The Similarities Between Realism And Liberalism

Improved Essays
Realists and Liberalist are often times conflicting on how they think about different issues and the way they go about constructing their own nations. But, institutionalism bridges a gap between the both of them. Institutionalism functions as a neutral territory that aims to diffuse potentially competing and conflicting issues. Realism, being the oldest International Relations theory gives a pessimistic view of human nature. Realists believe that. Some of the known Realists who shaped the ideals of Realism include Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Carr, etc. All these realists have much in common and that the state of nature is the state of war, leaders should be ruthless but also fair, neighbors are never to be trusted, etc. Realists believe …show more content…
Citizens appreciate that the benefits of trade can be enjoyed under conditions of peace. Liberal philosophers, beginning with John Locke in the seventeenth century, saw great potential for human progress in modern civil society and capitalist economy, both of which could flourish in states which guaranteed individual liberty (Jackson and Sorenson, 98). Liberalists believe that states should cooperate for resources. Liberalists believe that individual’s share many interests and can thus engage in collaborative and cooperative social action, domestically as well as internationally, which results in greater benefits for everybody at home and abroad (Jackson and Sorenson, 98). Liberalists believe that an increasing interstate cooperation thus brings the best chances for development and peace. Liberalists believe that institutions uphold and defend justice. Therefore, liberalists join institutions because they believe that the nations and states benefit through cooperation than acting alone. Liberalist theories are presented in American foreign policy as well and are rooted in the democracy of the United States. There is a historical tendency in American foreign policy to be suspicious of secret diplomacy and to be in favor of open relations between the citizens of …show more content…
States want to join different institutions because it is in their owns states best interests and states people are required to look for their nations national security. States people feel obligated to do what’s best for their nations interests and that they are fully responsible for their own countries. Political obligations which regard the state- whether it is formed by social contract, by historical evolution, by conquest or by any other method- as self-contained political community that is morally prior to any international associations it may subsequently join (Jackson and Sorenson, 147). International organizations offer power and security to nations, which is one of the main components to every realist. Meanwhile, liberals join to uphold and defend justice. This is where the two very different thoughts, come together, to provide the national security for their own countries. One implied liberal critique is the lack of interest of International Society theorists in the role of domestic politics in international relations. Like realists, International Society theorists draw a firm line between international relations and internal politics of the state (Jackson and Sorenson, 154). They remain dedicated to these institutions because while they are offering certain stability, they are receiving it back from the other nations. Institutions provide economic, diplomatic, and military to

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Realism Vs Liberalism

    • 804 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Liberalism’s logic believes free trade will give rise to a state’s well-being, which will create more peace amongst the state. Ikenberry asserts that “The liberal international order has succeeded over the decades because its rules and institutions have not just enshrined open trade and free markets but also provided tools for governments to…

    • 804 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Realists do not believe that the states should achieve in perpetual peace and harmony in the world. Actors needed to be faced with the fact that the world is a diverse place and one must accept and live by it. Power to them is the centerpiece of a political life ensuring one’s safety in an environment with no central government protecting them from others. On the other hand, liberalists argue that realism is an outdated justification where the increase of globalization, the rise of communication technology and international trade are resources that cannot be relied on militaristic power. It is the international system that offers a collaboration within the political actors and states.…

    • 937 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 1094 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Liberalism Vs Realism

    • 1413 Words
    • 6 Pages

    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).…

    • 1413 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Daniel J. Boorstin claims there is a significant distinction between disagreement and dissent in a liberal society, arguing that disagreement is essential to the vitality of democracy, while dissent is effectively its cancer. I agree with Boorstin’s distinction as it applies in a historical context because disagreement promoted the rights of the people, while dissent seriously endangered them. However, I do not believe his distinction holds entirely true in contemporary America because the federal government’s protection of people’s rights is too secure for dissent to significantly weaken democracy. During the sequence of events at America’s founding as a democratic nation in the late 18th century, democracy relied on disagreement. After…

    • 662 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    These four categories of pseudo power are influence, through negotiations, force, unusable power such as international institutions, and illegitimate powers. This shows that realism is more interested in the control of a state or people. The President would also have to consider the three reasons that people would allow them to be under the thumb of the United States. These are benefits, fear, and love/respect. A state would only allow its actions to be controlled by the interests of the United States if it feared the military strength we have, loves our democracy and our ways or, knows they can benefit in some way by doing what is right in the United States view.…

    • 2480 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    To begin with, Ikenberry is correct in saying that emerging great powers will want to maintain the current Liberal World Order (Ikenberry, 57). However, the reasons for maintaining the order are rooted in both commercial liberalism and the democratic peace theory. These liberal ideas have flourished in recent decades, giving rise to greater interdependence through trade and democratic principles. This interdependence is formed through free trade deals and multinational organizations that benefit all nations. Thus, states, both developed and undeveloped, will be more inclined to maintain the Liberal Order because they are benefactors of the current order.…

    • 1767 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    “Modern liberals oppose military interventionism and unilateralism as insufficient remedies for complex problems. They tend to support foreign aid, arms control, and multilateral efforts (engaging and acting in unison with allies).” Although modern liberalism has its positives, the negatives of modern liberalism can be coercive. According to (the author of the book), “coercion implies the deliberate interference of other human beings within the area in which he could otherwise act.” In addition, the reference to ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ in his Four Essays on Liberty,’ “you lack political liberty or freedom only if you are prevented from attaining a goal by other human beings (Berlin, 1969: 122).” In other words, liberalism has limitations to where a person can be prevented from making their own decisions due to politicians, other human beings or etc.…

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Doyle analyzes Machiavelli’s view on liberal imperialism, which states that republics represent the best form of state for imperial expansion. Machiavelli’s republic is not a democracy; rather it is characterized by social equality, popular liberty, and political participation. Machiavelli’s citizens seek to rule, and also fear domination from others. The third regularity of modern world politics Doyle considers is liberal internationalism. Kant’s citizens of liberal internationalism are also diverse in their rational and individual goals, but they are more capable of appreciating equality of all individuals.…

    • 1730 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Firstly, liberalism stems from a stream of thought that believes that morality, law and international organization can form the basis of global relations to make peaceful cooperation possible. Liberalism is also optimistic about the international community and its ability to achieve diplomatic solutions while viewing states as part of a collective rather than a unitary actor motivated by self-interest. To this end, liberals challenge the realism assumption that the international system is anarchic by that there are norms, institutions and laws that can establish a form of global authority that state can adhere to. Liberalism argues for the complexities of the international system by asserting that the realist viewpoint is unjustified in its blanket claim about the international system. Secondly, liberals take issue with realism’s unitary actors assumption and argue that along with state actors are a number of nonstate actors, non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations, that contribute to the pursuit of nationalistic goals.…

    • 1692 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays