Realists and Liberalists Views on Conflict Essay

Introduction

Realism and liberalism are two principal theories of International Relations (McGlinchey, Walters & Gold, 2017). The approaches aid scholars in comprehending the field through different perspectives. They act as guidelines that theorists formulate to simplify complex issues that exist in the world. The two, however, have contrasting views of conflict among nations. This paper focuses on how and why liberal theorists and realists differ in their explanations of conflict.

The liberalism perception is that human beings are naturally good and they desire the presence of harmony and peace among nations. For instance, in the 18th Century, Immanuel Kant argued that liberal states are not likely to fight with foreign countries as their citizens govern them. On the other hand, the realism view depicts the anarchical nature of the world and the changes that occur in international politics (Canestaro, 2007). For example, Thomas Hobbes noted that people are in a natural disorderly state that can only be rectified by a social agreement between rulers and citizens (Clackson, 2011). As a result, countries are prone to conflict with other nations as they seek to secure their interests.

Realism

Realism is a theoretical view that focuses on states' competition and conflicts during their relations (Antunes & Camisao, 2017). Moreover, countries engage in foreign affairs due to their interests, and their behavior depends on how powerful the relationships are (Canestaro, 2007). Realists use five fundamental assumptions as points of reference to their arguments. Firstly, the nation is the principal entity in international relations, whose efforts determine how long it can engage in foreign affairs (Antunes & Camisao, 2017). Secondly, nations are reasonable actors who focus on achieving their best interests. Thirdly, states often compete with each other as a result of the anarchy exhibited in the international sphere. Fourthly, a nation is a united entity, especially when securing its interests during wars. Lastly, foreign policies and organizations are limited to fostering cooperation among countries.

There are three types of realists who include classical realists, neo-realists, and neo-classical realists (Clackson, 2011). Classical realists like Niccolo Machiavelli argued that the states' behaviors reflect human nature, which entails egoism and selfish ambitions. Consequently, nations wage war against each other since they yearn for power and cannot trust others (Antunes & Camisao, 2017). On the other hand, neo-realists focus on a more structural view of realism in the international system. According to Waltz (1979), the anarchic nature of the system dictates on their behaviors or decisions. Also, their actions are dependent on the nation's power in comparison to other states. Finally, neo-classical realists assume that a nation's main agenda is to maximize power and security (Clackson, 2011). As states focus on the two, those with less power feel threatened by those with more of it; hence strained relationships occur.

Liberalism

The liberalism theory emerged after the First World War when European politicians sought to prevent the occurrence of another such conflict (Clackson, 2011). The then American president, Woodrow Wilson formulated several views of fostering peace through foreign policy and curb anarchy (Baylis, 2008). Woodrow's suggestions received a severe drawback when the Second World War started, and liberal theorists only considered them after the Cold War. States, then, began adopting control of arms, international laws, and the quest for democracy.

Unlike the realists, liberal theorists argue that human beings are innately good and can avoid conflicts (Keohane & Martin, 1995). Moreover, they suggest that states can achieve cooperation when they address international anarchy. According to liberalists, the state's primary goal should be to protect the citizens' rights to life, property, and liberty (Meiser, 2017). In international relations, liberalism is concerned about limiting military power since it can have adverse effects on citizens while waging war against other nations. Liberal states, therefore, establish institutions that protect individuals' rights and limit political power.

Liberal theorists discourage conflicts that emerge from imperialism and territorial expansion (Meiser, 2017). The wars have negative impacts on nationals as they empower the states more, neglecting the interests of citizens. Liberalists, therefore, seek to formulate a system that enables nations to secure themselves from foreign threats, while protecting the rights of the people. In such countries, elections serve as a powerful tool of checking the state's power. Secondly, the division of power among various arms of the government also aids in limiting political power.

Liberalists argue that democratic nations are least likely to conflict with foreign states (Clackson, 2011). The countries are controlled by internal forces that check their powers and view other democracies as capable entities to cooperate with (Meiser, 2017). They also suggest that international laws and organizations are vital in enhancing cooperation and promoting harmony. Organizations such as the World Trade Organization have encouraged the establishment of free global trade and economic stability among nations (Clackson, 2011). Democratic states, then, opt to foster cooperation with others to benefit economically and reduce international warfare.

Conclusion

In conclusion, realism and liberalism are the major theories of international relations which aid in understanding global affairs and human nature. While realists focus more on human nature and the states, liberalists are more concerned with the rights of citizens and the enhancement of cooperation among democratic nations. Realists believe that conflict occurs when countries compete for power and security. Liberal theorists, on the other hand, argue that democratic states have lower possibilities to fight; hence, war happens when international institutions are limited.

References

Antunes, A., & Camisao, I. (2017). "Realism." International Relations Theory. Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/International-Relations-Theory-E-IR.pdf. Accessed 22 February 2019.

Baylis, J. (2008). The Globalization of World Politics, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press), 114.

Canestaro, N. A. (2007). Realism and Transnationalism: Competing Visions for International Security. BU Int'l Law Journal, 25, 113.

Clackson, A. (2011). Conflict and Cooperation in International Relations. University of Hull Lecturer.

Keohane, R. O., & Martin, L. L. (1995). The promise of institutionalist theory. International security, 20(1), 39-51.

McGlinchey, S., Walters, R., & Scheinpflug, C. (2017). "International Relations Theory." Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/International-Relations-Theory-E-IR.pdf. Accessed 22 February 2019.

Meiser, J.W. (2017). "Liberalism." International Relations Theory. Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/International-Relations-Theory-E-IR.pdf. Accessed 22 February 2019.

Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Chapter, 4(5), 6.