Liberalism in the Study of International Relations - Essay Example

The Realist Critique of Liberalism in the Study of International Relations The recent developments that have seen the spread of economic liberalization, world conflicts, democratic institutions, and unprecedented increase of international institution being witnessed globally have sparked a lot of interest in international relation theories. International relation by definition is the study of relationships between nations (Whelan 2004, p.1). Typically, there are two international relation theories namely realism commonly referred to as political realism and liberalism or idealism. The two theories differ widely according to how they view international relations. For instance, realism is international politics view that emphasize on its antagonistic and competitiveness (Whelan 2004, p.2). Liberalism, on the other hand, stresses on corporation between countries (Whelan 2004, p.2). Realists in most cases have in been seen criticizing the views held by liberalists with regard to international relations. This paper explores the realist critique of liberalism in the study of international relations Realism Realism is arguable the most dominant international relation theory that has existed since the introduction of the discipline. The theory originated from the traditional thoughts held by scholars such as Hobbs, Machivialli and Thucydides. It is noted that the theory came in to being as a reaction against the interwar liberalists’ philosophy. In this regard, the realists have often used the events of the war to criticize the liberalists’ theory, which they argue, is a fallacy (Donnelly 2000, p.2). Realists strongly believe that the international system has no central authority to govern its affairs. In this regard, they believe that the international relation is at a state of anarchy where each state is struggling to wield power so as to satisfy its own interest. Realists maintain that international politics is all about the struggle for power, which enables every state, achieve its objectives (Whelan 2004, p.12). Realists believe that independent states are the main players in the international politics and that more attention is given to nations to powerful nations in the world with since they have a lot of influence as far as the international relations is concerned. Currently, this believe can be related to the U.S. as one of the most powerful nation in the world with a lot of influence in the international arena. Consequently, realists see other organizations such as non-governmental organizations, international institutions, multinational organizations, and citizens as having very little influence in the international stage (Donnelly 2000, p.4). Realists also believe that every state must devise ways of how to defend itself in case of a problem. They maintain that there is no general principle that nations may use to guide their deeds. As a result, they warn states to be wary of the neighbors’ actions by employing practical strategy to solving problems between them in case a conflict arises (Donnelly 2000, p.6). Realists also maintain that humankind is not naturally munificent, but competitive and selfish. This perspective was supported by Thomas Hobbes arguing that humankind is naturally self-centered and violent where there is no peace and would only remain peaceful and selfless where prevailing conditions promotes peaceful coexistence (Whelan 2004, p.14). Donnelly (2000, p.8) notes that a section of realists believe that are naturally antagonistic in which the expansion of boundaries is controlled only by opposing powers. On the other hand, some hold that nations are very much concerned about their security and the continued existence of the state. In this regard, they note that the continued obsession about security tends to result in security dilemma and suspicion between countries. This in most cases forces states to increase its security by developing weapons in a bid to maintain security of the country. The brains behind the realism include Michiavelli, Thucydides and Hobbs. Others behind the theory are Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr (Donnelly 2000, p.13). Liberalism Liberalism is a school of thought, which is critical of realists view regarding international relations. This school of thought was fronted by traditional writers such as Woodrow Wilson and E.H. Carr, which maintains that a country should formulate its internal political beliefs as its foreign policy objectives. This is to say that tacking a problem that is in the home country such as diseases should also involve solving the same problem internationally in other countries. This theory was widely applied during World War II (Moravcsik 2001, p.2). Liberals believe that the behaviors of a country are determined by its preferences, but not its capability. This contradicts the belief held by realists where a state is viewed as a single player. In this regard, liberals believe in the plurality of actions of a country. According to liberals, the states preferences vary from one country to the next depending on culture, type of government and the country’s economic system (Whelan 2004, p.21). Liberals also believe that apart from security and politics, the relationship between countries is dependent on cultural and economic system of the countries. In this regard, the liberals’ school of thought holds that rather than lawlessness in the international system, there exist other chances for power and cooperation. As such, the theory is based on an assumption that total gain can be achieved through peaceful coexistence between countries and that war does not offer the best solution to solving conflicts. Accordingly, liberalists believe that peace can always prevail even where there is lawlessness as long as countries are able cooperate and seek a common ground by forming institutions and alliances for regulating the world powers. An example of liberals is Norman Angell (Moravcsik 2001, P.11). Critique towards liberalism As earlier stated, the realists critique of liberalism in the study of international relations began during World War II, where the two differed widely ideologically. This is because, where us liberals were of the view that peace can be maintained even in the state of anarchy through diplomatic course, including forming institutions and alliances realists felt that this belief was a fallacy stating that power can only be gained through war or threatening of the enemies of military action. Therefore, to realists, military power supersede everything to the extent that there is nothing like peace or lasting alliances as claimed by liberals. This is because liberals held that power could be welded through general institutions than states, which takes into consideration the characteristics of every state giving room for the belief of lasting alliances formed based on common ideas and beliefs (Jackson and Sørensen 2007, p.118-119). Realists also criticized the idea held by the liberals that states can trust each other as a means of ensuring peaceful coexistence despite anarchy. This is after the liberals maintained that real power for states could be gained through when states share ideas such as religion, economies, language, and political system. According to realists, there is no way countries can trust each other since international anarchy promotes antagonism and competition among states, which tend to prevent this state’s readiness to corporate and pursues a common goal. As such, they are of the view that states must strive to depend on itself in order to survive in the world of anarchy as maintained by Hans Morgentheu and Niccolo Machiavelli (Jackson and Sørensen 2007, p.118-119). Certainly, the idea held by realists is true following what is happening in the current world where power seem to be wielded on the military capability of a country. The world has come to a state where a country seem to be defined by its military capability, in which states are struggling to develop deadly weapons in order to be able to issue threats to its enemies of attack. For instance, the U.S. became world superpower because of its military capability, which it uses to rule other countries and impose its wishes on other nations. This is why countries like North Korea and Iran are struggling to develop weapons of mass destruction in a bid to gain power and achieve their objectives. Conclusion The two theories at as important tools for understanding the recent developments taking place in the international scene. However, despite the disagreements witnessed between the two theories on the study of international relations, both have their weaknesses and strengths based on what is happening in the world currently. References Donnelly, J. (2000), Realism and international relations. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-208. Jackson, R.H., & Sørensen, G. (2007), Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moravcsik, A. (2001), Liberalism and international relations theory. Harvard University Press and University of Chicago, No. 92-6. Whelan, F.G. (2004), Hume and Machiavelli: political realism and liberal thought. Oxford: Lexington Books. Read More