Comparative Theories GapFill

In global politics the mainstream theoretical debate is between realists and liberals. These two theoretical viewpoints differ in their views on human nature, power and progress, as well as the structure of the international system.

The central principle in realism is  interdependenceanarchyfree tradenation states. For realists, this concept refers to the idea that there is no higher authority in the international system capable of maintaining order. For realists,  anarchyfree tradenation statesinterdependence are the only significant actors within this structure. International institutions are not reliable forms of authority as they are incapable of governing nation states and are too easily influenced by their powerful members. Competition, not cooperation, is the natural state of the international system for realists, and this reflects their view of human nature, which sees people as self-interested and power-seeking. As a result, nation states will always pursue their own national interests. 

Realists are aware that such competition can lead to conflict. Realists often describe a scenario in which a nation state strengthens its own defences in order to protect itself, but in doing so makes another nation state feel more vulnerable. As a result, further nation states will then strengthen their own defences in response, which creates tension and can unintentionally increase the likelihood of conflict. This scenario is known as  international institutionsthe security dilemmafree tradeinterdependence and is particularly relevant in explaining the causes of World War I. Realists believe that the best way of avoiding such situations is creating  interdependencenation statesthe security dilemmaa balance of power between rival states or groups of states, similar to the international system during the period of the Cold War. Realists do not believe in changing the dynamics of the international system as they do not accept that such fundamental change is possible, and so instead advocate working within such limitations.

Liberals have a very different view of the international system. They argue that conflict can be prevented by cooperation and complex structures of  a balance of powernation statesfree tradeinterdependence. By creating a system in which nation states are mutually reliant on each other, states can be forced to work towards common goals together, rather than competing with one another. It is for this reason that they advocate  interdependencefree tradea balance of powerthe security dilemma to promote informal structures of economic cooperation, as well as  a balance of powerthe security dilemmainternational institutionsnation states to promote formal structures of political cooperation. Liberals believe that multiple nations can have a common national interest, such as economic growth, and by working together they can achieve that goal more quickly, efficiently and successfully. This reflects the more positive liberal view of human nature, in which people are rational and cooperative, and a more positive view of history, in which progress is inevitable.

Clearly, realists and liberals differ in many different respects. While a realist may argue that only  bigsoftsmallhard power is of relevance in the international system, a liberal would contend that  hardbigsmallsoft power also plays a significant role. Similarly, while a liberal seeks to extend the role of international institutions in global governance, a realist would be sceptical of such institutions and oppose the idea that they undermine national sovereignty.