The Most Important Differences between Realism and World System View of International Relations - Essay Example

? Discuss the most important differences between realism, liberalism and world system view of international relations with respect to actor’s motive force and values. 1. Introduction The explanation of critical decisions in the context of international community is usually based on certain principles and ethics, which are likely to be differentiated in countries worldwide. The concept of international relations has been established in order to set the rules on which the relationship between states would be based. At the next level, theories, like realism and liberalism, have been involved in the interpretation of the rules of international relations. The characteristics of realism, liberalism and the world system view of international relations (IR) are reviewed in this paper especially in regard to actor’s motive force and values. At the same time, the historical development of these frameworks is presented and evaluated, at the level that it can explain their current form and role in IR. It is made clear that all three frameworks are critical for the evaluation of IR but it seems that not all of them are equally powerful in influencing key decisions related to IR. Realism and world system view of IR are based on rules, which are more aligned with the needs and the challenges of IR; on the other hand, liberalism is less involved in critical IR decisions since their core principles, which is the natural law which promotes morality, cannot support or tolerate the violation of human rights or other important values, in opposition with realism and world system view which leave space for such phenomena. 2. Realism, liberalism and world system view of international relations (IR) with respect to actor’s motive force and values – characteristics and differences 2.1 Historical development of realism and liberalism in IR In order to understand the differences between realism, liberalism and the world system of international relations (IR) it would be necessary to refer primarily to the context of these frameworks, i.e. their key principles, but also to their historical development. The theoretical basis of realism is highly related to Thucydides and his explanations on the political events developed during the Peloponnesian War (Korab-Karpowicz 2010, p.1). Emphasis should be given on History of Peloponnesian War as a text highlighting the key aspects of IR. In accordance with the above text, ‘moral principles are irrelevant to international affairs’ (Korab-Karpowicz 2010, p.1). Through the centuries, realism has been developed using different criteria. The most critical example is the involvement of ‘Machiavellan arguments’ (Ioana 2009, p.44) for explaining the role of realism in IR. Three are the key points of the above arguments: a) ‘history is created through causes and effects’ (Ioana 2009, p.44), b) theory is resulted from practice and c) politics are not relevant to ethics (Ioana 2009). The three different concepts, ‘history, reality and policy’ (Smith 1999, p.37), as developed by Machiavelli constitute the basis of realism in its current form. Towards the same direction, Niebuhr noted that realism could be explained for interpreting IR but it should be developed incorporating concepts such as ‘social ethics and social processes’ (Smith 1999, p.40). In accordance with Sutch and Elias (2007) the most appropriate explanation of liberalism would be the following one: ‘liberalism relies on claims about the impact of interdependence, the benefits of free trade, collective security and the existence of a real harmony of interests between states’ (Sutch and Elias 2007, p.65). In other words, the issues that liberalism highlights are related to the needs and the economic/ political interests of modern states. From this point of view, liberalism is likely to be changed periodically, following the change in political, economic and social trends worldwide. The basis of liberalism can be identified in the natural law theory, which was developed by John Locke (Sutch and Elias 2007, p.65). In the context of the above theory, the natural law is over all human rules and frameworks, including politics. The natural law is based on the principle of equality, as it should be applied on all societies internationally. From this point of view, liberalism reflects the power of freedom and the right of equality as available to all people, at least in terms of theory. In its current form, liberalism is highly related to the views of Immanuel Kant on IR (Chosh 2009, p.22). The alteration on the principles of liberalism and realism, as applied in IR, has led to the world system views of IR, which emphasizes on the relationship between IR and the system (Waltz 1979, in Smith 1999, p.105), a framework not clearly explained but seems are reflecting the interests of specific groups within the international community. 2.2 Realism, liberalism and world system view of international relations with respect to actor’s motive force and values – characteristics and differences Through the decades, different approaches have been developed in regard to the role of liberalism in IR. These approaches are valuable in order to understand the potential use of liberalism for explaining the actor’s motive force and values. Realism has been mostly developed after the end of the World War 2 and it is also known, at least in its current form, as conservatism. The above theory emphasizes on ‘the inevitability of conflict among nations’ (Shimko 2009, p.39). Moreover, realism, as a theoretical framework is based on the lack of moral principles on IR, as explained above. From a similar point of view, in the context of realism actors are likely to believe that the decisions of a state as a member of the international community are based on the view that competition