Realism and liberalism are the two main theories in the international relations field. Realism describes about a pessimistic selfish world, a world that war can easily happen because of the seeking power of all nations. Liberalism believe in optimistic world that nation will cooperated to play the “win-win game”, in which means that sides get theirs advantages and the existence of would decrease. This essay would explain about these two theories and would attempt to analyze the crisis in Ukraine 2014 based on the foundation of two theories. Realism is a view of international politics that stresses on the competiveness and conflict. Realist realized that the main actors in the international are states and states always concern about their own
…show more content…
Because realism is a theory focuses on explaining the world with war, conflict and security (Introduction to International Relation). So that was the time when realism is said to be appropriate. However, many people assumed that realism is a theory pessimistic in all situations. For example, realism followed the ideas that countries will always using military, army to made war between states and states to protect national interest. The biggest failure of realism is the prediction the collapse of Soviet Union (Ashesh, …show more content…
The contention is not that popular governments never go to war, majority rule governments have gone to war as frequently as have – non vote based systems. However, the contention is that vote based systems don't battle each other. There are three components behind the case that popular government prompts peace with different vote based systems. Initially, the presence of household political societies taking into account tranquil clash determination. Vote based system energizes serene IR in light of the fact that popularity based government have controlled by their natives, who won't backer or bolster wars with different vote based systems. The second component is that majority rules systems hold basic good values which prompt the arrangement of "pacific union". The union is not a formal peace arrangement, rather, it is a zone of peace in light of the basic good establishment of all majority rules systems. Quiet methods for illuminating local clash are seen as ethically better than rough conduct, and this demeanor is exchanged to IR between majority rule governments. Flexibility of expression and free correspondence advance common seeing globally, and help to asure that political agent act as per national's perspective. At long last, peace between majority rule governments is fortified through monetary participation and reliance. In the
Because realism is a theory focuses on explaining the world with war, conflict and security (Introduction to International Relation). So that was the time when realism is said to be appropriate. However, many people assumed that realism is a theory pessimistic in all situations. For example, realism followed the ideas that countries will always using military, army to made war between states and states to protect national interest. The biggest failure of realism is the prediction the collapse of Soviet Union (Ashesh, …show more content…
The contention is not that popular governments never go to war, majority rule governments have gone to war as frequently as have – non vote based systems. However, the contention is that vote based systems don't battle each other. There are three components behind the case that popular government prompts peace with different vote based systems. Initially, the presence of household political societies taking into account tranquil clash determination. Vote based system energizes serene IR in light of the fact that popularity based government have controlled by their natives, who won't backer or bolster wars with different vote based systems. The second component is that majority rules systems hold basic good values which prompt the arrangement of "pacific union". The union is not a formal peace arrangement, rather, it is a zone of peace in light of the basic good establishment of all majority rules systems. Quiet methods for illuminating local clash are seen as ethically better than rough conduct, and this demeanor is exchanged to IR between majority rule governments. Flexibility of expression and free correspondence advance common seeing globally, and help to asure that political agent act as per national's perspective. At long last, peace between majority rule governments is fortified through monetary participation and reliance. In the