Realism and Liberalism Comparison

Realism is an approach to the international relations that is founded on four fundamental conventions, such as political groupism, egoism, international anarchy and power politics. This theory assumes that power and control are the primary outcomes if the political processes both on the foreign and internal area of activity.

Liberalism is considered to be a political approach, which is generally founded on the demand to advance, develop and preserve a person. The institution of liberalism is designed on three fundamental and interdependent conventions: “rejects the power politics as the only possible outcome of international relations; accentuates mutual benefits and international cooperation and implements international organizations and nongovernmental actors for shaping state preferences and policy choices” (Shiraev 78).

Key actors in world politics

According to the theory of realism, the key actors in the worldwide area of activity are the states that are interested in their own safety and security, enact in an inquiry of their interstate concerns and fight for control and dominance. Every state actor has to be reviewed as political objects that are conducting their specific concerns defined in terms of power. Moreover, states are able to control other actors.

While realists view states as the only vital key actors, “liberals see the world where there is a variety of non-state actors (such as multinational corporations, intergovernmental organizations, and governmental organizations), share the world stage with countries” (Richardson 17).

The role of international institutions

The proponents of realism claim that the international institutions and various civil groupings are considered to have close to none liberated authority (Rose 151). Moreover, the states are often innately combative and preoccupied with their security; the realists believe that the enlargement of the country area is restrained solely by the conflicting sides.

Liberalists assume that international institutions hold a decisive position in the partnership between states. With the right amount and activity of the international institutions, and expanding interconnection (involving transactions in economic and cultural areas) counties are granted with a possibility to diminish competition and disagreements. Moreover, the liberalists also debate over the international diplomacy and its possible application as a quite efficient method of getting countries to collaborate with each other in an honest manner and reinforce nonviolent and pacifist resolutions to various disputes. Liberalists suppose that with the appropriate international institutions and diplomacy, countries are able to collaborate in order to increase prosperity and reduce conflicts.

States’ priorities

In the theory of realism, the states apply the analytical approach towards decision making by the means of accessing and forcing thorough and definite information. The state is absolute and directed by an internal importance delineated in terms of power. The only restraint of the realistic international system is an absence of government; as a result, this system has no international power and states remain with their own instruments and techniques to establish their own safety, as it is the main priority if the state.

. According to liberalism, interconnection consists of three primary elements (Howard 42). Countries tend to collaborate in diverse methods, through economic, financial, and cultural approaches; the fundamental target of the state-to-state cooperation is not likely to lean towards the security, and armed military organizations are not usually employed. “Liberals see a further parallel between individuals and sovereign states. Although the character of states may differ, all states are accorded certain ‘natural’ rights, such as the generalized right to non-intervention in their domestic affairs” (Dunne 191).

World War I have both liberal and realist explanations in these particular areas. The controversy of key actors in world politics, for example, could be illustrated by the increasing German power: after the consolidation of Germany in 1871, disturbance in the equity of influence in that particular part of the world had occurred. As a result, this disruption was more probable to cause a war to outbreak. Moreover, Germany in support of the realism theory had been expanding economically and endured a resolute alteration of the power. Furthermore, Germany was alarmed because of the expanding authority of Russia and predicted eventual inequalities. The states’ priorities of Germany had illustrated the internal and external intrusive and immensely aggressive politics, which was the reason for the country to start a war.

On the other hand, there are several liberal examples in the World War I (Doyle Ways of War and Peace 31). For instance, Kaiser Wilhelm II tried to implement the liberal states’ priorities and the roles of international institutions during the war. However, as a result, in contrast to Bismarck, he had proven himself to be a liberal bumbler. One specific branch of liberal approach, which is called liberal institutionalism, had been implemented directly after the World War I, when the twenty-eighth President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson had established the groundwork for the League of Nations; thus confirming the liberal role of the international institutions.

As a result, the three articles of peace were conducted: “the constitution of the countries had to safeguard the essential freedoms of their citizens; the concept of Pacific Union and alliance between liberal states; and the obligation of the Pacific Union and its members to treat civilians and visitors from other countries with respect and dignity, this has henceforth been known as the cosmopolitan law” (Doyle Kant, 227).

The Statecraft simulated world

The Statecraft simulated world is represented by six disparate countries, where each country has its own supplies, resources, political direction, economy and the stage of advancement. In order to evaluate the possible performance of each country, we have to grade, classify and establish the most applicable factors, such as the available resources, the governmental system and political approach, the durability and the protection of other countries in the Statecraft simulated world, and the distribution of political forces within the framework of the existing world.

After evaluating every aspect mentioned above in a spectrum of every country, determining which country follows liberal and which country follows realistic approaches appears to be quite accessible. In the given simulated world, the countries that tend to follow the violent approach and are the representatives of a realistic state are Mordor and JAP-N. Both countries are militaristic and industrial; thus, orienting their states’ priority.

Both countries are absolute and directed by an internal importance delineated in terms of power. Moreover, they have a strong support of the other countries in the simulated world. These countries could be compared to the USSR during the Cold War with the USA, as they are currently stocking the military power and exposing the competition with other states.

On the contrary, the countries that are pursuing the liberal approach are Rordudordu and Jupiter. It could be explained by the fact that both countries are scientifically developed; as a result, they tend to enhance the level of education and further scientific advancement rather than engaging in war.

Works Cited

Doyle, Michael. “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 12.3 (1983): 205-235. Print.

Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. New York, New York: Norton & Company, 1997. Print.

Dunne, Tim. “Liberalism.” The Globalization of World Politics. An Introduction to International Relations. Ed. Baylis, John, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. 185-203. Print.

Howard, Michael. War and the Liberal Conscience, London, United Kingdom: Hurst Publishers, 2008. Print.

Richardson, James. “Contending Liberalisms: Past and Present.” European Journal of International Relations 3.1 (1997): 15-33. Print.

Rose, Gideon. “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy.” World Politics 51.1 (1998): 144–172. Print.

Shiraev, Eric. International Relations. New York, New York: Oxford University Presses, 2014. Print.