Liberalism and Realism: Key Concepts
...icate strands of a cob web (Hason 2002). This carries on in the belief that states should assist other states in times of need because both share the common bond of humanity, and it is this bond that makes it unethical to war against each other. When dealing with conflict situations, liberalists measure things in absolute gains, where it is ensured that all participants gain from the decision. The purpose of this method of measurement is to create equal rights between the states within world politics (Kegley, Wittkopf 2001:253). These fundamental aspects of liberalism are seen though out the many various strands of liberalism, such as the neo-liberalism. (Bellamy 2002) The realism framework within international relations was heavily influenced in the 17th Century by Thomas Hobbes, who argued that human nature and life it self was, “nasty, brutish and short,” (Hanson 2002). That it is human instinct to be competitive and conniving and states within international relations reflect this. In the 1930’s and 40’s the drive for worldwide domination led to World War 2, this war had drastic effects on the support for liberalism, discrediting their theories and resulted in the establishment of realism as the paradigm concept. (Kegley, Wittkopk 2001:100). This re-established the importance of power and the relationship of power struggles between states. The realist view is essentially about the pursuit of power in an anarchic state system and ways of using this power in ensuring states sovereignty (Bull 1995). Seen through the eyes of a realist, the state is the most imperative and essential primary actor on the international stage. Today’s international system is anarchic, with no one specific global body governing it; this creates an atmosphere where self preservation is of most importance, where power can be used to maintain self preservation as well as increase the states interests through influence (Godstien 1996:53). As opposed to the liberalist’s cob web theory, realism maintains a billiard ball theory. This notion illustrates how that, both in a billiard ball game and world politics, strategy and power is of extreme importance. Each movement is tactfully carried out so that afterwards they are placed in a higher or better position. This can be carried out through the use of force, causing balls or states to come crashing together and generating war becomes inevitable (Hanson 2002). Conflict is an accepted characteristic within realism; therefore the state’s military capabilities are seen as of most importance (Morgenthou in Vasquez 1990). Military might is a dominate strategy within realism to determine one’s level of power. This self-help mechanism also relies to some extent on the relationships created with allied states. Nevertheless, the importance of these relationships depends on their position within the realist hierarchy of states. There are five levels, the highest is Dominant Powers, which can measure strength against all others and doesn’t require allies. The second is Great Powers, which have diplomatic privileges; however are not dominate because they rely on allies. Thirdly, Middle Powers have the back up of a large population, usually with significant wealth and economy. At the bottom of the realist hierarchy scale is Small Powers and Micro States, which as individuals don’t generally have significant leverage (Hanson 2002). Where liberalism measures in absolute gains, realism measures in relative gains, where it is viewed that some may benefit more then others in an exchange (Kegley, Wittkopf 2001:253). Liberalism and realism are completely heterogeneous in their beliefs and arguments on what system is more superior in maintaining world order through international relations. It has been evident that neither work entirely, as world order is yet to be achieved. Although neither theory is exclusively effective, both can be used in explaining events within world politics. The Cold War can be viewed through the eyes of a realist as perfect example of states need for power. In this situation, we see two super powers, the United States of America and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, competing for what can be described as world supremacy (Nye 2000). Both powers had ideological differences and became suspicious of each other, their rivalry escalated until the weaker one fell (U.S.S.R). This competition for hegemonic leadership created a situation where the need for power became out of control, with the Nuclear Arms Race building at a ridiculous speed. Some may view this as a failure of the realist theory to maintain peace; however this...