The Similarities Between Realism And Liberalism

1523 Words 6 Pages
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