Realism and Liberalism Essay

Introduction pragmatism and Liberalism atomic number 18 the two roughly prevalent ideologies in practicing and analyzing Inter terra firmaal Relations in the last two centuries. They be playacting weighty roles in the alleges. They leave behind straight affect the decision making of the semipolitical sympathiess and become effects to the repose relations among countries. Realist in the main put a focus on show, baron and national warrantor. It was especially quite dominant in the first phase of the coolness con lead. On the other(a)wise hand, Liberalism pays solicitude to peoples thawdom and rights. It blush up after the World War II too the end of unwarmed War. From my drumhead of ascertain, to a large bound realness and Liberalism be distinct from for each unrivaled other. They ar quite diametric in possibility. The differences amid Realism and Liberalism discoverweigh the similarities. In this essay, I would elaborate these two ideologies in different aspects to talk almostwhat.Similarities among Realism and LiberalismAnarchy spiritFirstly, for the similarities, both Realists and Liberals opine in anarchy spirit of outside(a) system that it is leaderless in the world system. Themajor(ip) theories of foreign relations emb bunk the eyeshot that the international system is anarchic (Adem 2002 19). two admit that at that place is no reign, rules or systems in the international system. However, these two ideologies got real different perceptions towarfareds what they hope the states should do downstairs this anarchic situation. The differences will be furnish below.Differences mingled with Realism and LiberalismThe catchs towards gentleman natureFor the differences, the first is that the Realists and the Liberals hold different beliefs towards kind-heartede nature. Realists in the main are pessimistic and conservative. It is prerequisite non to pay off faith in human nature. Such faith is a recent he resy and a very(prenominal) disastrous one (Butterfield 149 47). Realists believe in evil human nature. People are born with hatred and envy,had original sin, war occurred constantly. They specify that natural passion of human kind will bring out struggles among countries, conflict is inevitable (Niebuhr 1932 xv). This can be manifest in the armament race in World War I. each country tried to maximize their amounts of weapons and hyperbolize their armed forces at that time.Especially Britain and Germany, their family relationship was worsened as there was a dreadnought building competition between them. Conflict is then occurred, paved the musical mode to the World War I. isolated from this, during 1860s, the get together soils forced Japan to open its securities industry at the threat of attack, which was beneficial for the States only (Sr And Teresa 201316). Hence, they also savvy human are self- affaireed, interest is the most important thing of the state. Political ac tion of the government is judged based on national interest (Morgenthau 1978 4-15). Realists think that national interest is the most important thing of the state.On the contrary, Liberals mainly are optimistic and progressive. They interpret morality exists in human nature. People are born to be kind, caring and helpful, spontaneous to build trust with others. Apart from this, Liberals tense up interdependence, believing cooperation can be compound in countries in determine to edit out conflicts. Many intergovernmental organizations and institutions are formed in the late 19th century. They are make up of member states.For instance, European heart and soul and World championship Organization, they enhance political and economic cooperation among countries. Institutions enhance the economic cooperation and bring down the transactions cost among states (Keohane 1998 82-94). Apart from this, the geological formation of join Nation was also a symbolic intergovernmental organ ization of Liberalism, providing a more understanding of human rights and reinforcing the protection of it. Therefore, witnessing the semblance above, the differences are clearly shown that the Realists and Liberals hold opposite views towards human nature.The different perspectives on stateThe second difference is the carri get along with Realists and Liberals perceive state in opposite angles. State is the most important actor in Realism. They hold a view that sovereignty of the state indicates the independence of thepolitical community. Realists Non-state actors such as international organizations are of example only for matters that do not anxiety immediate security interests (Harrison 2006 21). Realists will entirely ignore the other actors if the interest of the state is intervened. The most obvious of a nations desire is developing array and technology. The nuclear arm race between the fall in States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War is a significant example. nuclear bomb was invented at that time which brought a enormous threat towards world placidity. Realists also recommend realpolitik, securing their own countrys interest before care about others welfare (Rourke 2007 21). This shows realists are totally state-centered and tend to pursue self-interest.On the other hand, Liberals is not statism as Realists do. Liberals maintain dandy regime between people and state. Liberalism stresses the importance of identicalness and liberation of human (Sr & Teresa 2013 18). Liberals favor set like political and civil liberties, toleration and justice. Hence, Liberals emphasize more on non-state actors, for instance, international corporations like the worldwide Media and non-governmental organizations like the flushed Cross and the Green Peace. As the Liberals advocate international cooperation, they pay attention to other countries rights and interest. The external Monetary Fund promotes free trade and enhances the welfare among stat es. It is also responsible for(p) in reducing poverty by subsidizing to members who progress to difficulties in economy. In short, from the exemplar above, it is manifest that Realism is state-centered while Liberalism focuses both state and other non-state factors.The Ways to view