Realism and Liberalism Essay

insane asylum reality and Liberalism atomic number 18 the two closely prevalent ideologies in practicing and analyzing transnational traffic in the last two centuries. They are playing important roles in the states. They imparting directly affect the decision making of the governments and bring cause to the peace relations among countries. Realist in the main stage a focus on state, power and national warrantor. It was especially quite dominant in the premier phase of the Cold War. On the new(prenominal) hand, Liberalism pays attention to spates freedom and rights. It rose up after the gentlekind War II in like manner the end of Cold War. From my fountainhead of view, to a large close reality and Liberalism are several(predicate) from to each one other. They are quite mated in theory. The diversitys between naturalism and Liberalism outweigh the similarities. In this essay, I would perplex these two ideologies in diametrical aspects to talk nearly.Similari ties between Realism and Liberalism rebellion natureFirstly, for the similarities, both Realists and Liberals cogitate in anarchy nature of planetary system that it is leaderless in the world system. Themajor theories of international relations wring the view that the international system is anarchic (Adem 2002 19). Both admit that in that respect is no reign, rules or systems in the international system. However, these two ideologies got truly different perceptions towards what they believe the states should do under this anarchic situation. The differences will be supply below.Differences between Realism and LiberalismThe views towards human natureFor the differences, the first is that the Realists and the Liberals indorse different beliefs towards human nature. Realists mainly are pessimistic and conservative. It is essential not to accommodate faith in human nature. Such faith is a youthful heresy and a very disastrous one (Butterfield 149 47). Realists believe in evil human nature. heap are born with hatred and envy,had cowcatcher sin, war occurred constantly. They withdraw that natural passion of human kind will bring out struggles among countries, conflict is inevitable (Niebuhr 1932 xv). This can be seeming(a) in the armament race in World War I. each country tried to maximize their amounts of weapons and expand their armed forces at that time. specially Britain and Ger many a(prenominal), their relationship was worsened as there was a dreadnought construction competition between them. Conflict is then occurred, paved the way to the World War I. Apart from this, during 1860s, the fall in States forced Japan to open its trade at the threat of attack, which was beneficial for America only (Sr And Teresa 201316). Hence, they also see human are self-interested, interest is the roughly important thing of the state. semipolitical action of the government is judged based on national interest (Morgenthau 1978 4-15). Realists think that natio nal interest is the most important thing of the state.On the contrary, Liberals mainly are optimistic and progressive. They interpret goodness exists in human nature. People are born to be kind, caring and helpful, willing to build reliance with others. Apart from this, Liberals stress interdependence, believing cooperation can be intensifyd in countries in order to reduce conflicts. Many intergovernmental organizations and institutions are formed in the late 19th century. They are made up of member states.For instance, European totality and World make out Organization, they enhance political and economic cooperation among countries. Institutions enhance the economic cooperation and reducing the transactions cost among states (Keohane 1998 82-94). Apart from this, the formation of United Nation was also a symbolic intergovernmental organization of Liberalism, providing a to a greater extent understanding of human rights and reinforcing the protection of it. Therefore, witnessing the comparison above, the differences are clearly sh suffer that the Realists and Liberals hold opposite views towards human nature.The different perspectives on stateThe second difference is the way Realists and Liberals perceive state in opposite angles. State is the most important actor in Realism. They hold a view that sovereignty of the state indicates the independence of thepolitical community. Realists Non-state actors such as international organizations are of use only for matters that do not concern immediate security interests (Harrison 2006 21). Realists will simply ignore the other actors if the interest of the state is intervened. The most obvious of a nations desire is developing army and technology. The nuclear arm race between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War is a significant example. Atomic bomb was invented at that time which brought a huge threat towards world peace. Realists also assist realpolitik, securing their own countrys interes t before care about others welfare (Rourke 2007 21). This shows realists are totally state-centered and tend to pursue self-interest.On the other hand, Liberals is not statism as Realists do. Liberals maintain good governance between people and state. Liberalism stresses the importance of individuality and liberation of human (Sr & Teresa 2013 18). Liberals favor values corresponding political and civil liberties, toleration and justice. Hence, Liberals emphasize more on non-state actors, for instance, multinational corporations equal the internationalistic Media and non-governmental organizations like the Red Cross and the Green Peace. As the Liberals advocate international cooperation, they pay attention to other countries rights and interest. The International financial Fund promotes free trade and enhances the welfare among states. It is also responsible in reducing poverty by subsidizing to members who turn in difficulties in economy. In short, from the object lesson abo ve, it is manifest that Realism is state-centered while Liberalism focuses both state and other non-state factors.The ship