Introduction to International relations essay
Juan Pablo Vieytes
文学部・人文科
学籍番号:00064173
Compare the approaches of realism, liberalism, constructivism in international politics theory and give an example and explain which of these approaches is more valid for you.
Human beings have always felt the necessity to explain different events in our world. In ancient times people tried to explain different natural events such as the rain, by creating stories which helped everyone to have a more clear idea of the place they were living in. In this sense, when dealing with international relations, theories are also a tool to understand the world and the everyday political events. Thus, theorist and scholars have always play an important role for nations and their policy makers when making their decisions, and even more importantly, these theories have help to create the basic form of the international world.
In this same way, during the progress of the 20th century three theories have contributed to create the shape of international relations: Realism, liberalism and a more modern form of radicalism, constructivism.
University of Chicago’s, professor Stephen Waltz, defines these theories in a few sentences. “ Realism emphasises the enduring propensity for conflict between states; liberalism identifies several ways to mitigate these conflictive tendencies and radical tradition (in this case constructivism) describes how the entire system of state relations might be transformed.” Although a very condense explanation, it illustrates very well each of these theories.
This report will endeavour to compare these theories and give an opinion about which of these theories is still valid and which is more likely to prevail above the others, in today’s world.
First of all, realism is the theory that dominated the 20th century, especially the period after Second World War. Realism also presents a theory that has performed changes in its form, due to some of the circumstances presented during the 20C. The realist theory sees the world of international relations as a constant struggle among states which are only self-interested. This struggle is often one for military power and security. It also presents us with a very pessimistic view of the world, and it is also concern with the spread of nuclear powers. One of the first realists was professor Hans Morgenthau who thought that human beings are intrinsically interested in dominating each other. He also supported the idea that multipolarism (many strong nations in power) would maintain a balance in the international system. However, this idea has being challenged even from within, thus creating a new idea of realism called neo-realism. Neo-realists such as Columbia University’s professor Kenneth Waltz have focused their discussion in the effects of the international system rather that the characteristic of human nature. Waltz also believe that defence is better than offence, therefore stronger states do not attack each other unless they are sure they can assure themselves in power. Thus, smaller states will try to balance or get closer to bigger states instead of creating conflict. Professor Waltz argues that is true in all cases, but specially in the case of dictatorships such as Iraq or North Korea. In an interview with “Georgetown Journal of international affairs, online” professor Waltz presents the idea that this rulers above all want to remain in power. That leads them to be careful when dealing with issues such biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, thus diminishing the opportunities to begin war or create an anarchical nation.
