Paul Wilkinson 's International Relations

Realism is an international relations theory with a lineage that dates back to thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, Machiavelli and Thucydides (Forde). Because the conditions for international relations are inherently anarchic, with neither hierarchical power nor expectation of reciprocity to enforce cooperation between actors, realists insist that the sole responsibility of the state must simply be self-preservation. As foreign policy specialist George Kennan wrote, “other criteria, sadder, more limited, more practical must be allowed to prevail” in spite of morality.

Kant assumed that states would act in self-interested ways and that repeated interactions would eventually lead to an expanding zone of peace – for example NATO. Like Kant’s theory, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is a model that posed that after continued repeated interactions, states would realize that it’s in their best interest to cooperate. Economic interdependency, also known as functionalism, proposes that states take cooperative ventures in nonpolitical areas such as the economy and security. This in turn will lead to greater interdependence and eventually, greater peace. Functionalism is a means to achieve peace now, starting with economic interdependence through international organizations such as the European Community. It is also a strategy in which international organizations, including the United Nations, use to promote interdependency and thus, maintain peace. Consequently, functionalism is most successful under a democratic government. Liberals

After earning his master’s degree and Ph. D from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Famous historian William Appleman Williams of Atlantic, Iowa, wrote the book, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy in response to the rampant changing things happening around him. Enraged, Williams’ addresses several points with foreign policy being the main one. He encompasses several themes throughout his book such as American capitalism, the failure of American liberalism, and the Open door notes. These themes help convey his view on the matters at hand, which for a lack of a better term was pissed. Quite frankly, Williams’ gets straight to the point without being around the bush with his extremely biased views by going into depth about America’s morbid foreign policy.

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 has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930’s. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930’s to the end of the cold war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent, a theory of the past.

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

Liberalism is an international-relations theory that relies heavily on interdependence among many different actors within our international system. Individuals, nongovernmental groups, international organizations all hold roles that are pivotal to international-relations (Arreguin-Toft and Mignst 88). Liberals believe that people are inherently “good”; they are rational and can make the correct choices to move society towards progress. However, it is crucial to the international system that all actors work together to build an efficient, sustainable society. Liberals believe that working under one international system would aid in the construction of appropriate social institutions to neutralize threats to the common good (83-84). Almost 200 countries signed the Paris Climate agreement to aid in the globe’s fight in preventing temperatures from increasing to 1.5 degrees Celsius from where they were before 1950. Though many countries signed it, only 164 fully accepted the terms.

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

Liberalism is another concept that has significant arguments regarding international relations. Liberal economics have determined the shape of the monetary system and support the concept of open markets, where individuals have the freedom to engage in commerce. Unlike realists, liberals oppose mercantilism and the zero-sum game much like the countries in NAFTA. This disagreement is the cause of many disagreements during the NAFTA negotiations. If countries are able to work together and trust one another to attain power, conflict is less likely to occur and overall economic wealth for countries can be gained. Through free trade, the goal is to have a decreased amount of wasted resources on inefficient production because the more individuals that engage in this collective use of resources the more likely the system would become efficient and acquire heightened economic gains such as wealth. ) Finally, there is the liberal institutionalism perspective which approves of regimes and international organizations. Utilizing these rules through rapid growth of regimes, regulate economic affairs, determine which activities are allowed and disallowed, and assure that

In this essay the conservative theories of Realism and Liberalism will be compared and contrasted in connection with the study of International Relations. Post World War I International Relations was established as a formal discipline with the eructation of the Woodrow Wilson Chair at the University of Wales, given the worldwide urgency to create international order and stability in the wake of the war. Realist in International Relations view human nature and the states behaviour practically and truthfully, adopting a matter-of-fact attitude instead of visualising how the political institutions ought to function. Liberalists

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.

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