often regarded as vulnerable populations. Furthermore, author Mamdani argues that the new order of humanitarian is politicized and to some extend corrupted by powerful countries of world. In addition, he also argues that because of politicization of the new order, sovereignty only remains in the affluent parts of the world but it is suspended in countries in Africa and Middle East, thereby making many countries in Africa as failed states (Mamdani, 2008). Mamdani also argues that western countries, with the use of humanitarian interventions is gaining illegitimate

Contemporary international relations is a complex field. Understanding events and attempting to make sense of them can be a daunting task. There are, however, tools available, which can assist in providing clarity to these complex issues. The first of these tools is historic knowledge. Without historic background of an issue, it is nearly impossible to understand the events driving that issue in modern times. A second tool, the one which will be the focus of this paper, is international relations theory. Theory can be defined as “a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action,” (Merriam-Webster) and can be used “in many cases as a basis of prediction.” (Mingst 56) There are three major theories which we

Have you ever thought about studying international relations? What is international relations? International relations is an interdisciplinary course which encompasses a lot of subjects such as history, economics, politics and sociology. One may argue that it is an intricate course; however, one has to bear in mind that international relations is a gratifying course which has a lot of benefits for those students who study international relations but in this essay only two major ones will be introduced.

Throughout its one-hundred-year history, political science has focused on many theories on international politics. Three majors types of political theories typically discussed are liberal, realist, and Marxist. However, what many political scientists fail to take into context is the often changing electorate and the paradoxes usually associated with the electorate. In recent decades, the electorate’s shifts in ideological taste, particularly from a conservative president, for example President George W. Bush, to a liberal president, President Barack Obama, in one election cycle, have become increasingly important as the political climate becomes more politicized and compromises become harder to reach on many issues, especially foreign

When “Arab spring” started to influence various countries in Middle East and North Africa with domino effect in 2010, Libya was one of these countries. There were uprisings in the regions because of the bad economic conditions, lack of the democracy, human rights, and people’s demand for democracy of the cruel dictators. The demands or discomforts were same in Libya, but process of the Muammar al-Gaddafi ’s regime’s end was different from others as it was intervened by coalition states and NATO. Libya’s intervene was carried out by the 1973 numbered resolution of United Nations Security Council in March, 2011. The reasons of the intervention were expanding democracy in the region, ending Gaddafi’s violence through civilians and changing the regime. However, unlike other interventions in international area, it was quick and sudden. Therefore it was obvious that other than providing good life conditions to Libyan people, there were also other purposes of the coalition states through Libya’s rich resources.

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

The Realist and Liberalist Perspectives on International Relations and US Policy Stance Toward Iraq There are two prominent stances in International Relations. The schools of thought are commonly referred to as realist and liberalist. There are various names that they are called, and they can also be split further into subdivisions. However, for the purposes of this question I will just refer to the main schools of thought, and the main aims of both the paradigms.

To define any perspective in International Relations, one must understand its’ origin and primary authors, including the context in which they were writing in. Liberalism is one of the more loosely defined perspectives as it has had a number of authors throughout history. Primarily, liberalism relies on the positive aspects of human nature. One of the most prominent liberal authors was Kant- who often wrote of the anarchical nature of international relations- referring to it as “the lawless state of savagery.” He also wrote of three primary routes to obtaining peace within this system, namely treating all aspects of human life with humanity, allowing for a federation of states and

International relations is filled with a lot of different theories and perspectives that try predict and make sense of the events and situations that occurs between countries. While no theory is perfect the best two perspectives to know in order to understand international relations are realism and constructivism. Although constructivism is a good theoretical perspective I believe it ultimately it falls short of giving a true understanding of everything that goes into international relations. In the long run the best theoretical perspective to help someone get a full understanding of international relations is Realism.

Realism is one of the main theories within International Relations. It provides the view that all actors within the international system act on their own self-interests to gain power. This essay intends to discuss its usefulness as a theory and the reasons for and against it being used to analyse world affairs. Firstly, it shall discuss how the theory is advantageous as it explains how shifts in the balance of power can lead to conflict however it is unable to explain why the distribution of power changes. Second, it will portray how it is useful because states do not need to be labelled as good or bad to fit the theory although it disregards the idea of Natural law and gives a cynical view of human morality. Finally, it will suggest that as the theory is very parsimonious, it can be applied to multiple situations within the world system. On the other hand, it will be said that it fails to look at individuals within a state and their influence on the actions of the state. These costs and benefits will be conveyed through the current tensions between the USA and North Korea to link the theory in with current world politics.

Peering through spectacles of the English School, has provided valuable insight into the mechanics of international affairs, in which I had little prior knowledge. I have always believed that the United Nations assisted countries to co-operate by allowing the diversities to be acknowledged and respected, providing equality amongst the nations, even if relations have sometimes been strained. The English School are a group of scholars who believe that the state actors form an international society which helps to establish a co-operative environment. However, society doesn’t completely eradicate conflict which I believe is evident in the conflicts around the globe. During week five, I learnt about the English School as a theory of