Realism and Liberalism in the Nowadays International Relations - Essay Example

International Relations s Submitted by s: Introduction A theory of international relations is a collection of ideas, which explain the manner in which the international system works but contrasting with ideology, a theory of international relations is supported by concrete evidence. Thesis statement A first look at liberalism and realism shows that they are paradigms that are diametrically opposed in the international relations theory as the democratic peace theory, which is associated with liberalism generates a warm outlook on the international system. On the other hand, the security dilemmas associated with realism as well as zero sum games show a different view of international politics. Realism As far as realism is concerned, states work towards solely increasing their own power in relation to that of other states while considering that the world is a dangerous place and the only way to attain certainty is to have power. When realism is considered, there is the perception a nation, which is influential, should always do better than those competing against it which are relatively weaker while the most vital form of power which can be relied on is military power(Baylis and Smith, 2001, p. 4). Realism considers the primary interest of a nation to be self preservation and therefore a nation should look for influence and should be in a position to protect itself at all times. The international system makes different states employ military might and war and even though leaders are capable of being moral, they are not supposed to let their ethical concerns be a source of guidance for their foreign policy. Politicians have always been practicing realism for as long as there has been an existence of states and most of them as well as other scholars during the Cold War looked at international relations through a realist perspective. The United States and the Soviet Union did not trust each other and they both looked for allies that would assist them in safeguarding their interests as well as increasing their political and military command outside their borders. Liberalism When considering liberalism, emphasis is placed on the fact that the broad ties existing between states have made it harder to identify the interest of a particular nation while they have also decreased the worth of military power (Brown, 2001, p. 22). Liberalism is a concept that came up in the 1970’s when some scholars were of the opinion that realism had been outmoded and the escalating globalization, enhancement in the communication technology industry as well as growing international relations were not in a position to depend on simple power politics to make decisions on issues. Liberal approaches towards international relations are also referred to as the theories of complex interdependence and liberalism looks at the world as being a harsh place that is also dangerous but the outcome of using military power are more often than not more than the benefits. This makes international cooperation important to all the states and military power should not be considered to be the only form of power since economic and social power are also very significant. Economic power has proven to be more effective and efficient than the use of military power and different states have varying primary interests that can be fostered by international rules and organizations to enhance cooperation, trust and prosperity. Classical realism and classical liberalism As far as international relations is concerned, there are very many issues that are for debate and the most critical issue is the pessimistic view that is accorded to the classical realism when compared to the view that is optimistic that is accorded classical liberalism. The theory of realism was derived from the ancient times and was initially established in Greece in 431 BC by Thucydides (Freyberg-Inan, 2004, p 23) and it is defined preferring to use power to develop and achieve the interests that a nation may have. The realism approach possesse a pessimistic perspective of human character and it holds principles that are associated with security of a nation with a lot of seriousness. The people that support the realist perspective are usually sceptical about progress as far as international politics is concerned and have the notion that the international relations is often filled with conflict. The classical realism possesses a pessimistic perspective of human nature and it considers that the international politics is driven to have a fight for a power, which has its origins from human nature and there is the perception that human nature is highly competitive (Seiple, Hoover and Otis, 2013, p. 129). This competitive environment makes the human try to become first and try their best to avoid being taken advantage of through aiming at getting good international relations with other countries by trying to stop domination by others. Liberalism on the other hand is in total contrast to realism and the classical liberalism theory is an ideology that is politically inclined that was based on ideas of freedom as well as equality. John Locke developed the ideology in the seventeenthcentury and the ideology believes in progress and has the conviction that there is a chance that international relations can have a way of being cooperative (Brown, Bromley &Athreye, 2004, p. 109). Neo-liberalism, Neo-realism debate The discourse associated with neo-realism, neoliberal institutionalism was