Among the main faults ascribed to realism are its disability to predict and account for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the pervasive peace between liberal nations McMurtrie : Towards Just International Relations Theory, Honors Thesis, Thus, we now have the opposite of realism itself, the liberal school of thought.
Liberalism, in stark contrast to realism, believes in the measurement of power through state economies, the possibility of peace and cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms, rights and the like. That having been established as core assumptions of liberal international theory, can it be supposed, that since there are observable limits to human nature and altruistic action, as in the realist school of thought, liberalism is therefore overly idealistic in its belief in human capacity and the eventual obsolescence of war as the measure of state power in the international system?
As I believe, liberalism offers the possibility of peace even as states amass power, on the basis that power has now taken a less destructive form, from guns to bank notes and exports. In my opinion, there need not be an overarching stress on the frailties of humanity even if world peace seems too lofty of an ideal. This shift creates the need for greater linkage therefore, the new emphasis on globalization as well as increased cooperation. For this reason, states still amass power even under the liberal system, the main difference being the fact that power is now better accrued if more cooperation is realized within the framework of international politics.
As it stands, in my opinion, liberalism operates under real-world conditions, reflecting state interest and aggrandizement, if only that such advancement results in peace instead of the expected dose of conflict.
Still, the debate continues as to which school remains the most relevant and timely, with regards to the interpretation of the international system. In Robert I. Rotberg and Theodore K. Martin, L. International Organization, 52 4 , pp. McMillan, S. Mershon International Studies Review, 41 1 , pp. Mearsheimer, J. J Imperial by Design. The National Interest , No. International Security , 19 3 , pp. New York: W. Morgenthau, H. Politics Among Nations. Nye, J. Foreign Policy, 80, pp. Nye, S.
Cambridge: Perseus Books Group. Sagan, S. Journal of International Affairs, 60 2 , pp. Waltz, K. Webb, C. S Hegemonic stability theory: an empirical assessment. Review of international studies, 15, pp. White, Ralph. Political Psychology , 11 2 , pp. Williams, A. New York: Routledge. Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated.
Many thanks! Consider that public protest in the U. Although it can. Together, these three are sometimes called the Kantian triangle, after the German philosopher Immanuel Kant — , who outlined them in a essay, Perpetual Peace.
The liberal argument that states can learn to get along is somewhat supported by the work of Robert AxelrodRobert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books, In this game, you have two players, both prisoners. Each player has two choices: Defect to the authorities and rat out the other player in exchange for a reduced sentence, or cooperate with the other player and go free.
If the players each defect they get 1 point apiece; if they cooperate they get 3 points apiece. If, however, one player cooperates and the other defects, the defector gets 5 points and the cooperator gets zero. Given that set of constraints, in a realist world, both players defect and score only 1 point each. The best result would be for both to cooperate, go free, and generate the most points between them. In the Axelrod experiment, the game was iterated or repeated, so that in a round-robin featuring dozens of players, each player played the other player multiple times.
The players were all notable game theorists, and each devised a particular strategy in an attempt to win the game. Tit-for-tat simply began by cooperating, and then did whatever the other player did last time in the next round.
In a repeated game, which certainly describes relations between states, players eventually learned to cooperate. Axelrod cites real world examples of where this kind of behavior occurred, such as the German and Allied soldiers in the trenches of World War I, who basically agreed at various times not to shoot each other, or to shell incoming shipments of food.
As the soldiers came to understand that they would be facing each other for some time, refraining from killing each other meant that they all got to live. Constructivism is another and also interesting way of looking at international relations. It may tell us more about why things are happening the way they do, but somewhat less about what we should do about it. Constructivism argues that culture, social structures and human institutional frameworks matter.
Constructivism relies in part on the theory of the social construction of reality, which says that whatever reality is perceived to be, for the most part people have invented it. Of course, if the theory were entirely true, then the very idea of the social construction of reality would also be socially constructed, and therefore potentially untrue. To the extent that reality is socially constructed, people can make choices. Hence the constructivist argument is, in part, that while the world system is indeed a form of anarchy, that does not demand a realist response to foreign policy.
People can choose to otherwise. So constructivists might argue that the end of the Cold War between the U. He attempted then to ratchet down tensions with the U. Bova, , p. Although constructivism can be a bit mushy, some clear versions of it are quite interesting and useful in helping to understand why states behave the way they do.
Conservatives are in favor of a free-market system while liberals are in favor of a market system with government regulation. Despite their disagreements, conservatives and liberals seem to both agree on prison reform and the majority of foreign relations; although their ideologies may differ on how to approach these problems they both agree that these problems need to be confronted.
The current work is meant to explain the differences and similarities between the most dominant theories in international relations, Realism and Liberalism, both theories have some similarities and differences but much more important and interesting is to discuss and explain what differs and makes similar both theories.
Conflicts and wars, Similarities and differences between Realism and Liberalism: Both Liberalism and Realism believes that there is no world government that can prevent countries to go to war on one another.
For both theories military power is important and both Realism and Liberalism can understand that countries can use military power to get what they need or want. Also, both theories are conscious that without military …show more content… Also, Realism ideas believe that state would act according to their own ideas and needs when Liberalism believes that state would act according to citizens ideas and needs. Liberalism just believes that international organizations like United Nations, give states the ways in which to cooperate with each other and to gain one another's trust.
Also Realists argue that all states have same interests and all countries are interested in increasing …show more content… Liberalism also shares the idea with realism to use military power to get what they want or need, also military power can be used if other country threatening or bully on the own liberal state.
But theoretically liberalism is the theory of peace and development and believes in measuring power through economy, liberal ideas such as freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, gender equality, international cooperation, freedom of speech and press, when with the other hand realism believes in ideas such as conflicts, aggression, militaristic expansions and also they believe that state would act according to their own ideas and needs when liberals believe that state would act according to their populations needs and ideas.
But both theories share the idea that without military power state can be destroyed or insulted by another country. I consider myself as a liberal and mostly liberalism is theory which makes me thinking about things that can be changed in aggressive world by liberalism such as equal rights regardless of sexual orientation or to have every woman the same rights as men, through liberalism I also believe in freedom and equal living wage.
I have sympathies to liberalism because believe in government actions to achieve equal opportunity and. Show More.
0コメント