CTs realism and liberalism divisions

Human Nature - realism: Human nature is fixed and selfish: HN is natural, egoist and selfish; therefore states are only interested in their own national interests. HN is fixed and can’t be changed. States …

are too motivated by hegemony and power over others. States are motivated by a need to survive, especially in the global system of ‘self help’.

Human Nature - liberalism: Human nature is altruistic: Liberals have a more optimistic view of HN - it is not fixed, which means states can improve and develop. Humans and states are committed to individual liberty and freedom. Humans and therefore states prefer to …

work in partnership and look for opportunities to do so - international cooperation through IGO’s is therefore possible and desirable. It’s possible to impose order on humans/states through a rules-based system of international law. Conflict is a feature of global politics but must be avoided and only exist as a last resort.

Power - realism: There is a finite amount of power that states compete for: 

• Powerful states can always overcome weaker states.

• Threats/use of force are particularly important types of hard power to possess/maximise, especially in a self help system where no other actor is guaranteed to protect a state's security. 

• States primary goal and motivation is to increase their power. If power is shared equally between states it can create stability.

• States are aware of the limits of soft power - they may use smart power (combining hard and soft power) to achieve their intended outcomes.

Power - liberalism: Power is unlimited. The pursuit of power is not a game of winners and losers:

• The use of power, especially military, is often counterproductive - security dilemma.

• Military power isn’t the only form of significant power, economic power and free trade links can enable states to  become richer, more stable and more secure. As …

• … states become more economically interdependent, the risk of conflict decreases - economic interdependence makes the entire global system more peaceful and stable.

• Soft and smart power are both important means that can help achieve their aims. They should be the first option with hard power being used as a last resort

Order and Security- realism: Survival is the core national interest. Anarchy and distrust leads to a security dilemma. Peace relies on a global hegemon or a balance of power:

• Defending internal security and stability is crucial - this is done best though well defended borders and clear and enforced laws.

• Every state is potentially a threat to other states.

Order and Security- liberalism: Cooperation and complex interdependence can and do nurture peace:

• IGO’s eg. the UN offer a forum for conflict resolution.

• If states are bound together through deep economic integration, the likelihood of them fighting each other is reduced. 

• The EU was awarded the Nobel Peace prize in 2012 for being a good example of economic cooperation leading to limited conflict.

Likelihood of conflict- realism: For offensive neorealists, the security dilemma means conflict is inevitable:

• Conflict is an inevitable feature of global politics.

Conflict is sometimes necessary to defend vital national interests and to increase a state's power and influence.

Likelihood of conflict- liberalism: It is in the states’ interests to cooperate. Conflict can be avoided …

Conflict is avoidable and efforts to prevent/reduce conflict should be made.

IGOs - realism: They are ineffective and undermined by the pursuit of national interests. Great powers may dominate them:

•  They are useful to enhance power and state sovereignty and can facilitate business conducted between states - only if it's possible to get outcomes that are in the national interest of the state.

• IGOs aren’t useful and can even be dangerous if it’s not possible to achieve the national interest.

• They are dangerous and undesirable if the IGO has powers to compel states to do things. States should be able to veto decisions that don’t fit with their national interest. 

IGOs - liberalism:They are growing in number and influence:

• IGOs are a key part of establishing a world order governed by rules. They are the most powerful and authoritative source of international law.

• They offer states a peaceful way to resolve conflict eg. through the UN, as they provide a forum for discussion and negotiations.

• They can increase economic integration and free trade between states (EU, ASEAN)

• States can work together and be more powerful than if they acted alone (NATO)

Significance of states - realism: States are the principal actors in the international system. They reflect selfish human nature. They are not guided by morality:

• States are the primary and most powerful actors in global politics.

• Sovereignty is absolute as a concept - it shouldn’t be violated, limited or given away.

• However another state's sovereignty may be infringed upon if one's national interest requires it. Eg. The USA’s unauthorised 2011 operation to assassinate Osama Bin Laden was argued to be a justifiable incursion into Pakistan's sovereign territory.

• States should be wary of giving up too much sovereignty to IGOs - the power of veto is useful to protect a state’s national interest whilst retaining the  ability to use IGOs as a forum to influence other states towards a state's own desired outcomes. 

Significance of states - liberalism: States are not the only important factors and they are declining in importance. They are not necessarily self-interested. They can be guided by moral principles.

• States are important global actors in politics but they work in a complex web of interdependence and with other NSAs like IGOs and NGOs. 

• Sovereignty exists to be used to a states advantage - this may mean pooling sovereignty eg. in the EU.

• Another state's sovereignty can be infringed upon if it's necessary to uphold the values and interests of the international community eg. under the doctrine of R2P if HR abuses are taking place.

Realis thinking can be seen throughout history …

dating back to Ancient Greece. However it emerged as a concrete academic discipline in the 1920’s to 30’s as a reaction to the emergence of the idealistic liberalism theory.

As an academic discipline liberalism emerged after …

WWI, inspired by the idea of regulating and reimagining state behaviour as a means to prevent future conflict.

Strands - realism: Structural Realism / Neorealism focus on the structure of the international state system which forces them to act as they do.

Strands - liberalism: Neoliberalism accepts realist assumptions about the primacy of the state and international anarchy. But argues that anarchy can be the foundation for building international state cooperation for building international state cooperative and positive relations. Also believes that IGO’s have an important role to play.

Criticisms - realism:

• States will be / are unitary and selfish - meaning they can’t react to global problems, such as the environment, global poverty, refugees etc.

• The importance of the state is exaggerated in the globalised, capitalist and internet age.

• Realism sets no moral aspirations on the activities of the state - and justifies actions undertaken solely to satisfy narrow selfish national interests, regardless of the costs.

• China’s colossal building programme of fossil fuel power stations could be seen as an example of the last point.

Criticisms - liberalism:

• Idealistic…

• States’ actions throughout history suggest that realism is the true model for understanding IR.

• The spreading of liberal democracy across the world is just a form of cultural imperialism that tries to ride roughshod over local traditions and circumstances.

• The failure of the USA to be able to introduce a successful stable liberal democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is evidence of this last point. Afghanistan recently passed a law legalising rape in marriage and allowing for the marriage of 10 year old girls - hardly a model of liberal democratic progress.

Both theories offer frameworks for understanding IR and peace but have their respective limitations. Realism’s focus on power and security may lead to pessimism about peace, while liberalism’s reliance on ….

institutions and democracy assumes that cooperation can overcome inherent conflicts such as that of Israel and Palestine.