Realism and Liberalism, two very renowned theories and practices of international relations, which both have different perspectives towards security structure, human rights/nature and international systems. Both of these theories trace back to their intellectual roots. Realism related back to Thucydides’ classic account of the Peloponnesian War in the fifth-century B.C and the liberalist tradition is usually traced back to Enlightenment, which is mainly traced back to main philosophers, John Locke and on a number of matters Immanuel Kant. (Morgan 2013) The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast the two theories of Realism and Liberalism, and the ways the perspectives dominate contemporary international politics and conflicting effects
…show more content…
Liberalism has an optimistic approach about improving international politics for making the states safer. It describes international politics and becoming more inspiring with peace, interdependence, co-operation and security. The character of international politics change their objectives, and there choices on what to do and how they interact with each other. In the central elements in commercial liberalism, it strongly supports democracy, private property and free enterprise, widespread international interactions and human rights. Liberalism also stresses the benefits of the open-market and widespread international trade and investments. The outcomes which come from liberalism are greater cooperation also there will be less war and conflict, which is important motivation behind the European integration. (Oxford University Press, 2013) . Liberalism roots lie in the connect with human rights from the earlier in the west Phalian, International systems. An interest to them was religious and ethnic groups treated by their neighbors, these concerns were expressed through diplomatic pressures, military interventions and peace agreement which are made. Added in the Twentieth century, particularly since the cold war, were campaigns representing a person subject to economic, sexual gender, Religious and discrimination. (Oxford University Press, 2013). Liberalism has been criticized as …show more content…
Comparison’s which can be made between Realism and Liberalism is, State is the principal actor, the view of Actor is, State is unitary actor. A difference which is also noticeable is the Behavioral dynamic in realism the state is rational actor seeking which maximizes their own interests and what their objective is in foreign policies whereas comparing it to liberalism Behavioral Dynamic is policy making which includes conflict, co-operation and bargaining to compromise which may not lead to the best outcome which is wanted. Mainly for Realist Nation security issues are most important, where as to the liberalist there is not only just the one but many things which are important as national security questions such as welfare issues. There is a number of differences which are shown through-out this theory but some similarities which show through-out. Liberalism and realism both have certain plans and ideas for peace in the international relations theories. Both of these theories are both not exactly stable for the issues which are in there arguments for peace. This is also shown through both International systems being Anarchic. This is also an assumption from both theories. Realism assume that the international system is anarchic, with no super-state authority which is there to enforce the rules or
Liberalism has an optimistic approach about improving international politics for making the states safer. It describes international politics and becoming more inspiring with peace, interdependence, co-operation and security. The character of international politics change their objectives, and there choices on what to do and how they interact with each other. In the central elements in commercial liberalism, it strongly supports democracy, private property and free enterprise, widespread international interactions and human rights. Liberalism also stresses the benefits of the open-market and widespread international trade and investments. The outcomes which come from liberalism are greater cooperation also there will be less war and conflict, which is important motivation behind the European integration. (Oxford University Press, 2013) . Liberalism roots lie in the connect with human rights from the earlier in the west Phalian, International systems. An interest to them was religious and ethnic groups treated by their neighbors, these concerns were expressed through diplomatic pressures, military interventions and peace agreement which are made. Added in the Twentieth century, particularly since the cold war, were campaigns representing a person subject to economic, sexual gender, Religious and discrimination. (Oxford University Press, 2013). Liberalism has been criticized as …show more content…
Comparison’s which can be made between Realism and Liberalism is, State is the principal actor, the view of Actor is, State is unitary actor. A difference which is also noticeable is the Behavioral dynamic in realism the state is rational actor seeking which maximizes their own interests and what their objective is in foreign policies whereas comparing it to liberalism Behavioral Dynamic is policy making which includes conflict, co-operation and bargaining to compromise which may not lead to the best outcome which is wanted. Mainly for Realist Nation security issues are most important, where as to the liberalist there is not only just the one but many things which are important as national security questions such as welfare issues. There is a number of differences which are shown through-out this theory but some similarities which show through-out. Liberalism and realism both have certain plans and ideas for peace in the international relations theories. Both of these theories are both not exactly stable for the issues which are in there arguments for peace. This is also shown through both International systems being Anarchic. This is also an assumption from both theories. Realism assume that the international system is anarchic, with no super-state authority which is there to enforce the rules or