1. Describe how the three major schools of thought in International Relations (realists, liberals, and constructivists) see universal human rights. In what way do these schools of thought differ? In what ways are they the same? In International Relations, there are three major schools of thought realists, liberals, and constructivists. On one end of the spectrum there is the realists school of thought and on the opposite end is the liberal school of thought while the constructivists school of thought lies in the middle. While there are three distinct schools of thought it is not uncommon for people to believe in different parts of different schools. The realist school of thought holds the belief that the diplomacy of human rights is just talk and they will only be put in place if they are in the best interest of the state. The assumption of universal morality is seen as being used to hide pursuits that are actually selfish in interest, this is where they use the term polite fiction. Polite fiction is when the state says they care but they really don’t care. While they aren’t against human rights they believe that state stability and order are more important. Overall, realists see states as doing what they want and that rights don’t actually have a lot of weight. The second major school of thought is the liberal school of thought. This school believe that in international relations human rights are important and the fact that the United Nations which is a global human
On a global political stand point there was a uniting of ideas and governments; what we know today as the United Nations (UN). One of the main ideas which the UN has grown up around is ‘The individual possess rights simply by virtue of being Human’ (The Universal Declaration of human rights); which was adopted by the general assembly in 10th December 1948. This statement is reflect in the core principles
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 first view will be through the current predominant school of thought in international relations, realism. Although there are several different forms of realism the core ideas are that states are the central actors in international politics rather than individuals
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.
In international politics power tends to rise above everything else because after the war human rights became an issue. The idea of human rights comes from moral beliefs and principles, entitled specifically to individuals. After World War I, nations were still trying to settle down and establish their powers. At the end of World War II, efforts in attempting to institutionalize and implement new human rights occurred. The construction of human rights is a global challenge which are trans-regional, nation states cannot resolve on their own, and needs collective action from states. Human rights are made up of material needs which are a part of the societal needs and moral needs. Some rights are more universal compared to the others such as slavery, sexual orientation, or persecution. Culture variation is one factor that changes among different countries. The question here is, how does human rights relate to international politics? There are several connections between human rights and international politics. One connection is that states must work together to establish these rights to create the balance of power for individuals even through the culture differences. Human rights suggest a universal morality because of the shared ideas of moral principles and the ideas of the natural law. In discovering the principles to human rights morality was very important during the process because those principles served as a guide to the society’s behavior. The importance of morality in this situation is states must work together to form these rights for the people to create a balance of power and
Realist presumptions are based on an anarchic system vested in the interest of the individual states through their own national interest. The state is expressed as rational and unitary actors; the main actor making rational decisions as a whole on behalf of the state. Power is hailed above all else and morals are irrelevant when the security of the state is at risk.
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
While liberalism believes war to be avoidable through education, reformation of social institutions, and shared interests with other nations, realism finds war to be an unavoidable consequence of the self-preservation of the state. Liberalism sees the potential for and desires change, while realism finds change unlikely. Both theories agree on the principle that the international system is anarchic in nature. However, whereas realism relies on a balance of power to keep the system in check, liberalism does so through cooperation of international institutions and mutual interest of various states.
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
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
When trying to comprehend international politics, current events, or historical context, having a firm grasp on the various international relations theories is essential to understanding patterns when looking at interstate affairs. Realism, liberalism, constructivism, and marxist radical theory are used to provide a framework by which we can dissect international relations.
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
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.