Liberalism
Over the last two centuries, realism and liberalism have largely accounted for what has been witnessed in the international sphere. Today, it continues to offer suggestions of state behavior and its effects on peace between countries. The establishment of nation-states in the 16th century raised questions on whether human freedom and independence were central or the establishment of the state. Its survival was the major aim of political discourse. This essay seeks to discuss whether liberals or realists better explain peace critically.
Liberalism is defined in layman’s language as the “freedom for each individual.” This is because liberals posit that humans are inherently good-natured. This world’s core ideals are individualism, human rights, universality, freedom from authority, the right to be treated equally under the protection of the law, and duty to respect and treat others as “ethical subjects.” Other ideas closely connected to these viewpoints include the concept of representative government and private property ownership, the right to free economic activity devoid of state interference.
During the First World War, Woodrow Wilson, the then president of the United States, laid the foundation for the League of Nations, which led to the formation of a brand of liberalism known as liberal institutionalism. Woodrow’s gesture had its basis in Kant’s concept of perpetual peace, which had three articles of peace. Even though the League of Nations proved unable to deliver on promises of peace, it was able to deliver on promises of peace, and it was able to reform into neo-liberalism.
Today neoliberals and neo relist have common assumptions on the international system, although liberalism today mainly deals with institutions and their effect on state behavior in the international system. For example, the liberal internationalist ideology believes that states can cooperate in economic terms even if they exist in a system where there are security competition and tension. This economic cooperation is thought to translate into interdependence from mutual benefits of the involved parties, consequently reducing the risk of war and further increasing peace prospects amongst nation-states.
Moreover, another proposition for the liberalists is based on the democratic peace theory, which argues that democracies are intrinsically peaceful as the people are indirectly ruling their own country through a representative government, compared to the governments where power is entirely vested into the hands of a single autocratic leader, who is vulnerable to hastily making decisions that could lead a country into conflict and war.
In contrast to liberalism, realism, which is considered its theoretical opponent, does not seek to provide an optimistic picture of international affairs as its main drive to highlight the anarchic nature of international politics. Therefore, in essence, realists believe that international politics is a self-centered venture blighted by war and conflict because of human nature. Classical realists further held that the characteristics of human nature were put into practice in international politics where every country functions to acquire safety. Because there lacks the power to keep states moral and in check, they tend to fall into competition results in “war of all for all.”
However, modern realism seems to separate itself from the political dictates based on human nature and its characteristics, taking the view that the structure in which states find themselves in international relations is anarchic due to the lack of an overarching authority sovereign. Neo realists thus posit that nation-states serve their own interests in the international system by strict adherence to a self-help code due to the absence of a sovereign authority above them. Moreover, because all states exist in a state of anarchy in the international arena of politics, they are all thought to pursue self-interest and seek to acquire the power to ensure their safety and survival to acquire the power to ensure their safety and survival in an international system devoid of an authority that will come to their help if they fail to do.
Therefore, the possibilities for peace in the realist view, which is pragmatic in its approach to international politics, are considered limited. In contrast to neoliberalism, neo-realists tend to be more pragmatic on matters of peace in international politics. However, suggestions have been made that the pursuance of realist policies could actually result in a more stable environment with lesser conflict. Although the world today is largely characterized by an unrelenting brooding of neorealism, where states find it difficult to trust each other and must therefore be always prepared to gear up for war, Desch(2003) argues that state nation can, in fact, act to serve moral purposes, but only in an environment where their security interests are not threatened, and that skepticism which fills the realist view of the world produces more “just and humane policies.”(Desch, 2003, p.147).
In conclusion, both realism and liberalism provide insufficient accounts and possibilities of peace in the international system. Liberalism, with its focus on universalism and harmony, makes for an unstable world, while realism and its pessimism do not offer any prospects for peace.