The Realist And Liberal Approach To International Politics
There are three types of approaches: Realist, Liberal and Critical. The first approach sometimes called ‘political realism’ is the realist approach. This approach has been the most influential since World War II, based on power and self-interest. Hence things are viewed from a realistic point of view free from wishful thinking or deluded thoughts. For these reasons it is seen as a hard powered politics. The theory of power politics is based on; selfishness and competition, as an egoistic instinct of natural human behavior. As for application of this through the state it is seen as the following. If the state is being run by selfish, greedy and power seeking people then human egoism will show up as state egoism. Same characteristics of people will be applied inside the state which will cause international conflict and possibly lead to war. Since each state will pursue its own self interest by nature. Through time a new way of thinking emerged from realism called structural or neorealist which started to explain that the absence of world government, will cause anarchy in the international system. Since states are relying on their own resources to guarantee security and survival instead of external support, this leads to conflict, tension and most probably war.
Moreover this will eventually lead to prioritize the build up of military power as the only way to ensure survival as a self help system. The realist approach to international politics has important implications for security. The state has the primary responsibility to maintain security from the realist point of view as indicated by national security. Hence other states are the main threats to security, in order to divert potential threats and confrontation the focus becomes on the build up of military capacity. On the other hand since states tend to treat other states as enemies this does not have to presumably lead to violence or any other forms of aggression and bloodbaths. Instead, the realist approach perceive it can be contained through balance of power. In comparison classical realist believe that a policy should be used to balance power through using diplomacy or possibly war. In order to prevent any state from exerting control in the international system. As for neorealist, view balance of power as a system, instead of a reinforced policy. Meaning no state enforces control over the other, leaning to create an equilibrium and depress anyone from achieving dominant ambitions.
The second approach Liberalism has has a major impact on international relations, it also offers a positive perspective of international politics. Based on the belief of human rationality and moral goodness, although liberals agree that humans are naturally oriented by self interest. This leads them to believe that the principle of equilibrium operates in all forms of social interaction, such as groups, individuals and states may follow self interest, but ultimately the course of nature will balance it out. Same applies to liberal point of view, from natural or unregulated balance comes through in economic such as invisible hand of capitalism a balance of interest emerges between states of the world. This inclines liberals to believe in internationalism and to hold that realists substantially underestimate the scope for cooperation and trust to develop within the international system. However, liberals do not believe that international order and peace manage themselves. Instead, mechanics are in order to restrain the intentions of sovereign states, in the form of international regimes or international organizations. This explains the ideology of what is known as liberal institutionalism the core for this point of view originates from domestic analogy. The idea that insight into international politics can be acquired by looking over the build up of democratic politics. Considering into account the social contract theory, this highlights the fact that only the construction of a sovereign power can safeguard citizens from the chaos and barbarity of the state of nature. If can only be forced from higher power in domestic politics, then the same applies to international politics. This provided the infrastructure to establish an international rule of law that would turn a chaos into an organized orchestrated chaos. Therefore liberals have generally seen the trend towards global governance in a positive way, in opposition to realist support for national security. They have also supported the idea of collective security, the notion that lead to starting the League of Nations and later on the United Nations.
As for global governance is a wide, dynamic and complicated process of interactive decision making at the global height. From the liberals perspective the argue that there is an unmistakable and most probably unavoidable attraction towards the favor of global governance. Reflecting growing interdependence and a greater willingness of states to act in collective action. On the other hand the USA’s reasons of national interest played a big part in promoting global governance. The popular preference for global governance has been particularly influenced in the economic sphere, in relation to three bodies: the international monetary fund, the world bank and the world trade organization. Each of these three bodies have been sucked into dispute with neoliberal globalization in their own different ways. The United Nations is the only true global organization ever constructed. It operates as the heart of the emerging global governance system. Its principals have been to maintain international peace and security, as well as to promote economic and social development. Although the UN has been no stranger to controversy and criticism, it is widely regarded as a vital framework for cooperation, should the international community choose to use it.
