comparative theories

*analyse the differences between realism & liberalism on globalisation

1: significance of globalisation

-realism = globalisation hasn’t fundamentally changed int politics bc states remain dominant actor in an anarchic system (Kenneth waltz argued structure of anarchy forces states to prioritise survival & security regardless of econ integration)

-synoptic = Hobbes view of HN as competitive & insecure

-e.g. US-china trade war had tariffs imposed on over $360bill of Chinese goods showing states prioritising nat interests over econ interdependence

-liberalism = globalisation has transformed politics by inc interdependence & reducing importance of interdependence

-synoptic =locke believed humans are rational & capable of coop

-e.g. WTO has 166 members while global trade accounts for 60% of worlds GDP showing deep econ interconnectedness

2: role of int institutions

-realism = int institutions have little independent influence & just reflect interests of powerful states. mearsheimer argues institutions cant prevent states pursuing power & interests

-e.g. russia used veto power in UNSC multiple times after 2022 ukraine invasion preventing stronger UN action despite widespread opposition

-liberalism = institutions help states coop, build trust & overcome collective action problems

-e.g. Paris agreement signed by 190+ states while cop28 2023 secured agreement to transition away from fossil fuels

3: consequences of globalisation

-realism = globalisation intensifies competition bc econ power can be converted into political & military power. Stephen Walt argues states ultimately focus on security & balancing against potential threats

-e.g. chinas BRI has involved 150+ countries & over $1trill infrastructure investment which realists view as expanding Chinese geopolitical influence

-liberalism = globalisation promotes peace bc econ interdependence makes conflict more costly. hedley bulls concept of an anarchical soc suggests despite anarchy states can develop rules, norms & coop

-e.g. EU single market links 27 states & 450mill ppl contributing to decades of peace between members that historically fought maj wars

*analyse the divisions that exist between liberals & realists in relation to order, security & the likelihood of conflict

1: order

-realism = order is created through balance of power between states. bc int system is anarchic stability depends on powerful states deterring one another. waltz argued order emerges from distribution of power in int system rather than coop or institutions

-synoptic = Hobbes viewed humans as naturally competitive & requiring strong authority to maintain order

-e.g. growing us-china military balance in indy-pacific, 2025 US maintained maj security partnerships through AUKUS & alliances w Japan & SK while china continued to expand its naval capabilities to challenge US influence in the region

-liberalism = order created through coop, interdependence & int institutions. states can develop rules & norms that encourage peaceful behaviour

-synoptic = locke believed individs rational & capable of coop through agreed rules & institutions

-e.g. UN adopted 2024 pact for the future agreed by member states to strengthen int coop on peace, development & global govnc

2: security

-realism = security achieved through self help & military strength. bc no higher authority exists states must rely on their own capabilities for survival. mearsheimer argues states seek power to maximise security in an uncertain world

-e.g. after Russias invasion of Ukraine many European states inc defence spending w record number of NATO members meeting 2% GDP target by 2024-25

-liberalism = security is achieved through collective security, coop & institutions. states become safer when they work together & develop mutual trust

-e.g. NATO expanded w Finland 2023 & Sweden 2024 demonstrating faith in collective rather than nat security

3: likelihood of conflict

-realism = conflict is inevitable bc states compete for power & security in an anarchic system. Walt argues states constantly balance against perceived threats creating a security dilemma

-e.g. chinas military modernisation & expansion in south china sea prompted responses from US, Japan, Australia and others seen through inc US military presence from AUKUS formation 2023

-liberalism = belief in democratic peace theory, limits likelihood of war as liberals believe dem, rule of law, accountabiltiy & econ interdependence encourage peaceful dispute resolution

-e.g. there have been no maj wars between established lib democracies since 1945. EU has maintained peace among 27 member states.

analyse the differences between realist & liberal views of international anarchy

1: nature of anarchy

-realism = anarchy is defining feature of int politics bc theres no world govt above states. Kenneth waltz structural realism argues this forces states into self help system where survival is the primary goal

-synoptic = Hobbes viewed state of nature as insecure & conflict prone

-e.g. after Russias invasion of ukraine inc defence spending to 2% for record number of NATO states 2024-25

-liberalism = accept anarchy exists but argue its effects can be mitigated through coop & interdependence. anarchy doesn’t inevitably lead to conflict

-synoptic. = locke believed rational actors could cooperate through rules & agreements

-e.g. WTO has 166 member states showing states can coop extensively despite absence of world govt

