Realism vs Liberalism
What would you do?
To be able to define the competing international relations theories of realism and liberalism.
Realism is the foremost theory of international politics.
We can split realism into two categories: Classical realism and neo-realism. However although they are different in their view of why international relations are like they are, they often come to the same conclusion as to how states should act within the international system.
Classical realism Selfinterested, competitive, and power-hungry behaviour is seen as rooted deeply in the human condition. In short, classical realism sees competition and conflict as inevitable, with the roots of conflict in the nature of human beings. Human beings compete for scarce resources they value and desire power over their fellow people. Given these expectations about human behaviour, the state must mirror these values in order to protect its own citizens. Neorealism Neorealism (also sometimes called structural realism), sees interstate conflict as rooted not in human nature, but in a specific characteristic of the interstate environment: the absence of legally binding rules. Neorealists argue that the absence of a neutral authority that can enforce rules and agreements creates an insecure, self- help situation in which all policy makers are pressured to act competitively, regardless of their individual natures or personal preferences.
Either way: The international system is in a constant state of antagonism. There is no actor above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity. States have sovreignty over their own borders. In pursuit of national security, states strive to attain as many resources as possible. States are unitary actors each moving towards their own national interest. There is a general distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance. The overriding national interest of each state is its national security and survival. Relations between states are determined by their levels of power derived primarily from their military and economic capabilities. Therefore peace will tend to be upheld through a balance of power rather than agreements. The interjection of morality and values into international relations causes reckless commitments, diplomatic rigidity, and the escalation of conflict.
Would a realist invade Afghanistan? Would a realist pressure China on its human rights record? Would a realist build nuclear weapons? Would a realist invade Iraq? Would a realist intervene in a genocide such as Rwanda?
Agree or not agree?
Liberalism Liberalism is a key form of idealism. Idealism is a belief that international politics should be based on morality.
Liberals are optimists Unlike realists, liberals are optimists about the human condition and the possibilities for cooperation. 1.People can benefit from co-operation. 2.States will co-operate if the environment is conducive. 3.Conflict is caused by mis-perceptions.
Liberals Emphasis on Democracy and Peace Another strand in liberal thinking sees democratic states as more reluctant to go to war than non-democracies. Political leaders in democracies cannot get popular support for war or fear the consequences for their hold on office if they choose war.
Liberals emphasis on international institutions Based on the concept of co-operating states. Woodrow Wilson and his Liberal idealism..
Liberals believe in free trade Free trade between countries will mean that conflict is not beneficial for either state.
Would a liberal invade Afghanistan? Would a liberal pressure China on its human rights record? Would a liberal build nuclear weapons? Would a liberal invade Iraq? How would a liberal respond to an Iranian nuclear programme?
So where does neo-conservatism fit? How would you characterise Bush’s international ideology?
Obama’s international relations ideology Read through, highlight and annotate the article.
Now redundant Idealism (linked to liberalism) In the American study of international relations, idealism usually refers to the school of thought personified in Merican diplomatic history by Woodrow Wilson, such that it is sometimes referred to as Wilsonianism, or Wilsonian Idealism. Idealism holds that a state should make its internal political philosophy the goal of its foreign policy. For example, an idealist might believe that ending poverty at home should be coupled with tackling poverty abroad. Wilson's idealism was a precursor to liberal international relations theory, which would arise amongst the "institution-builders" after World War II.. However. Idealism transcends the left-right political spectrum. Idealists can include both human rights campaigners (traditionally, but not always, associated with the left) and American neoconservatism which is usually associated with the right.
Key themes of liberalism – liberalism as key form of idealism (belief that international politics should be based on morality); optimism about human nature (reason and progress); tendency towards balance or harmony in human (and international) affairs; bias in favour of cooperation (complex interdependence; growth of international organisation and global governance) etc. Liberal theories of war and peace – political causes of war (multinational empires (Woodrow Wilson); authoritarian government; economic causes of war (economic nationalism; autarky); diplomatic causes of war (balance-of-power systems); how peace is upheld (free trade and commercial liberalism), national self-determination, democracy ('democratic peace' thesis, republican liberalism), international rule of law (institutional liberalism).