Realism Vs. Liberalism in terms and regards of International Relations - Essay Example

Realism Vs. Liberalism in Terms and Regards of International Relations Introduction: Theories are established or evolved as a way of explaining a complex and often opaque subject in a clear and useful way - when they resonate they become tools to explain and explore subjects. In these statements a look will be to set a position between the theories of realism and liberalism to examine whether liberalism provides a viable alternative to realism when looking to understand international relations. An argue will be on that both realism and liberalism are useful theories when considering IR, they have two contradictory points. Bayliss and Smith describe these two theories as Realism being the natural party of government and Liberalism (as) the leader of the opposition. This analogy rather underplays the significance, application and effectiveness of liberalism in our globalised world [Bur05]. International Relations and Theories: Before exploring the various theories to explain international relations, we should first consider what is meant by the term International relations can be used to describe the academic pursuit to gain an understanding of how nations interact with each other. In the globalised and multi- stakeholder world that now subsists, that a center of concentration entirely on the states implicated will not be able to fully explain the actions and reactions on the international stage. In this essay it is described about international relations as the interactions of all stakeholders involved in setting nationally interested policies and the related diplomacy required to execute said policies (Pante & Risne, 2007). This wide view of international relations will test both realism and liberalism since both theories were established to explain the actions and reactions of the individual citizen, but have subsequently been grafted on to the study of state systems. Therefore, both theories look to extrapolate the individual to the structure vision. This also proposes that both theories gaze to the state as the principle actors (Morgenthau, 1946). Of course, it also constitutes what it means in terms of the usefulness of a theory. It is our primary objective of being able to predict the turn of events in international relations prior to happening. This would demonstrate that the theory is valuable in order to evaluate the current circumstances and therefore extrapolate to the future direction of a state and the actors. The secondary objective is to provide a clear narrative or express a logic following a set of events. These objectives as theory is often accused of being able to explain history very well (meeting secondary objective) but inadequate when looking to predict the future (primary objective) (Duune, 2005). Realism: for IRs Realism encompasses a diversity of approaches and argues a long theoretical tradition. Among its founding fathers, Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes are the names most usually mentioned. Twentieth-century classical realism has today been largely replaced by neorealist. It is easy to argue that realism has been the predominant theory in the previous decades; this is most prevalent in the language and naming principles of the epochs throughout time which are always pre- or post- a named disagreement. This is at first glimpse not noteworthy, but if you consider the naming principles in other areas of academia they represent a type of thought or in art the mode of canvas. This is a significant dissimilarity, as the identification rule frequently sets the verbal communication that will be used to illustrate events, and when every epoch is depicted in the perspective of a conflict then it is natural to consider that conflict as the key differentiator [Coo04]. It is also true to say that realism has a natural home in international relations, which has always traditionally focused on the conflicts and tensions between nations, with realism depicting a world characterized by security competition and war. This could be in part due to the large-scale conflicts that have shaped and re-shaped the world in the last century, with realism providing a useful theory to assist in understanding the conflict-led means of ordering the world. The most recent of which was the Cold War which proved realism on the global scale as the bi-polar world between the US and USSR seemingly edged closer to conflict through continuous competition - suggesting an anarchic world competing for survival and dominance (Duune, 2005). There are three main types of realism which have been developed as the theory is continually challenged by genuine proceedings. Conventional Realism concentrates on the instinctive desire for humans to dominate one-another and extrapolates this view to states. Neo realism recommends that all states are looking for survival within an international organism, but as that structure is revolutionary in nature each state must endure on its own. Burch ill depicts this as condition being Thwarted by the absence of an overarching authority which regulates their behavior towards each other. The latest addition to Realism is the Offence-Defense Theory, which suggests that war was more likely when states could conquer each other effortlessly. When resistance was easier than offence, nevertheless, security could blossom. This line of thought may seen fairly coherent, that a state will only fit into place another state where it believes it has the aptitude to triumph. However, it could be used to put in plain words why the number of state-on-state actions has decreased without discounting the whole realist way of thinking. It also rather simplistically places nations alongside each other as like-units engaging in instrumentally rational decision making. It is both the simplicity of understanding nations as like-units as well as the notion of states acting perfectly rationally which if often cited as a reason against realism (Nye, 2002). Realism is certainly an easier theory to describe, and endows with an easy gauge for the informal observer of IRs. Realism is also quantifiable in expressions of the successful conflicts and the military machinery which is a physical show of strength even during times of peace. However, realism tends to focus on a state dominance and military might as the sole objective of a state, with realists like Mearsheimer admitting that states often look to pursue non-security goals as well. With all forms of realism we must also face the implicit implication that...such a strong state- centric ontology gives rise to deterministic tautology (states seek power because they seek power). This argument therefore renders the realist viewpoint circular in nature, and therefore less useful in terms of understanding the reasons behind behaviors. This focus on power and conflict may also mean that we fail to notice other changes in the international relations environment, especially in terms of how different nations solve problems and disagreements, with the focus shifting towards cooperation[Pan07]. At first sight this is a persuasive argument, particularly in view of that liberalism has no similar way to demonstrate it success as a theory as the number of conflicts avoided through diplomacy and international organizations is not verified or clear. This discussion is hypocritical, since one theory has an obvious manifestation of when it is correct (i.e. occurrence of conflict) where liberalism has no such apparent calculation. This is also conversed afterward where Liberalism is often popular following a conflict to develop a solution. Although Nye recognizes the importance of realism and the use of force he suggests that as a theory it represents a first cut at portraying some aspects of international relations security is not the only major outcome that [nations] search for, and power is not for all time the superlative instrument available to achieve those outcomes[Smi00]. Liberalism: for IR when it is more than conflict One could explain liberalism as having a focus on peaceful-coexistence, where it looks to explain how nations can exists side-by-side within a stable and ordered international system - it looks to self-control, temperance, cooperation and tranquility. This is not necessarily the opposite of realist thinking where the world is in constant tension and conflict, but liberalists see institutions and mechanisms other than conflict as a solution. Liberalism espouses an international system constituted of institutions which combine multiple states, where realism only sees anarchy in and conflict inevitable between states[Nye02]. Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith,John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. Liberalists see a direct extension between domestic and international, with each of the Pillars above being extrapolated from state to international organization. It is notices as an inside-out theory from this respect as it looks at how best to translate domestic policy in to the international relationships. This is an important distinction when considering whether Liberalism is a viable theory to understand IRs, particularly since it also deems how superlative to ensure the legitimacy of policy through international organizations and mechanisms. As with Realism there are a number of schools of thought; but each one reflects the main principle that the crucial variables in explaining the behavior of states at the international level relate to the domestic level [Bur05]. The first school argues that Economic Interdependence - the inter-twining of states economies - will discourage conflict as this would result in damage to both. This element of theory has two different explanations for why this is so; the first suggests that economic prosperity leads to a satisfaction of the state and therefore less enthusiasm or motivation for risking the level of prosperity. The other theory is more simplistic in logical terms; explaining that starting a conflict in an economically interdependent system would be the equivalent of biting the hand that feeds you3 since you would be destroying (in some way) a combination of the supply and the demand of the economies involved. This does not mean that democracies are any more peaceful but democracies rarely go to war against each other. This theory largely rests on the existence of either good democratic states, or bad (sometimes referred to as evil) states which are autocratic. Good states rarely start conflicts with each other, but do enter in to conflict with the bad states. Iraq in 2003 US-led alliance sought to depose the dictator, Saddam Hussein and instigate a democracy. This is of course only one of the reasons for the invasion, but represents a recent example[Bur05]. These theories reverse the traditional realist theory that all countries are threatened and in constant competition with each other. Instead it suggests that his success of some was not intimidating to others. It was their stoppage that was creating fear. In an increasingly dependent world, each country relies on the success and stability of others. Finally the theory of International Institutions focuses on the pacifying nature of the institutions which have been set up in the preceding decades. The realist view described above suggests that the international realm is one of anarchy where each state acts alone with no higher- level institution ruling over the states. Once the states have agreed to joining an international institution (for example the UN, NATO or the EU4) an agreement and coalition or alliance is required to wage war. This makes the decision more difficult as you are relying on multiple actors wishing to embark on the same course of action and this multiplying effect make argument less likely. However, as mentioned above, you cannot deny the existence of state-on-state conflict in the twentieth Century. Liberalism has indeed had intermittent popularity throughout the last century, stemming largely from the conflicts which have marked out the twentieth Century. [Cal] Most particularly the confidence on Liberalist thinking at the end of major conflicts - this includes the League of Nations foundation following the First World War and the establishment of United Nations at the end of the Second World War1 . Following the Cold War in the 1990s state leaders began to proclaim a New World Order of international institutions and liberal ideas. That argument can be counted by suggesting that the configuration of the system is the unintended consequence of great power-security competition since it was organized to maintain the status-quo of the victors interests (Smith, 2000). However, the number of non-security subjects - including Human Rights and ethical considerations that are now being discussed amongst nations may suggest an underlining will be all nations to exist in a structure of order, rather than anarchy. If this inclination becomes permanent it will once again show the strength of coexistence over the Realist view of conflict as a natural course of events. It is this myriad of international organizations - from state competence, law and standards - that have allowed the level of globalization that we can now witness. Without the liberalist view that the anarchy can be solved through institutions, globalization would not have been promising. This is particularly true in business, where international law and standards (such as electrical current and various industrial measurements) have enabled companies to trade with multiple nations, depending on immovability [Smi00]. Setting the two theories against each other shows two polar-opposite ways of thinking about international relations. One could argue that liberalism represents a more progressive and optimistic future, as mentioned above it could be said that globalization has been pursuing liberalist goals throughout the last centuries, when you consider the early companies formed for global trade. Fukuyama view was that human