2: security under anarchy

-realism = anarchy creates a security dilemma where states attempts to inc security make other states feel less secure lining to Walts balance of threat theory where states balance against perceived threats making rivalry more common

-chinas military expansion & US response through AUKUS 2021 & strengthened indo-pacific alliances

-liberalism = security can be achieved through collective security & institutions reducing negative effects of anarchy

-e.g. NATO expanded w Finland & Sweden showing lib faith in collective security arrangements

3: likelihood of conflict

-realism = conflict is natural consequence of anarchy bc states compete for power & survival. mearsheimer argues states are driven to maximise power due to lack of trust in other states actions

-e.g. ongoing china-us conflict over Taiwan, tech & military influence in indo-pacific shows anarchy encouraging competition

-liberalism = conflict not inevitable bc dem norms, institutions & econ interdependence can promote peaceful relations. dem peace theory agrees dems rarely fight each other. hedley bulls concept of an anarchical society argues states can develop shared norms & rules despite anarchy

-e.g. EU has helped maintain peace between 27 dem member states & no major wars since 1945

analyse the differences between realist & liberal views of state sovereignty

1: nature

-realism = sov is absolute & central to int politics, states are key actors in anarchic system & each retains ultimate authority over its territory. waltz argues bc theres no higher authority states must rely on themselves

-synoptic = Hobbes emphasises strong sov authority to prevent disorder

-e.g. Russias response to NATO expansions & its justification for actions in ukraine reflect realist emphasis on protecting sov authority & resisting external constraints on state power. brexit 2020

-liberalism = sov is inc shared or pooled through int coop & institutions. states willingly limit sov to gain benefits from coop

-synoptic = locke allowed govnc through consent & coop

-e.g. EU shows pooled sov through maj voting in areas like trade policy & the role of ECJ

2: int institutions

-realism = int institutions don’t undermine sov in any meaningful war bc states control them and act when it suits nat interest. mearsheimer argues institutions reflect great power politics rather than constrain sov

-e.g. Russias vetoes in UNSC to prevent action over ukraine show how states retain ultimate control over int decisions

-liberalism = int institutions significantly constrain & reshape sov by creating rules states must follow

-e.g. WTO enforces trade rules for 166 states to comply w limiting unilateral econ action

3: globalisation

-realism = globalisation doesnt significantly weaken sov bc states remain primary decision makers & can resists external pressures. Walt argues states prioritise security & autonomy maintaing sov in practice

-e.g. US sanctions $360bill tariffs on Chinese goods show states exercising sov control over econ globalisation

-liberalism = globalisation erodes traditional sov by inc interdependence & creating cross border issues that require shared govnc

-e.g. climate change agreements like Paris agreement 2015 require states to coord emissions targets limiting purely nat policy autonomy

analyse the differences between realists & liberal views of humanitarian intervention

1: legitimacy & motivation

-realism = humanitarian intervention not genuinely altruistic, its driven by nat interests & power politics. states only intervene when it benefits their strategic, econ or security goals

-synoptic = Hobbes emphasised order & state authority prioritising sov

-e.g. 2003 invasion of iraq was justified partly on security grounds but argued it was primarily abt US strategic interests in Middle East & oil security

-liberalism = humanitarian intervention can be legitimate when it protects rights & prevents atrocities. argue sov is conditional on respecting HRs

-synoptic = locke emphasised natural rights to life & liberty which justifies intervention

-e.g. NATO intervention in Kosovo 1999 justified on humanitarian grounds to stop ethnic cleansing

2: role of int institutions

-realism = int institutions don’t determine when interventions happen, powerful states decide & may bypass institutions if necessary. institutions just tools used to legitimise action

-e.g. us led intervention in iraq 2003 occurred w out explicit UNSC approval

-liberalism = int institutions are essential for authorising & coord humanitarian intervention ensuring legitimacy & collective decision making

-e.g. UN authorised intervention in Libya 2011 through UNSC resolution 1973 allowing action to protect civilians

3: outcomes

-realism = humanitarian intervention often leads to instability, unintended consequences & power vacuums. Stephen Walts emphases on security dilemmas suggests interventions can worsen regional insecurity

-e.g. iraq intervention 2003 contributed to long term instability incl civil conflict & emergence of ISIS

-liberalism = despite risks intervention can prevent mass atrocities & support int norms of HRs

-e.g. NATO intervention bosnia 1995 helped end Bosnian war & contributed to Dayton agreement

analyse the differences between liberals & realist views of power in global politics (hard, soft)