globally should be kept at high levels mostly because of the ‘diminishing resources and individual fitness’ (Jacoby 2008, p.100). In accordance with the above, the motive force and values of actor cannot be based on moral principles or ethics if critical decisions related to IR need to be developed. Realism, in the form described above, is often opposed to liberalism, which is based on different explanations of actor’s motive force and values. In accordance with Weber (2009) the view of Fukuyama that liberalism is the ‘end of history’ cannot be considered as accurate. Indeed, in order for the above view to be credible, it would be necessary for liberalism ‘to have no credible external rivals’ (Weber 2009, p.111), a term that would be quite difficult to be met. Due to its principles, as highlighted above, liberalism is usually related to humanitarian issues, especially the individual freedoms and rights (Sutch and Elias 2007, p.65). But the most common role of liberalism is to explain why world politics, in their various aspects, should be studied (Sutch and Elias 2007). Part of the supporters of liberalism, known as ‘canonical thinkers’ (Sutch and Elias 2007, p.65) support the idea that ‘individuals are more important than estates when trying to promote morality in the context of international relations’ (Sutch and Elias 2007, p.65). In any case, liberalism refers to the promotion of morality within the international law, the global trade and the international institutions (Sutch and Elias 2007). On the other hand, Chatterjee (2010) note that liberalism is used in IR in order to promote the following ideas: a) the importance of human initiatives for the development of a state, b) the supporting role of government in the above effort, c) the promotion of democracy as a means for guaranteeing the peace within states (Chatterjee 2010). Because of the above issues, the liberalism is often characterized as utopian (Sutch and Elias 2007). The rules and principles described above should be also used when trying to explain the actor’s motive force and values in the context of IR. As for the world system view of international relations, this is based on the following assumption: the actor’s motives and values should be evaluated based on the needs and the conditions of the world – systems (Kegley 2008). In other words, in the context of the particular theory states are not considered as of critical importance for judging the motives of actors. The most common use of this theory is in labour relations. The key difference of this theory compared to the above two theories, i.e. the liberalism and the realism, is the following one: the world systems theory does not accept the dependency of the actor from motives that are related to a particular state; rather, the actor is expected to proceed to a particular initiative only because of certain interests, as aligned with the interests of the world systems (Carlsnaes et al. 2002). This theory can be characterized as particularly important today when the power of states to influence the global political and social environment has been decreased mostly because of the decrease of the state’s resources, a fact that has resulted to the limitation of their economic power. 3. Conclusion The use of theories, as those described above, for explaining IR has been related to a series of issues. International relations is a framework developed after the end of the World War one in order to support the cooperation between states, aiming probably to prevent similar conflicts in the future (Neumann and Waever 1997). In practice, this target has not been achieved. The contradictions between the theories involved in the interpretation of IR are partially responsible for the above problem, i.e. the failure of IR to respond to their role within the international community. Indeed, realism has promoted the idea of the lack of moral principles in IR while liberalism has developed a totally different thesis which is, however, not feasible since it is not possible for all states worldwide to establish democracy and respect for human rights. Moreover, the world system view of international relations tends to rely on the interests of specific groups within each society. For this reason, the motive force and values of actor cannot be effectively controlled when critical decisions need to be developed in the context of IR. Thus, the improvement of the criteria on which IR should be based would be the first step towards the increase of security and safety globally. References Carlsnaes, W., Simmons, B. (2002) Handbook of international relations. London: SAGE. Chatterjee, A. 2010. International relations today. Essex: Pearson Education India. Ghosh, P. 2009. International Relations. Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Gustafson, L. 2000. Thucydides' theory of international relations: a lasting possession. Louisiana: LSU Press. Jacoby, T. (2008) Understanding conflict and violence: theoretical and interdisciplinary approaches. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Ioana, P. 2009. Machiavelli and the Legitimization of Realism in International Relations. Iasi: Editura Lumen Kegley, C. (2008) World politics: trend and transformation. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Korab-Karpowicz, J. 2010. A History of Political Philosophy: From Thucydides to Locke. New York: Global Scholarly Publications Neumann, I., Waever, O. 1997. The future of international relations: masters in the making? London: Routledge. Shimko, K. 2009. International Relations: Perspectives and Controversies. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Smith, T. 1999. History and international relations. London: Routledge. Sutch, P., Elias, J. 2007. International relations: The Basics. London: Routledge. Weber, C. 2009. International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Read More