Does realism or liberalism better explain the core dynamics of the international system?

As we know, according to realists, states are primarily concerned with power and survival. Theorists such as Thomas Hobbes argue that mankind is inherently in pursuit of self-interests with egocentricity and competitiveness at the forefront of our actions. Of course, it has to be said that there are many examples of this kind of behaviour throughout history- world wars have happened and from a realist perspective this is due to the fact that the actions of states are rooted in human nature. This being said, however much realism is able to account for coercion and aggressive actions between states, it is not able to provide a sufficient explanation for the evidence of international cooperation, free trade, globalization and relative peace in the international system. The United Nations has been in existence since 1945, designed to ‘maintain national peace and security’; it’s morals and principles have been accepted by member governments as good and beneficial for it’s people. It has had many successes including settling territorial disputes, punishing war crimes through the use of war crime tribunals like those following the Cambodian War and it deserves credit for the fact that there have been no major world wars since it’s creation.

The end of the Cold War is arguably one of the most significant events in the history of the International Relations discipline and during it’s course, realism was the dominant theoretical system in terms of providing an explanation for it, however, realists failed to predict or anticipate the end of the war and it’s following peaceful developments into a new era. The realist theory of power balancing does help to explain the clear potential for a third world war; regardless of international institutions like the UN, the Soviet Union or the US could have easily acted as they pleased. However, it has been argued by thinkers such as Moravcsik that the realist power balancing was only temporary and served to prop up the status quo but it was actually a change in the preferences of the state which led to the eventual end of the conflict. It can be argued that the Cold War ended as a result of the economic incentives and domestic pressures faced by Gorbachev which gave him the opportunity to respond to the growing demands of society.

Particularly in 19th century Europe, liberalism was a transformative force. It was during this time that we saw a huge, modern expansion of industry, which brought about great change. The feudal system came to its end during this time and there was a reduction of the strong influence and control held by the aristocracy and monarchy, which had a grip on society for so long. The 19th century also saw governments beginning to assist individuals with issues such as poverty, disease and discrimination. They began to provide healthcare services, establish national school systems, help people in need and regulate conditions for workers; none of which could not have been achieved before due to excessive powers of government. These examples directly contrast with the realist view, which assumes that all individuals are selfish by nature and incapable of cooperation. If human beings are inherently selfish and egoistic to the degree that self-interest trumps all morality then how can such positive developments for mankind have occurred?

So continues the debate as to which theory best explains the core dynamics of the international system. It is clear that there arguments for and against both schools; some say that realism is the way things actually are whilst liberalism is an ideal world. This essay has concluded that liberalism has provided a more clear explanation than realism throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, however, international relations is a work in progress and as we continue to study the field, we will continue to ask questions about foreign policy and international issues in order to improve our understanding of the system today. Whichever theory one chooses to side with it is clear that they are both capable of providing robust and noteworthy explanations for the way the international system has worked thus far.

Bibliography

Haas M. L., (2007), “The United States and the End of the Cold War: Reactions to Shifts in Soviet Power, Policies, or Domestic Politics?” International Organization, Vol. 61, No. 1 pp. 23-34.

Moravcsik, A. (2003), “Liberal International Relations Theory: A Scientific Assessment” in C. Elman and M. Fendius Elman (eds), Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, Cambridge: MIT Press