1: nature of power

-realism = power is primarily hard power, military & econ capability used to coerce other states as int politics is fundamentally about survival & security in an anarchic system. waltz sees power as material capabilities that determine states position in the system

-synoptic = Hobbes sees power as coercive & necessary for survival

-e.g. Russias invasion of ukraine shows reliance on military force to achieve strategic objectives w over $100bn in western military aid to ukraine

-liberalism = power incl soft power, ability to influence others through attraction, legitimacy & ideas. developed by Joseph nye

-synoptic = locke sees influence & consent can shape behaviour

-e.g. SK has used Kpop & cultural exports to inc global influence w Korean wave generating $12-14bill annually

2: effectiveness

-realism = hard power is more important bc states respond to coercion & military capability rather than persuasion. soft power only effective when backed by military strength

-e.g. NATOs military support to ukraine & deterrence against Russia shows hard power (weapons, defence spending) is decisive in shaping outcomes in conflict

-liberalism = soft power is highly effective bc legitimacy & attraction shape long term influence & reduce need for coercion

-e.g. EU exercises global influence through regulatory standards (Brussels effect) shaping global trade & environ rules w out military force

3: role of institutions

-realism = instituions dont change nature of power as they reflect interests of powerful states. power remains abt military & econ dominance. mearsheimer argued institutions cant override state interests or balance of power politics

-e.g. inability of UNSC to act decisively on ukraine due to russia veto power or US on Gaza shows great powers determine outcomes

-liberalism = instituions amplify soft power by creating rules, norms & coop that shape state behaviour

-e.g. WHO coordinated global responses during covid showing influence though info, coord & legitimacy rather than force

analyse the differences between realist & liberal views of a multipolar world order

1: stability

-realism = multipolarity is generally less stable & more conflict prone bc power is spread across several great powers inc uncertainty & miscalculation. waltz argued multipolar systems are harder to manage than bipolar ones due to shifting alliances. Walts balance of threat theory & security dilemma.

-synoptic = Hobbes pessimism abt insecurity in a fragmented system

-e.g. contemporary system w US china & russia competing across regions e.g. South China Sea tensions & AUKUS, ukraine war. Chinese partnership w 150+ through BRI creates competing power blocs

-liberalism = multipolarity can be stable if managed through interdependence & int institutions which reduce uncertainty & promote coop

-synoptic = Locke’s belief humans are capable of cooperation

-e.g. EU demonstrates how multiple states can coexist peacefully within dense institutional framework despite multiple centres of influence across 27 states

2: role of institutions

-realism = institutions have limited ability to manage multipolarity bc great powers pursue their own interests

-e.g. UNSC paralysed by vetoes from russia & china so cant effectively manage global conflicts

-liberalism = instituions are crucial in managing multipolarity by facilitating coop, transparency & dispute resolution

-e.g. WTO provides rules based mechanisms for resolving trade disputes among 166 states to prevent econ conflicts escalating

analyse the differences between realist & liberal views of regionalism

1: purpose & significance

-realism = primarily a tool used by states to pursue nat interests & relative gains rather than genuine coop. reflects underlying power politics in an anarchic system. waltz suggests states always prioritise survival so regional coop only occurs when it strengthens state power

-synoptic = Hobbes pessimism abt competition

-e.g. US promotes regional alliances like NATO & USMCA to balance against Russian & Chinese influence & gain from them, Mexico & canada account for a third of US trade

-liberalism = regionalism seen as positive development that promotes coop, interdependence & peace between states

-synoptic = Lockes belief in rational cooperation

-e.g. EU integrates 27 states & 450mill ppl

2: impact on sov

-realism = doesn’t fundamentally change sov as states remain key actors & only coop when it serves their interests. pooling of sov is reversible & conditional

-e.g brexit 2020, us has remained outside of deeper political integration despite participating in regional arrangements like USMCA

-liberalism = regionalism involves pooling of sov which strengthens states by enabling to achieve outcomes they cant alone

-e.g. NATO inc defence spending to coord collective defence against russia & expanding membership

3: stability & conflict

-realism = regionalism is a reflection of underlying power rivalries & doesn’t eliminate conflict. can even intensify tensions between competing blocs

-e.g. ASEAN unable to respond effectively to 2021 Myanmar coup due to Myanmars refusal to comply & ASEANS non interference principle

-liberalism = regionalism promotes stability & peace through econ interdependence & institutional coop

-e.g. collective AU mission in somalia 2022 helped settle conflict