relaxationThirdly, the ways to hold peace between Realism and Liberalism varies. Realists think the trounce way to seek peace is to have proportion of power. During the cold war, the two passing powers, the United States and the Soviet Union were in bipolar system which was more peaceful. It was because of the command of the two super powers, causing restrictions for the shaver powers to become strong, conflicts were then reduced. The realists view power is a very crucial element. The shell way to maintain peace is to bepowerful (Rourke 2007 22). Becoming powerful, the national security can be enhanced, and therefore this will reduce the chance from attack. China immediately is becoming powerf ul in every aspect after the Reform and Opening-up form _or_ system of government in 1978. She tries to strengthen herself with both steadfastly and soft power in coiffure to avoid the invasion of other countries. She regular(a) became one of the members in the World Trade Organization in 2001. Besides, Realists believe every state is responsible to their own survival. However, some critics even argue that realists will rarely define peace.They would like to define peace as the absence of organized force (Mapel 1996 57). From the Liberals point of view, there are more ways to view peace. Liberals are selflessness which they emphasis on cooperation. In tack together to maintain world peace, many international organizations are constructed to work on it. For instance, the United Nations would like to put a plosive consonant on the violation of human rights of the states. Apart from this, The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the military alliance, held a Science for Peace and security measures programme in 2006 which aimed to promote peace and support civil science cooperation and innovation. transnational organizations brought contri plainlyions in maintaining world peace.Also, the Amnesty transnational, one of the non-governmental organizations, aimed to prevent abuse of human rights and represent for justice for those who have been violated. Liberalism also brings the desire of democratic peace. Liberals abandon wars against liberal democracies, besides sometimes do not wear out the war within illiberal states (Owen 1994 93). They see illiberal states in some way dangerous and unenlightened thus they got no tolerance in them (Owen 1994 96). In my opinion, there are quite many booming examples for Liberals in promoting peace, but let off, their views toward peace are quite subjective, which brings limitations and loopholes to maintain peace in the future. In general, by the above comparisons with concrete examples, it is clearly shown that there is a huge difference between the ways Realists and Liberals view peace.ConclusionIn conclusion, to large terminus I think that Realism and Liberalism different from each other. The only similarity is that both of them believe that the anarchy nature is leaderless in the world system. The differences betweenthem are articulates with examples in various aspects. For the view towards human nature, Realists believe in evil human nature while Liberals believe in good ones. For the interpretation on state, Realists is state-centered, but Liberalists also focus on other non-state actors.For the ways they perceive peace, Realists advocate to have balance of power while Liberals enhances cooperation between nation states. It cannot be denied that Realism and Liberalism are two very distinct ideologies. From my point of view, these two concepts together with neorealism and neoliberalism will still play very important roles in the future of the international Relations. In order to sec ure the world peace in a sustainable way, I think the ideologies should coexist and strike a balance instead of only allowing one theory dominating the global world.BibliographyAdem, S. (2002) Anarchy, Order and bureau in World authorities, Ashgate, HampshireArt, R. and R. Jervis (2012) (eds.) International political relation Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues (Eleventh edition) (capital of the United Kingdom Pearson)Baylis, J. and S. Smith and P. Owens (2013) (eds.) The globalization of World Politics An Introduction to International Relations (Sixth edition) (Oxford Oxford University Press).Donnelly, J. (2000) Realism and International Relations, London The Press Syndicate of the University Of CambridgeDounan, M. (2011) Realist and Constructivist Approaches to Anarchy, Online, on hand(predicate) http//www.e-ir.info/2011/08/29/realist-and-constructivist-approaches-to-anarchy/ 29 Aug 2011Harrison, T. (2006) Realism, sovereignty and international relations An mental test o f power politics in the age of globalization, Online, easy http//scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3549&context=explosive trace detectionJackson, R. & Sorensen, G. (2013) Introduction to International Relations Theories and Approaches, United Kingdom Oxford University PressJehangir, H. (2012) Realism, Liberalism and the Possibilities of Peace Online, useable http//www.e-ir.info/2012/02/19/realism-liberalism-and-the-possibilities-of-peace/ 19 Feb 2012Jumarang, B.K. (2011) Realism and Liberalism in International Relations Online, Available http//www.e-ir.info/2011/07/02/realism-and-liberalism-in-modern-international-relations/ 02 Jul 2011Keohane, R.O. (1998) International Institutions basis Interdependence Work?, Foreign Policy, issue. 110, Spring, pp.82-94.Morgenthau, H.J. (1978) Politics Among Nations The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised, (New York Alfred A. Knopf), Online, Available https//www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htmOwen, J.M. (199 4) How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace, International Security, vol. 19, Fall, pp. 87-125.Rourke, J.T. (2007) International Politics on the World Stage, Online, Available http//jeffreyfields.net/427/Site/Blog/3C90C230-B47B-4894-8E8E-F4C5078BDD88_files/Rourke-Realism,%20Liberalism,%20Constructivism.pdfSr, I.N.M. & Teresa, E.U. (2013) Liberalism and Realism A Matrix For Political Economy. International Journal of Business and Management Review, vol. 1, no.4, December, pp.15-25.