Realism versus liberalism in international relations

Context: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has rekindled the realism versus liberalism debate in international relations. The liberals call the war an attack by “authoritarian Russia” on “democratic Ukraine”. The realists argue that the war was the culmination of the post-Cold War power games in Europe.

What are the theories of liberalism?

Liberalism has 3 core beliefs:

1. State are the main actors in the international system;
2. The internal characteristics of each state vary from the other and these shape the state’s behavior;
3. Some governance models are good (democracies) and some are bad (dictatorships)

According to them, good states are supposed to make peace while bad states seek to expand their power at the expense of others.

There are three different but interconnected theoretical approaches: economic interdependence, democratic peace, and international institutions. Therefore, the ideal world order that liberals want is the one where democratic states are connected through economic globalization and function in a system regulated by the international organizations (Ex – UN).

While liberalism offers an optimistic view of global order, it is more about what the world ought to be. Realism is more about what the world is.

What is the premise of realism?

For realists, a peaceful global order is desirable, but that’s far from reality. They also consider nation states as the primary actors in the international system.

The three main streams of realist theory in international relations – human nature realism, defensive realism and offensive realism. All seek to explain why states seek more power.

Human nature realism is based on the argument that humans’ lust for power can have a profound impact on the nature of states as states are led by human beings. They continue to seek expansion of power, leading to conflicts. (Hans Morgenthau in Politics Among Nations)

Defensive realists argue that the fundamental aim of the states is survival. The global order is anarchic and this factor forces the states to compete with each other. (Kenneth Waltz in The Theory of International Politics)

Offensive realism bases its arguments on structural factors rather than human behaviour. Power always seeks to maximise power at the expense of rivals. A state’s ultimate goal is to be the hegemon in the system. (Jon Mearsheimer in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics)

Source: This post is created based on the article “Realism versus liberalism in international relations”  published on 7^th April 2022 in The Hindu.