progress could be measured in the reduction and eventual elimination of global conflicts through the evolution of legitimate principles in domestic policy. Without liberalist thinking, we would not have the United Nations, International Monetary Fund or any of the gradually increasing number of international organizations and the first attempt at creating an international authority in the League of Nations. All these efforts are attempting to prove true Kant statement that peace can be perpetual (Smith, 2000). Realists often criticize liberalists for holding these statements as a Utopian view of politics. This statement suggests that if liberalist views were unequivocally followed and defenses were lowered then the likelihood of conflict would in fact increase as states would seek the opportunity outlined in the Offence-Defense theory. This popularity could also be driven by financial considerations; with many states, particularly large ones, find it more costly to use military force to achieve their goals than was true in earlier times and are therefore looking to reduce the likelihood of conflict through diplomacy and treaties - both which could be termed as forms of liberalism. This view of an ever increasing number of international institutions and mechanisms that we also see a fall in the number of state-on-state conflicts which would suggest either conflict has been temporarily suspended or perhaps new non-aggressive methods of conflict - such as trade negotiations - have replaced the previous weapons (Cooper, 2004). If you believe in the well known Clause witzian phrase that conflict is the expression of politics by other means then you can arrive at the view that for liberalism to be successful you require the force prescribed under realism slam behind. This is a particularly interesting point when you consider the link to globalization and the economic reliance of states on each other; a liberalist view. If - as mentioned above - the real threat to states is the failure of other states (rather than competition through success) then it could be one explanation for the growth of liberal interventionism where states look to intervene to aide stability, maintaining the economic interdependence. It could be argued that this use of realism to protect liberalism represents a new type of hybrid theory. With this in mind, Realism and Liberalism should be placed on a paradigm which provides a useful frame for the theories to be considered within and also represents the balance that is necessary between the two theories to maintain the stability sought. If the paradigm becomes unbalanced then states will either wage wars as a way to solve problems or states will look to take advantage of others who seek a purely liberalist path and reduce their defenses accordingly. Both theories considered to control, but neither adequately explores the subject and therefore one could argue that neither is able to explain international relations (Cooper, 2004). Soft, Hard and Smart Power Joseph Nye began to develop an alternative theory to explain power in 1990, with the introduction of soft power expanded in his book on the subject in 2004. The work was widely accepted, with the terms entering political and diplomatic circles as a clearer way of expressing national approaches to international relationships (Burchill, 2005). This theory became popular as it enabled the expression of the softer side of diplomacy while not removing the military power that may be necessary. This allowed diplomats, those involved in international institutions and military leaders to explain and understand their role in maintaining stability - or using force - with a new clarity and language. Joseph Nye view of Power adds to the debate between liberalism and realism rather than swapping either, and in fact could validate the knotted nature of the two grand theories. As mentioned above, Liberalism and realism should be considered together as a unbreakable pattern of ideas. It is no longer a pendulum of choice but rather an intertwined response, with Nye theory able to give a clearer view with detailed criteria of which type of power is in play by linking it directly to leadership (Burchill, 2005). Smart Power was developed by Nye to further explore the mix between Hard and Soft power, suggesting that the exclusive use of either will not lead to the required result, in terms of both the legitimacy of Soft and the end-result of using Hard Power. In a 2008 interview, Nye clearly explained how Smart Power could be used in the fight against Terrorism. Nye suggests that soft power could be used to persuade (through aide or threats) the Taliban to reveal the sites used by Al Qaeda, followed by hard power (traditionally kinetic) to destroy the sites [Duu05]. Conclusion Many argue that the theories that we have at our disposal to understand international relations are simply not up to confront. Smith rather seriously declares that if we want answers to the question why is it that major powers and the major international governmental and non- governmental institutions are insisting on the promotion of democracy. Coarse dispelling of the theories available; however When you combine the theories of Liberalism, Realism and Nye Power you can begin to build a level of analysis which is useful when looking at international relations. It is true to say that there will often be surprises in store where no theory is able to fully predict events - for example the collapse of the Soviet Union and surprise of the Arab Spring - but the combination of theories remains useful and can be used as a framework to understand the positions and approach of nations or more over their leaders. Measuring against the objectives set above; Liberalism clearly enables events in international relations to be understood once they have occurs. It engages states which are members of international institutions and where resolutions or agreements are necessary for action. Or where a state leader - President or Prime Minister - has the ambition of joining international institutions - for trade or political reasons - or has shown evidence of respect for those organizations in the history. This kind of confirmation - stated ambitions or past experience- gives an indication of the behavior in future events. References Burchill, S. (2005). Liberalism in Burchill . Theories of International Relations , 56-58. Cooper, R. (2004). The Breaking of Nations, Order and chaos in The Twenty First Century. London:Atlantic , 23. Duune, T. (2005). Liberalism in Globalization of World Politics . Oxford OUP , 186. Nye, J. (2002). The Future of Power . New Yorl:Public Affairs , 19-27. P, C. (n.d.). world Politics 1945-2000. Longman 2001 , 151. Pante D and Risne, T. a. (2007). Liberalism in Dunne. International Relations Theory , 23. Smith, H. (2000). Democracy and International Relations. Macmillan Press , 9-24. Morgenthau, Hans. (1946) "Scientific Man versus Power Politics" Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press Read More