canal to view peaceThirdly, the ways to see peace between Realism and Liberalism varies. Realists think the best way to seek peace is to have proportionateness of power. During the cold war, the two super powers, the United States and the Soviet Union were in bipolar system which was more peaceful. It was because of the domination of the two super powers, do restrictions for the minor powers to become strong, conflicts were then reduced. The realists view power is a very crucial element. The best way to maintain peace is to be decent (Rourke 2007 22). Becoming powerful, the national security can be enhanced, and therefore this will reduce the chance from attack. China nowadays is becoming powerful in every aspect after the Reform and Opening-up Policy in 1978. She tries to ratify herself with both hard and soft power in order to revoke the invasion of other countries. She even became one of the members in the World Trade Organization in 2001. Besides, Realists believe every state is responsible to their own survival. However, some critics even argue that realists will rarely define peace.They would like to define peace as the absence of organized violence (Mapel 1996 57). From the Liberals point of view, there are more ways to view peace. Liberals are altruism which they emphasis on cooperation. In order to maintain world peace, many international organizations are constructed to work on it. For instance, the United Nations would like to put a halt on the violation of human rights of the states. Apart from this, The northwest Atlantic Treaty Organization, the military alliance, held a Science for Peace and warrantor programme in 2006 which aimed to promote peace and support civil cognizance cooperation and innovation. International organizations brought contributions in maintaining world peace.Also, the Amnesty International, one o f the non-governmental organizations, aimed to prevent squall of human rights and fight for justice for those who have been violated. Liberalism also brings the idea of elective peace. Liberals abandon wars against liberal democracies, but sometimes do not look into the war within illiberal states (Owen 1994 93). They see illiberal states in some way dangerous and unenlightened thus they got no tolerance in them (Owen 1994 96). In my opinion, there are quite many successful examples for Liberals in promoting peace, but still, their views toward peace are quite subjective, which brings limitations and loopholes to maintain peace in the next. In general, by the above comparisons with concrete examples, it is clearly shown that there is a huge difference between the ways Realists and Liberals view peace.ConclusionIn conclusion, to large extent I think that Realism and Liberalism different from each other. The only similarity is that both of them believe that the anarchy nature is l eaderless in the world system. The differences betweenthem are articulates with examples in various aspects. For the view towards human nature, Realists believe in evil human nature while Liberals believe in good ones. For the interpretation on state, Realists is state-centered, but Liberalists also focus on other non-state actors.For the ways they perceive peace, Realists advocate to have balance of power while Liberals enhances cooperation between nation states. It cannot be denied that Realism and Liberalism are two very distinct ideologies. From my point of view, these two concepts together with neorealism and neoliberalism will still play very important roles in the future of the International Relations. In order to secure the world peace in a sustainable way, I think the ideologies should coexist and strike a balance instead of only allowing one theory dominating the ball-shaped world.BibliographyAdem, S. (2002) Anarchy, Order and violence in World governing, Ashgate, Hamp shireArt, R. and R. Jervis (2012) (eds.) International Politics unchanging Concepts and Contemporary Issues (Eleventh edition) (London Pearson)Baylis, J. and S. Smith and P. Owens (2013) (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction to International Relations (Sixth edition) (Oxford Oxford University Press).Donnelly, J. (2000) Realism and International Relations, London The Press Syndicate of the University Of CambridgeDounan, M. (2011) Realist and Constructivist Approaches to Anarchy, Online, visible(prenominal) http//www.e-ir.info/2011/08/29/realist-and-constructivist-approaches-to-anarchy/ 29 Aug 2011Harrison, T. (2006) Realism, sovereignty and international relations An examination of power government in the age of globalization, Online, on tap(predicate) http//scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3549&context=etdJackson, R. & Sorensen, G. (2013) Introduction to International Relations Theories and Approaches, United Kingdom Oxford University Press Jehangir, H. (2012) Realism, Liberalism and the Possibilities of Peace Online, Available http//www.e-ir.info/2012/02/19/realism-liberalism-and-the-possibilities-of-peace/ 19 Feb 2012Jumarang, B.K. (2011) Realism and Liberalism in International Relations Online, Available http//www.e-ir.info/2011/07/02/realism-and-liberalism-in-modern-international-relations/ 02 Jul 2011Keohane, R.O. (1998) International Institutions Can Interdependence Work?, Foreign Policy, issue. 110, Spring, pp.82-94.Morgenthau, H.J. (1978) Politics Among Nations The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised, (New York Alfred A. Knopf), Online, Available https//www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htmOwen, J.M. (1994) How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace, International Security, vol. 19, Fall, pp. 87-125.Rourke, J.T. (2007) International Politics on the World Stage, Online, Available http//jeffreyfields.net/427/Site/Blog/3C90C230-B47B-4894-8E8E-F4C5078BDD88_files/Rourke-Realism,%20Liberalism,%20Cons tructivism.pdfSr, I.N.M. & Teresa, E.U. (2013) Liberalism and Realism A Matrix For Political Economy. International Journal of Business and steering Review, vol. 1, no.4, December, pp.15-25.