Analyse the differences that exist between realists and liberals in how they view order and security. In your answer, you must discuss any relevant core ideas (12 marks - never asked)

Point of difference - international order as anarchic OR rules based

Realists:

• International system = anarchic, no overarching authority to regulate state behaviour

• Influenced by Hobbes’ view that individuals require a state to maintain order

• So states to rely on themselves for security & maximise military power (self-help)

• E.g. India & Pakistan developed nuclear weapons in 20th century to protect themselves from each other

Liberals:

• International law and organisations can create a rules based order

• Liberals influenced by Locke - states rational & capable of coop for mutual benefit

• E.g. under Paris Agreement states voluntarily commit to reducing emissions & tackling climate change

Therefore, diverge on whether security achieved through self-help in an anarchic system or through adherence to international rules & cooperation

Point of difference - whether conflict it inevitable

Realists:

• Anarchic international system makes conflict unavoidable

• States must rely on themselves for security, increasing military power which other states view as a theat - creates security dilemma

• E.g. Cold War, US and USSR arms race

• Security dilemma shows even defensive actions in an anarchic system provoke suspicion and escalacion

Liberals:

• Conflict is not inevitable, particularly in a globalised world where states are economically interdependent

• Mutually beneficial relationships disincentivise war because conflict would potentially harm both economies

• E.g. despite competition, US and China have avoided military flashpoints due to their economic interdependence

• The Democratic Peace Theory further supports this (democracies less likely to go to war with each other)

Therefore, whilst realists see conflict as unavoidable due to anarchy, liberals believe can be prevented through economic ties and shared democratic norms

Point of difference - what maintains peace and is it temporary or permanent

Liberals:

• argue peace is maintained most of the time through diplomacy and IGOs

• UN and WTO create norms and dispute-resolution mechanisms that discourage aggression

• E.g. 2004 the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body resolved a trade dispute between Brazil and US over illegal cotton subsidied, preventing escalation and ensuring US compliance

• Rules & IGOs encourage states to cooperate rather than resort to force, making peace achievable and relatively stable

Realists:

• Claim peace is always fragile

• States are the primary actors of controlling means of violence, cannot be fully constrained by IGOs

• Peace can only occur temporarily in ‘balance of power’ - alliances prevent domination but shift as states rise or fall

• E.g. Post-Cold War peace under US hegemony has been destabilised by the rise of China and resurgence of Russia

Thus, while liberals see enduring peace as possible through institutions and diplomacy, realists view peace as temporary and dependent on shifting power balances

.