International Relations’ Theories Realism vs. Liberalism

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

With the impact of globalisation and ‘the intensification of worldwide social relations’, one of the biggest debates in the international society today is centred around the justification of humanitarian intervention. This essay will first present the proposing and opposing arguments for humanitarian intervention as well as argue that humanitarian intervention does ultimately represent a threat to international order.

Liberalism and Realism How to Liberals view conflict? 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

The debate of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect have been discussed in international relations discourse more seriously within the last 60 years. The major historical developments which have led to an increase in the intensity of these debates have had beneficial and detrimental effects on Earth within the last 20 years. Several factors have contributed to this including; globalization, the rise in international accountability, an increase humanitarian consciousness to prevent major atrocities from occurring, the expansion of territorial to global responsibility of the western world, and the realization of the western world that regional sovereignty no longer accounts for national security. To develop an opinion

Objections to Realism 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.

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

WOULD YOU AGREE THAT REALISM IS THE MOST CONVINCING PARADIGM FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS? WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF REALISM AS A THEORY FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?

Introduction The end of the First World War saw a shift in political thought towards liberalism through the creation of the League of Nations to avoid a recurrence of international aggression, while realism seemed to have lost its credibility. The dramatic failure of the League in stopping another international war gave rise to serious questions and doubts about the effectiveness of the liberal ideas upon which it had been founded. This offered realism a chance to re-emerge as the dominant perspective in international relations. But, unlike the eighteenth-century definition of classical realism that argued that all states are motivated by the pursuit of power and expansion, the postwar realists modified the initial theory. For nearly 2,500 years, classical realism has displayed a principal unity of thought. One of the most important classical realist writer, Hans Morgenthau, came to have the largest impact on this field. His 1948 book, Politics Among Nations, coined an account of realism that dominated international relations for almost three decades.

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

Iraq Invasion 2003 - (The English School Theory of International Relations) The English School (ES) of international studies is a modern and unique spectrum to the study of international relations (IR), because it is prominent, relevant and inclusive of the main elements in the other IR theories such as classical Realism,

In their introduction to the chapter "Why International Organisations Matter," which was contributed to Business and the Politics of Globalisation: After the Global Financial Crisis, authors Xu Yi-chong and Patrick Weller begin the rhetorical defense of international organisations (IOs) by providing a review of recent global crises, and describing the

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.

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

Realism and Liberalism is one of the most important theoretical approaches to the study of international studies. As for realism, it has been argue that realism is not just a simple perspective, as it is actually a complex area of debate rather than just single specific of point. In Realism, we can identify such classic and specific versions, some realist who call themselves as neo-realist or structural realist, and so on. As for Liberalism, its history goes back to when the scholars tried to come up with a new theory that could end the despair of the First World War. Liberalism starts to take up the world politics after the fall of Idealism after the Second World War as they have more pessimistic view of the world politics. Both of these theories

Realism and liberalism ‎ International relations theories are the study of international relations from a ‎theoretical perspective. Such as, realism, liberalism, maximise, socialism ‎ 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.