Outline the key similarities and differences between the Liberal and Realist approaches to the

understanding of
International Relations. Which of the two approaches do you find most convincing, and why?

International relations the study of the relations of states with each other and with
international organizations and certain subnational entities. International relations deals
with such things as peace and war, human rights across the globe and globalisation these
are just some of the issues that international relations deals with. Liberalism is one of the
main schools of international relations theory. Liberalism is a moral philosophy and political
theory. Liberals typically believe that government has a necessary role to protect individuals
from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a
threat to liberty. Realism is an approach to the study and practice of international politics. It
emphasizes the role of the nation-state and makes a broad assumption that all nation-states
are motivated by national interests Realism, in philosophy, the viewpoint which accords to
things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is independent of
whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them.

Both realist and liberalist believe that humans are intrinsically selfish they both also believe
in international relations there is an element of selfishness Classical liberals believe that the
list of genuine human rights is quite short. It is comprised primarily of those things that are
necessary to preserve life and individual liberty. This list includes the right to be free from
torture, slavery, arbitrary arrest or detention. Jackson and Sorenson 1999 also agree with
that Liberals believe humans are in fear off attack as they say, “WWI was in no small
measure attributable to the egoistic and shortsighted calculations and miscalculations of
autocratic leaders”. This means that ultimately Liberals believe that International Relations
things as War are pointless as they are only leaders covering their own ego rather than the
interests of the people. Jack Donnelly in Theories of International Relations believes that the
liberalism viewon the International Relations stemmed from World War ll.

Theories of international relations by Scott Burchill 2013 highlights some liberalist opinions
such as Fukuyama who was an influential liberalist, he believed that “that the spread of
legitimate domestic political orders would eventually bring an end to international conflict”.
This means that he believed that similar to a neo-Kantain view that if there is set rules or
orders that countries must follow it will lead to no international conflict. Fukuyamas
believed this would achieve a peaceful world, and believed shared principles was important.
However, this approach is heavily rejected by neo liberals such as Waltz who has a similar
view to Jackson and Sorenson, he also believed that “liberals are guilty of ‘reductionism’”.
He didn’t believe the view of Fukuyamas had an enough explanation. He also added that
there was “differences between ‘inside-out’ and ‘outside-in’ approach to international
relations”. Another concept from ‘Essential of the International Relations by Karen A M and
Ivan M. Arreguín-Toft’ that the “International system comes from the English tradition of
international society” scholars such as Hedley Bull and A.Watson agree with this they
believe that similarly to actors in a international society will all consent to certain rules and
practices they will also have a common sense of identity. Liberals believe this will an
“process for positive interactions”.

1
Outline the key similarities and differences between the Liberal and Realist approaches to the
understanding of
International Relations. Which of the two approaches do you find most convincing, and why?
They believe that states possessions of weapons create other states to be weary and raises
fear among other states. E.H Carr believes that for liberal thinkers they have a wrong stance
as he believes they base international relations on “a harmony of interests between
countries and people” therefore according to Carr rather than looking at conflicts as
problems between countries and people we should look at it differently and see it as
conflicts just between people. He believes that some countries similarly to people are more
privileged than others this can be economical and in knowledge. The privileged will fight and
try their best to preserve their privilege while the less fortunate will struggle to have a
similar position as those that are privileged. Realists believe that international relations is
more about personal conflicts and desires rather than the interests of the people in
countries as a collective. Theories of international relations by Scott Burchill 2013 also
highlights some realist opinions. They also believe international relations are more centered
around conflict rather than cooperation. Political realism is one of the oldest and most
popular theory to be applied to International Relations. When looking into the realist
approach on international relations we get the concept form his perception. His first
assumption being
“That men are equal; this is typical for a male during his period.” The second assumption
being that; “they interact in anarchy, understood as the absence of both rulers and rules.”
Here Hobbes is highlighting that human have a selfish nature and do things to benefit
themselves. Lastly Hobbes believes “that they are motivated by competition, diffidence, and
glory”. Here Hobbes expands the things that he believes attributes to international relations.
We can link Hobbes assumptions and can apply them to international relations due to
Hobbes believed human nature was unchangeable, that humans will always only have self-
interest. If we look at Hobbes first assumption, we can investigate the “equality” in relations
to international relations. Realists see it as more linked to power politics rather than
international relations. We can also investigate Waltz’s structuralism. “Waltz argues that
there are only two basic political ordering principles, hierarchy and anarchy” he argues that
these connect with international relations. He argues that there is a connection between
anarchy and international relations that this is the difference in every country to deal with
situations differently. Realists generally see the international relations to anarchy. Due to
the insecurity in terms of power states attempt to have enough military army so they are
viewed as strong competitors.
However, when analyzing the similarities of realism and liberalism in International Relations
we can conclude that both realism and liberalism both look into human nature, they both
see humans as instinctively selfish and realize this has a large part to play in terms of
international relations as they see it as the selfishness is the reason that these disputes
happen.
Another difference is that Liberalism offers an alternative to achieve peace which is to
provide a consensus whereas most realist thinkers have a set mindset and not a solution
such as Hobbes.
In conclusion, both the realism and liberalism offer a unique and interesting approach to
International relations. Realism however presents a better approach as it is richer in detail
and can be applied more easily and thoroughly than Liberalism can.

2
Outline the key similarities and differences between the Liberal and Realist approaches to the
understanding of
International Relations. Which of the two approaches do you find most convincing, and why?
Bibliography
Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Nardin, T., Paterson, M., Reus-Smit, C. and True, J.,
2013. Theories of international relations. Macmillan International Higher Education.

Jackson, R., Sørensen, G. and Møller, J., 2019. Introduction to international relations: theories and
approaches. Oxford University Press, USA.

Mingst, Karen A., Heather Elko McKibben, and Ivan M. Arreguin-Toft. Essentials of international
relations. WW Norton & Company, 2018.

Hobbes, T., 1999. The elements of law, natural and politic: Part I, human nature, part II, de corpore
politico; with three lives. Oxford University Press, USA.
Fukuyama, F., 2006. The end of history and the last man. Simon and Schuster.

Köhnke, K.C., 1991. The rise of neo-Kantianism: German academic philosophy between idealism and
positivism.

Joseph, J., 2007. Philosophy in international relations: A scientific realist approach.

Millennium, 35(2), pp.345-359.