How does one develop a better understanding of the on-going crises in Ukraine? Some theorists believe that over the last two centuries, Realism and Liberalism have been the two most important paradigms of International Relations. They have accounted for much of what has taken place in the world. Continuing to offer provisions of state behavior, and pose queries; that perhaps it is possible for there to be peace in-between nation states. While both approaches to the understanding of the on-going crisis in Ukraine are undeniably different, surprisingly they have similarities. Examining the different approaches and theories will enable one to form a better perspective on the crisis and adopt which approach is more beneficial. This essay will elaborate
…show more content…
The similarities between the two main theories enable a less complex explanation of international relations. Both the Liberalism theory and the Realism theory share views on the anarchical structure of global politics, the rationality of human beings, and the importance of state actors. One of the main similarities between the two theories that affects the way that states should act, is how they see the world structure. In this anarchical world, states should find ways to survive. How the state itself will do that signifies a major difference between Realism and Liberalism. Since both theories are rational, they have different views of human nature itself. This premise leads to some inherent differences between the two theories. Both Realism and Liberalism deem that the world is a treacherous place. Together, they understand that countries can go to war with one another and destroy one another. There is no world Government that can prevent countries from harming each other. Both recognise that states can use military power to get what they desire, and in turn realise that countries without military power can be abused by other countries. (Studies, G. P. (2016). The final, most significant similarity between the two; is that neither present a coherent model of international relations. (Wunderlich, …show more content…
In contrast, Liberals believe that military power is not the most important power; economic and moral power, are. Liberals comprehend that the UN cannot force countries to obey, however they believe that it is still very important. This is because they consider that international organisations give different countries ways to cooperate with one another, in order to gain one’s trust. One can gather that where there is Liberalism, there is a Democracy. (Plattner, 1998). Liberals are more optimistic about the world and believe that man is inherently good, and that all states can unite to make positive change, progress and ensure survival at the same time. Impartial to Democracy comes Realism, Idealism emanates Liberalism. By way of explanation, Liberalists believe that there is a goal to be reached- that human beings can change the course of all things. Realism does not believe in this form of cooperation and progress; it only wants to survive. Strictly speaking, it wants to maintain the status quo of the contemporary international state of affairs. Instead, Realists believe that the use of military power is not just a normal affair, but an inevitable one. Thus, the reason for Realism’s dominance in the international relations theory. (Haynes, Hough, Malik, & Pettiford, 2011). Political realists are frequently perceived as pro-war, and Liberals are perceived as anti-war.
The similarities between the two main theories enable a less complex explanation of international relations. Both the Liberalism theory and the Realism theory share views on the anarchical structure of global politics, the rationality of human beings, and the importance of state actors. One of the main similarities between the two theories that affects the way that states should act, is how they see the world structure. In this anarchical world, states should find ways to survive. How the state itself will do that signifies a major difference between Realism and Liberalism. Since both theories are rational, they have different views of human nature itself. This premise leads to some inherent differences between the two theories. Both Realism and Liberalism deem that the world is a treacherous place. Together, they understand that countries can go to war with one another and destroy one another. There is no world Government that can prevent countries from harming each other. Both recognise that states can use military power to get what they desire, and in turn realise that countries without military power can be abused by other countries. (Studies, G. P. (2016). The final, most significant similarity between the two; is that neither present a coherent model of international relations. (Wunderlich, …show more content…
In contrast, Liberals believe that military power is not the most important power; economic and moral power, are. Liberals comprehend that the UN cannot force countries to obey, however they believe that it is still very important. This is because they consider that international organisations give different countries ways to cooperate with one another, in order to gain one’s trust. One can gather that where there is Liberalism, there is a Democracy. (Plattner, 1998). Liberals are more optimistic about the world and believe that man is inherently good, and that all states can unite to make positive change, progress and ensure survival at the same time. Impartial to Democracy comes Realism, Idealism emanates Liberalism. By way of explanation, Liberalists believe that there is a goal to be reached- that human beings can change the course of all things. Realism does not believe in this form of cooperation and progress; it only wants to survive. Strictly speaking, it wants to maintain the status quo of the contemporary international state of affairs. Instead, Realists believe that the use of military power is not just a normal affair, but an inevitable one. Thus, the reason for Realism’s dominance in the international relations theory. (Haynes, Hough, Malik, & Pettiford, 2011). Political realists are frequently perceived as pro-war, and Liberals are perceived as anti-war.