Compare, contrast and critically evaluate the core claims of liberalism and realism in IR. Which theory offers a more plausible account of the modern international system?
In attempting to explain and understand the way in which the international system operates, there have been multiple theories that have attempted to provide frameworks to analyze and evaluate the foundations of the international system. Of these, there is liberalism and realism, which have different views through which proper international relations can be maintained. By comparing, contrasting and critically evaluating the fundamentals of these theories will one be able to arrive at a conclusion to describe the modern global system.
Liberalism is a moral philosophy or a political ideology that focuses on equality before the law of the country as well as the importance of the consent of the citizens (Pollack and Mark 223). This involves a practice where the leaders within the country identify a way through which they may know whether the citizens support a certain idea. Citizen’s consent can be obtained through voting (Viotti 44). Liberalism within international relations revolves around three interrelated principles, which include rejection of power; it questions the security welfare, makes mutual benefits of international cooperation more visible, and implementation of international organizations to help in shaping state preferences and the choice of policies. According to Pollack and Mark liberalism school of thought emphasizes various key factors that promote peaceful coexistence of different states, which include international institutions like the United Nations, international trade, and the spread of democracy (224). International institutions provide means of resolving encounters between two conflicting countries and thus promote peace among different nations. International trade ensures that different countries are interconnected because when they are in a trade relationship they are less likely to go into war with each other. Lastly, countries that have embraced democracy are likely to be at peace with each other since the will of the people if fairly determined through voting. Realism tries to explain the reality of international politics which may contribute conflicts between countries (Viotti 50).
Realism on the other hand, assumes that a state is the principle actor in promoting international relations. Unlike liberalism, realism suggests that other bodies such as international organizations contribute less to the relationships that existing between countries (Haynes and Jeffrey 101). Therefore, the leaders and the citizens within a country choose on which relationship they would wish to get involved in with their neighbors.
Liberalism is based on the argument that each person has a right to life, own property and be at liberty (Selby and Jan 324). Liberals argue that the well being of every individual within a country or a state is the first building block to achieving a just political system. Political systems such as monarchy or dictatorship cannot protect the life and liberty of the people within the territory. The main concern of liberalism is to have countries that protect the freedom of the people by limiting political interference of the people’s normal daily life. According to Selby and Jan, liberals also argue that state activities in other countries may affect the well being of the neighboring states or other countries that may have their citizens within the boundaries of a particular state (338). For instance, most states focus on increasing their military power, which in most cases it is used in fighting foreign states and cause its citizens to suffer. In countries where there is military interference from another country, the citizen’s businesses are affected. Due to this reason, most countries deep-rooted in liberalism limit the powers of the military by ensuring that the citizens have control over the military forces.
Most wars based on territorial expansion often cause a lot of damage to the infrastructure of the countries involved and also loss of life for innocent citizens (Selby and Jan 330). The main issue of liberals is to develop a political system that can help countries protect their boundaries and strengthen their territories without interfering with the liberty of the people and also damaging their properties. Liberalism promotes free and fair elections through which citizens can remove their leaders from power (Baylis et al. 67). Therefore, when the leaders activities such as engaging in war among themselves which causes division among the citizens or if they engage in unnecessary war with the neighbouring countries, the citizens should have a right to vote them out and choose other leaders who have demonstrated the capacity to improve their livelihood and protect their liberty and peace. Also, based on liberalism arguments, the division of power within the country, such as legal system, parliament, and executive would allow check and balances in the utilization of power within that particular country and control how they relate with the neighbouring countries by ensuring proper strategies of maintaining a healthy relationship.
Democracy is strongly advocated for by the liberals since they argue that countries practicing democracy in the selection of their leaders are less likely to go into conflict (Selby and Jan 331). First, democratic states the leaders have restricted powers whereby the citizens control most of their actions. Any decision made by the leaders in a democratic state, the citizens has to approve (Acharya and Amitav 650). Second, democratic countries see each other as unthreatening and therefore are highly likely to cooperate with each in performing activities that would promote peace coexistence compared to how they can do it with the non-democrats. However, while non-democrats are less likely to go into war with each other, they may likely be more aggressive towards the non-democrats, which may interfere with the peace between them.
Liberalism assumes that the existence of international organization such as United Nations helps in promoting peace and coexistence among countries with different political and religious values (Tickner 112). When two countries get into a conflict, the United Nations agencies are always involved in trying to resolve the conflicts as well as assist the affected people in coping with the situation. For instance, when war erupts between two countries, the citizens are likely to suffer most since the businesses get destroyed, and there is always increased death rate due to the war. United Nations agencies get involved in providing both material and moral support for the affected people. The organization also tries to arbitrate conflicting countries. Therefore, based on the liberalism school of thought, international organizations play an essential role in promoting proper international relations.