the focus of IR discourse for many years, and these approaches have struggled over views of worldwide structure while trying to define the area of global politics. The two approaches are significant in coming up with the guidelines for coming up with policies as well as making enquiries that are associated with global laws(Lamy, 2005, p.207). The whole discourse is portrayed by differences, which they possesses over particular issues that include the nature and outcomes associated with anarchy, comparative against unconditional gains as well as the priorities of objectives which the states have. Neo-realism attempts to come up with a separation between internal factors associated with international political system and the external and this separation defines one realm from the other enabling the theorists to address each of them at a level that is intellectual. People who support the approach put their attention on the framework of the approach while evaluating variations, manner in which they impact their interconnected units as well as results (Waltz, 1990, p.29). In the cases where the people who support neo-realism focus on security measures, the supporters of neo-liberalists place more emphasis on environmental and economic issues where when interdependence generally refers to economic interdependence. Keohane and Nye state that this is a vital feature as far as the politics of the world is considered and that states are dominant entities in international relations even though there is an assumption that a pecking order exists in international politics and if need be, force can be utilized to achieve policies. Globalization has presented an escalation in interconnectedness and connections where the common interdependence that is seen between the states influences behavioural patterns in a positive way and necessitates changes in the way the states cooperate with each other (Keohane& Nye, 2001, p.21-31).  The Neo-liberalists are more concerned with the way states are likely to benefit overall and not how the state will be advantaged relative to other states and it is considered that the policy makers will look at the absolute gains that can be made from an agreement which include the possible long-term gains. Neo-liberalists hold the opinion that relative gains are misguided since trade and industry interdependence makes sure that neither sides has potential to exploit the relationship which is existing while exploiting the other either politically or economically. According to Mastanduno, (1991, p 76) the achievements and benefits compared to other states can have negative and unhelpful consequences as they are advantageous to protectionism as well as nationalism and focusing on division of gain could have an influence the overall gain. Conclusion Realism defines a wider array of systematic level constraints that are associated with cooperation than the way neo-liberalism does and thus it entails both absolute gains and relative gains when dealing with cooperation. The neo-liberal model makes improvements on the neo-realist model through privileging issues that are associated with time as well as trust as being factors that are critical in the determination of success of norms and socialization internationally. Under such kind of approach, close at hand is reduced likelihood of stakeholders free-riding or defecting in case they have knowledge which they would lose out ultimately. In the same thought, the role linked with ideas as well as debate arises and brings about the argument about how realism presents a small amount of big and vital things but the issues which realism addresses are actually too minute and require to be reviewed. Even though the years that the cold war was being experienced might in one way or another have supported neo-realist perception, the events that have taken place after the war and new agendas associated with economics, the building of peace as well as the environment have challenged strict real political analysis as far as international relations is concerned. Neo-realism can therefore without doubt be seen as a theoretical substitute to realism and the strength to consider international relations via the perspective that is linked with this kind of approaches is that one can be better equipped to appreciate and evaluate the processes of socializing between countries and other international entities. Bibliography Baylis, J. and Smith, S. 2001, The globalization of world politics, 1st ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Brown, C. 2001, Understanding international relations, 1st ed, Palgrave, New York. Brown, W., Bromley, S. &Athreye, S. 2004, Ordering the international, 1st ed. Pluto Press in association with the Open University, London. Freyberg-Inan, A. 2004, What moves man, 1st ed. State University of New York Press, Albany. Lamy, S, L., 2005, Contemporary Mainstream Approaches, 1st ed. Oxford University Press,Oxford. Keohane, R, O., &, Nye, J, S., 2001.Power and Interdependence. Longman, New York. Mastanduno, M., 1991, Do relative gains matter? Americas response to Japanese industrial policy. International Security, vol 16 no 1, pp.73--113. Seiple, C., Hoover, D. & Otis, P. 2013, The Routledge handbook of religion and security.1st Ed, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon. Walt, Stephen M.2002, ‘TheEnduring Relevance of the Realist Tradition’, In: Ira, W.W. Norton, NY. Katznelson and Helen V. Milner (eds) Political Science: State of the Discipline, pp. 197–230.Norton, New York. Read More