Realism and Liberalism, synonymous with Idealism, are two prominent and renowned
theories used in analyzing International Relations. Realists are skeptical about
morality, believe that humans are selfish and thus conflict is inevitable. Idealists, on
the other hand, believe that society can learn from it’s past and improve; yet
circumstances often prohibit this. International tensions during the 1970s confirmed
realism to a large extent, yet in light of the growing levels of inter-state cooperation, a
new liberal philosophy came forward during the early 1980s that challenged this
model (Grieco: 1988: 486).
Anarchic international system, alliances and states as selfish
One of the core arguments of the realist theory is that states are selfish (McGowen et
al., 2006: 28). Realists believe that the state would rather act according to their own
needs and increase their own well-being, than act selflessly and share benefits with
another state (McGowen et al., 2006: 28). An example of this is the brinkmanship
seen in the Cold War during the arms race between the United States of America and
Russia. This behavior is not seen as irrational but instead sensible and calculative as
realists believe that the international system makes acting selfishly inevitable and
unavoidable (McGowen et al., 2006: 29). Unlike states, that can internally enforce
cooperation through legitimate violence, the international system does not have any
central authority (McGowen et al., 2006: 29). Realists thus describe the system as
anarchical and believe that self-reliance is the only rational way to maintain power
(McGowen et al., 2006: 29). Therefore due to the anarchical system, it is in the
national interest to pursue power to secure national security and protect the state
(McGowen et al., 2006: 30). This, however, creates a security dilemma as the more
the state enhances security, the more insecure the country’s neighbours feel.
Consequently, they build up their own security and military as well as form alliances
with smaller insecure countries to make themselves feel protected (McGowen et al.,
2006: 30).
The equilibrium of power, realists believe, is affected to a large extent by alliance
formation. (Midlarsky, 1981:271). Particularly during the pre-nuclear era, alliances
played a big role in maintaining a balance of power. (Midlarsky, 1981:271). The term
‘alliance balance’ was coined by Edward Vose Gulick and played a key role in
1
, maintaining the stability of the European state system in the eighteenth century
(Gady, 2010). States were seen to act selfishly under a counterweight system that
balances out the formation and counter-formation of alliances. However, liberals
would criticize this system as weak due to the uncooperative nature and dependence
on raw power (Gady, 2010). States allied and counter-allied according to perceived
threats; Napoleon demonstrated this with Russia and Austria in 1804, and Prussia in
1806 (Gady, 2010).
The realist theory supports the notion that the international system goes through
cycles of peace and war, which links in with the assumption that is later discussed of
‘continuity’ (Midlarsky, 1981: 271). They believe that the system operates according
to quantifiable measure of power: the size of a state’s territory, army and financial
reserves determine the exact power of the state (Midlarsky, 1981:271). The
hegemonic theory believes that power is transferred from one powerful state to
another through warfare. This power cycle theory proposes that a ‘soft landing’ is
only possible via a dynamic equilibrium of power and foreign policy role (Inoguchi,
2003:169).
Liberalists agree with this realist assumption to some extent, as they also believe that
the nature of the international system is anarchic (McGowen et al., 2006: 33).
However, they disagree with the assumption that the lack of central authority within
the international system creates selfish competition (McGowen et al., 2006: 33).
Idealists believe that cooperation is an alternative to conflict and the more states learn
and realize that confrontation leads to mutual disappointment, the greater the
desirability and possibility of considering options for mutual gain (McGowen et al.,
2006: 33). Idealists assume this, as they believe that states have the potential to
modify their behavior. Unlike realists who simply reduce the international system to
be solely anarchic, idealists argue that the network consists of many transnational
interactions where information is shared and states learn from each other and gain a
greater international understanding (McGowen et al., 2006: 33).
Distribution of power
2
theories used in analyzing International Relations. Realists are skeptical about
morality, believe that humans are selfish and thus conflict is inevitable. Idealists, on
the other hand, believe that society can learn from it’s past and improve; yet
circumstances often prohibit this. International tensions during the 1970s confirmed
realism to a large extent, yet in light of the growing levels of inter-state cooperation, a
new liberal philosophy came forward during the early 1980s that challenged this
model (Grieco: 1988: 486).
Anarchic international system, alliances and states as selfish
One of the core arguments of the realist theory is that states are selfish (McGowen et
al., 2006: 28). Realists believe that the state would rather act according to their own
needs and increase their own well-being, than act selflessly and share benefits with
another state (McGowen et al., 2006: 28). An example of this is the brinkmanship
seen in the Cold War during the arms race between the United States of America and
Russia. This behavior is not seen as irrational but instead sensible and calculative as
realists believe that the international system makes acting selfishly inevitable and
unavoidable (McGowen et al., 2006: 29). Unlike states, that can internally enforce
cooperation through legitimate violence, the international system does not have any
central authority (McGowen et al., 2006: 29). Realists thus describe the system as
anarchical and believe that self-reliance is the only rational way to maintain power
(McGowen et al., 2006: 29). Therefore due to the anarchical system, it is in the
national interest to pursue power to secure national security and protect the state
(McGowen et al., 2006: 30). This, however, creates a security dilemma as the more
the state enhances security, the more insecure the country’s neighbours feel.
Consequently, they build up their own security and military as well as form alliances
with smaller insecure countries to make themselves feel protected (McGowen et al.,
2006: 30).
The equilibrium of power, realists believe, is affected to a large extent by alliance
formation. (Midlarsky, 1981:271). Particularly during the pre-nuclear era, alliances
played a big role in maintaining a balance of power. (Midlarsky, 1981:271). The term
‘alliance balance’ was coined by Edward Vose Gulick and played a key role in
1
, maintaining the stability of the European state system in the eighteenth century
(Gady, 2010). States were seen to act selfishly under a counterweight system that
balances out the formation and counter-formation of alliances. However, liberals
would criticize this system as weak due to the uncooperative nature and dependence
on raw power (Gady, 2010). States allied and counter-allied according to perceived
threats; Napoleon demonstrated this with Russia and Austria in 1804, and Prussia in
1806 (Gady, 2010).
The realist theory supports the notion that the international system goes through
cycles of peace and war, which links in with the assumption that is later discussed of
‘continuity’ (Midlarsky, 1981: 271). They believe that the system operates according
to quantifiable measure of power: the size of a state’s territory, army and financial
reserves determine the exact power of the state (Midlarsky, 1981:271). The
hegemonic theory believes that power is transferred from one powerful state to
another through warfare. This power cycle theory proposes that a ‘soft landing’ is
only possible via a dynamic equilibrium of power and foreign policy role (Inoguchi,
2003:169).
Liberalists agree with this realist assumption to some extent, as they also believe that
the nature of the international system is anarchic (McGowen et al., 2006: 33).
However, they disagree with the assumption that the lack of central authority within
the international system creates selfish competition (McGowen et al., 2006: 33).
Idealists believe that cooperation is an alternative to conflict and the more states learn
and realize that confrontation leads to mutual disappointment, the greater the
desirability and possibility of considering options for mutual gain (McGowen et al.,
2006: 33). Idealists assume this, as they believe that states have the potential to
modify their behavior. Unlike realists who simply reduce the international system to
be solely anarchic, idealists argue that the network consists of many transnational
interactions where information is shared and states learn from each other and gain a
greater international understanding (McGowen et al., 2006: 33).
Distribution of power
2
