CARR

Born in 1892; passed away in 1982.
Assumed the same position at the University of Aberystwyth in 1936, previously held by Alfred Zimmern, recognized as the first official scholar of International Relations (IR) and an idealist.
Notable professor and diplomat representing Britain.
His views were significantly shaped by the impacts of the First and Second World Wars.
Gained academic fame through the publication of "Twenty Years Crisis" in 1939, which examines the period between the two World Wars.
Served as a prominent critic of Zimmern's ideas and the effectiveness of the League of Nations.
Realism arose as a response to the ideals of idealism after the conflicts.
Became a Marxist thinker post-Second World War.
Erroneously associated utopianism with idealism and liberalism, particularly since neoliberalism was not yet conceptualized.

Harmony of Interests: The belief that individual interests can be aligned or harmonized with those of others.
- This theory promotes state policies that facilitate mutual benefits, for example, asserting that trade brings good results while war leads to negative outcomes.
- The idea of harmonized interests fosters a superficial grasp of domestic conflicts, suggesting a false consensus among individuals who supposedly share identical interests.
- This perspective fails to account for the essential diversity present within society.
- Elites, liberals, and idealists misrepresent their specific interests as encompassing state interests.
- The notion that any specific interest can represent a state interest is fundamentally flawed.
- Disguising elite interests as state interests provides a mechanism to justify and uphold the status quo.
- The presumption of societal solidarity implies an erroneous and immoral view, where morality reflects the power dynamics—favoring those able to equate their interests with what is deemed "good."

The domestic criticism associated with the harmony of interests similarly applies at the international level.
States' interests are not synonymous with those of the most elite members of society; thus, international interests often misrepresent broader global concerns.
Example: British imperialism and the League of Nations portrayed as benevolent entities (contrary to Zimmern's view).
The concept of international harmony of interests obscures the actual interests of particular states, masking them as universal or global interests.
This framework assists in rationalizing and maintaining existing power dynamics and structures.

Internationalism/Cosmopolitanism: Represents a vision of a global community yet essentially echoes particular interests rather than genuinely global concerns.
Dominant nations often utilize the rhetoric of an "internationalist" or "cosmopolitan" community to reinforce and perpetuate their own status quo.
Nationalism acts as a disruptive force against this status quo.
In essence, internationalism/cosmopolitanism can be perceived as a vehicle for domination—equating narrow or national interests as global objectives.
This ideology ultimately influences and determines future political directions on a global scale.

Carr argues that both idealism and liberalism are fundamentally bankrupt for several reasons:
1. They fail to actively promote peace.
2. They do not offer a neutral perspective on international affairs.
3. They are regressive, as they fail to alter the status quo.
Carr posits that idealism and liberalism camouflage the subjection to the interests of dominant powers, misrepresenting these dynamics as "progress" while framing particular interests as universally beneficial.

Carr advocates for a synthesis of consistent/pure realism with aspects of "utopianism."
He posits that the realist’s role is to identify inconsistencies within both "utopianism" and consistent/pure realism.
Carr asserts that both pure realism and utopianism present significant challenges in understanding international dynamics, emphasizing a blend of altruism alongside self-interest as important influences in international relations.

Carr's realism accepts that political divisions within international relations represent conflicts of interests.
Acknowledges the existence of numerous sub-international units; these could be states but don’t have to be exclusively.
Proposes that a true global community is an unattainable notion, contrasting idealism, liberalism, and emerging neoliberalism.

International institutions, alongside global hegemony and superpower status, necessitate a significant comparative strength relative to weaker sub-international units.
Maintains that sub-international units will perpetually act according to their best interests, though this does not preclude moral considerations.
Power discrepancies and the ongoing presence of these imbalances will continue to shape international relations.

Stresses that the consent of the governed and those in subordinate positions is pivotal to the maintenance of any social order.
Challenges the notion of moral superiority espoused by some nations, arguing against the concept that one nation's ethical standpoint is inherently "better" than another's.
Asserts that moral actions are essential for establishing legitimacy in international relations.
Argues that immorality undermines and ultimately risks the decline of any superior power or authority.
Underlines that morality will consistently hold significance within any international order, influencing interactions among sub-international units.