The realist and liberalist theories are two rival ideas of international relations that make fundamentally opposing assumptions about both human character and the nature of the environment of international politics. Both of the competing theories have their origins in a different state of international conflict or collaboration and in judging which school of thought makes the most realistic and practical assumptions about the post-Cold War world, it is required to judge which theory’s assumptions can better be generalised outside of the time and state of the world in which they were first proposed.
As an approach to international politics, realism can be seen as a response to the utopian thought that occupied the thoughts of students of international …show more content…
Classical realism has its foundations as far back as the Greek philosopher Thucydides and suggests that it is human nature that is at the heart of the endless struggle in international politics that is at the core of realism. Human beings, according to classical realism, are to all intents and purposes self serving beings and so a state that is conducted as a democracy by self serving individuals will mirror the character of its constituent parts and will by requirement be a self serving entity as well. As the state exists to serve and provide security for its people, states will therefore only work together if it is in the interest of the people and as soon as conditions or a situation changes a state will choose to break off collaboration if that situation better suits its purpose. This means that there will always be distrust and suspicion within the international arena and thus completion and rivalry will be the predominant way of …show more content…
However idealism, like realism, can be initially found in the thinking of ancient historical philosophers but became established in the 17th century through the writings of Locke and then also through to the 19th century by German thinkers such as Kant and Hegel, as on the relationship between governments and citizens(XXX).
The foremost distinction between the assumptions of idealism and realism is that, whilst realists assume the international arena to be an anarchic place where the nations and states must compete to preserve domestic security, liberals consider that there are common objectives and aims that can be projected individually from domestic arena into the international world and that conflict and war is not the best way to encourage and uphold internal or international wellbeing and
As an approach to international politics, realism can be seen as a response to the utopian thought that occupied the thoughts of students of international …show more content…
Classical realism has its foundations as far back as the Greek philosopher Thucydides and suggests that it is human nature that is at the heart of the endless struggle in international politics that is at the core of realism. Human beings, according to classical realism, are to all intents and purposes self serving beings and so a state that is conducted as a democracy by self serving individuals will mirror the character of its constituent parts and will by requirement be a self serving entity as well. As the state exists to serve and provide security for its people, states will therefore only work together if it is in the interest of the people and as soon as conditions or a situation changes a state will choose to break off collaboration if that situation better suits its purpose. This means that there will always be distrust and suspicion within the international arena and thus completion and rivalry will be the predominant way of …show more content…
However idealism, like realism, can be initially found in the thinking of ancient historical philosophers but became established in the 17th century through the writings of Locke and then also through to the 19th century by German thinkers such as Kant and Hegel, as on the relationship between governments and citizens(XXX).
The foremost distinction between the assumptions of idealism and realism is that, whilst realists assume the international arena to be an anarchic place where the nations and states must compete to preserve domestic security, liberals consider that there are common objectives and aims that can be projected individually from domestic arena into the international world and that conflict and war is not the best way to encourage and uphold internal or international wellbeing and