Unlike liberalism, realism claims that a state is an important factor in international relations (Ayoob and Mohammed 30). However, other bodies, which include organizations and individuals, also influence international relations, but their impact is limited. The president represents the nation in different forums and in making various important international decisions. Therefore, under realism, the president who represents the country in the international forums has more powers than any other individual and also can unite the people they rule. The president has to unite the citizens in times of crisis and ensure that they speak in one voice craft (Donnelly and Jack 198). Unity within a country promotes peace especially during time of crisis involving other nations. Most of the invading nations try to cause disunity within a country to ensure continued conflict as they amass natural resources and other valuable from the country. The heads of state should ensure that they make decisions that would protect their citizens in times of crisis with their neighbouring countries. However, making decisions that would affect the country negatively would be irrational. Therefore, realism suggests that national leaders should ensure that they make decisions that would ensure that the country survives in a competitive environment. Realism maintains that since countries have military forces trained to handle international relations crisis, in times of conflict the nation’s do not have to rely on international organizations, but they can use their forces to bring law and order.
Contrary to liberalism, realism claims that humans are egoistic and desire to be powerful. Based on realists’ school of thought, human beings have appetite for power and greed that leads to unpredictable international relations outcomes (Ahmed et al. 50). For instance, most leaders fight to have certain political positions. In the process of fighting for this position they may involve citizens who support them who may clash with those supporting the opponent. According to Ahmed et al., clashing of citizens due to different political ideologies has caused war in some countries, which has extended beyond its borders (71). Extension of war to the neighbouring countries due to difference in political ideologies greatly impacts on international relations such as trade and peaceful coexistence of different nations. A war between countries has been recorded to be caused by human greed for power. For instance, racial supremacy has contributed greatly to increase wars in the world, whereby some races want to be viewed to be more superior and able to use sophisticated weapons that the other. Realists suggest that a leader intends to ensure national security, and therefore they have to prepare for any aggression, both external and internal. Therefore, leaders play a significant role in ensuring that there is peaceful coexistence among nations.
Realists claim that the world politics image is held by professionals of the craft (Donnelly and Jack 200). Therefore, realism is commonly utilized in the world of policy making especially in writing a manual to guide the leaders. Realism can help perpetuate the confrontational and violent world described by the realists. Perpetuation can be done by assuming the egoistic and uncooperative nature of man based on force, power and suspicion. National leaders are faced by different peace threatening situations and few opportunities for cooperation (Ayoob and Mohammed 32), and therefore they may find it difficult to salvage conflicts which erupt between their country and the neighbours over various issues such as resources and also they are unable to do anything to escape the reality of politics.
While looking at the current state of affairs that seem to dominate the news in an unprecedented way, the realism theory explains the current account of the modern international system. The theory maintains that most nations are only interested in their issues and care less about what happens to their neighbours (Williams and Michael101). Most states care about themselves first and may go to the extent of hurting the economy of another country to enrich themselves which we can see with the current trade war erupting between the two super powers the USA and China. Most of the state leaders are driven by greed for power, and egocentrism which greatly contributes to poor international relations. Currently what matters is how much strong is the military power of a country as most of the leaders focus on getting wealth from their neighbouring countries, which have greatly caused instability in most of the countries rich in natural resources ( Haynes et al. 222). Most countries have developed insecurities, and they are always in fear of attacks, which has destabilized development and damaged the existing business leading to increased poverty. Also, even countries which do not have greedy leaders, they have to behave the same since that is the trend in international relations. According to realism theory, war is inevitable in some circumstances, and therefore countries need seek peace and prepare for war. Currently, before peaceful coexistence between countries, there must be war and the involvement of international organizations. The involvement of the international organisation in war torn areas increases the spending rate, which may lead to the depletion of resources, which may have been used in improving the livelihood of the people rather than dealing with the effects of warcraft (Donnelly and Jack 168). Therefore, realism theory describes the current account of the international systems whereby now countries only care about themselves and not their neighbours.
International relations theories have different views on how different nations can peacefully coexist. The liberalism theory claims that each individual has a right to live and therefore the national leaders should play every role to ensure that the right to life of the citizens is protected at all times. Also, liberalism suggests that international organizations such United Nations play an essential role in ensuring that countries coexist peacefully. When there is war between two countries, most international organizations play a role in arbitrating the two fighting nations and also provide support for the affected people. Realism claims that the nation is the most important actor in international relations. A country may choose to participate in international foras or not. Therefore, the realism theory explains the current state of modern international systems as it states that nations are only interest with themselves.
Bibliography
Acharya, Amitav. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional WorldsA New Agenda for International Studies.” International studies quarterly 58.4 (2014): 647-659.
Ahmed, Shamima, and David M. Potter. NGOs in international politics. Vol. 48. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, 2006.
Ayoob, Mohammed. “Inequality and theorizing in international relations: The case for subaltern realism.” International Studies Review 4.3 (2002): 27-48.
Baylis, John, Patricia Owens, and Steve Smith, eds. The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press, 2017.
Donnelly, Jack. Realism and international relations. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Haynes, Jeffrey, et al. World politics: International relations and globalisation in the 21st century. Routledge, 2013.
Haynes, Jeffrey. An introduction to international relations and religion. Routledge, 2014.
Pollack, Mark A. “International relations theory and European integration.” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 39.2 (2001): 221-244.
Selby, Jan. “Engaging Foucault: Discourse, liberal governance and the limits of Foucauldian IR.” International Relations 21.3 (2007): 324-345.
Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Wæver, eds. International relations scholarship around the world. Routledge, 2009.
Viotti, Paul R., and Mark V. Kauppi. International relations theory. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2019.
Williams, Michael C. The realist tradition and the limits of international relations. Vol. 100. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
