The textbook argues that facilitating the inter paradigm debate is so difficult because Realism and Liberalism are not simply opposing views — rather opposing worlds altogether (Ch. 3). Realism ferments under a Machiavellian world order, whereas Liberalism preaches a more Kantian philosophy (Ch. 1). However, this notion of irreconcilable polarity ignores the shared, foundational beliefs, which are so central to each theory. It is the general assumptions in response to the shared structural reality where the two theories diverge — both in core principles and in terms of cooperation and conflict. How each theory tackles the security dilemma clearly highlights their opposing assumptions. This dilemma claims that a state’s proactive approach to
…show more content…
Both Liberalism and Realism share the structural premise that, in the clear absence of a supranational authority, international society is anarchic. Where they differ is in their reactions to this reality. Realists believe that anarchy inspires an international community where the rationally-driven state relies on itself for its own sovereignty, security, and self-help. This inspires a mentality where, according to realists, one state’s gain must translate into another state’s loss. To realists, the security dilemma is an obvious consequence of international society’s ruthless nature, and uncertainty itself is a direct result of anarchy. But, the security dilemma can be managed when the great powers engage in a process known as ‘the balance of power’ (Ch. 3). Ideally, this balance keeps states’ inherent desires for power maximization in check. States then build up their hard, military power to maintain the balance of power. Ironically, this act of defence threatens other countries, so they too respond by increasing their military …show more content…
As specified in class, liberals do not approach IR as a zero sum game. Rather, shared values, rights, and freedoms between states can motivate international cooperation and trust. This inspiration stems not just from state actors, but international organizations as well. David Mitrany, a liberal integration theorist, praises the bonding capabilities of transnational corporations, such as security communities. To liberals, war and conflict are not results of anarchy itself, but results of a lack of organizational mediation. Many liberals also promote the democratic peace thesis, claiming that liberally, democratic societies do not wage war with each other (Ch. 3). Liberals acknowledge that the anarchic system means that peace is artificial, however it can be constructed in a sustainable way (CH. 3). This does not mean that Liberalism is pacifist. Liberals, like realists, recognize the need for hard power. This explains why both the UN and NATO have armies. However, liberalism does not solely believe that hard power is the cause and solution to all conflicts. Rather the soft power in IR allows the unnatural process of global trust to commence — thereby mitigating the need of excessive hard
Both Liberalism and Realism share the structural premise that, in the clear absence of a supranational authority, international society is anarchic. Where they differ is in their reactions to this reality. Realists believe that anarchy inspires an international community where the rationally-driven state relies on itself for its own sovereignty, security, and self-help. This inspires a mentality where, according to realists, one state’s gain must translate into another state’s loss. To realists, the security dilemma is an obvious consequence of international society’s ruthless nature, and uncertainty itself is a direct result of anarchy. But, the security dilemma can be managed when the great powers engage in a process known as ‘the balance of power’ (Ch. 3). Ideally, this balance keeps states’ inherent desires for power maximization in check. States then build up their hard, military power to maintain the balance of power. Ironically, this act of defence threatens other countries, so they too respond by increasing their military …show more content…
As specified in class, liberals do not approach IR as a zero sum game. Rather, shared values, rights, and freedoms between states can motivate international cooperation and trust. This inspiration stems not just from state actors, but international organizations as well. David Mitrany, a liberal integration theorist, praises the bonding capabilities of transnational corporations, such as security communities. To liberals, war and conflict are not results of anarchy itself, but results of a lack of organizational mediation. Many liberals also promote the democratic peace thesis, claiming that liberally, democratic societies do not wage war with each other (Ch. 3). Liberals acknowledge that the anarchic system means that peace is artificial, however it can be constructed in a sustainable way (CH. 3). This does not mean that Liberalism is pacifist. Liberals, like realists, recognize the need for hard power. This explains why both the UN and NATO have armies. However, liberalism does not solely believe that hard power is the cause and solution to all conflicts. Rather the soft power in IR allows the unnatural process of global trust to commence — thereby mitigating the need of excessive hard