REALIST AND LIBERAL OPINION ON INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Posted: December 21st, 2022

REALIST AND LIBERAL OPINION ON INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Student’s Name

Course

Professor’s Name

University

City (State)

Date

Realist and Liberal Opinion on International Cooperation

International cooperation is described by its nature of being guided by the universal mode of interaction among the various countries based on the mutual sharing of the research results, production, commerce, as well as the protection of the investments and industrial knowledge is driven by the liberal and realist views. Although the realist believes in the various states being positional in their character, they share some characteristics with liberals who believe in the countries’ ability to work together to actualize the major benefits from cooperation and minimize the conflict (Yom 2019, p. 580). However, some nations are comprised of the two ideologies amongst their legislators. Therefore, this divides the international community into two distinct groups based on their beliefs; liberal and realist, whose views on the subject of international cooperation are detailed below.

Liberalism

Liberal philosophy is built on the belief in attaining everlasting peace while maximizing the prosperity gained by each nation, hence fewer conflicts experienced in each nation. The liberal view is the driving force of international relations as it was coined from the Latin word liber, meaning “free”, which historical meant the freedom philosophy. The liberal view thus revolves around addressing the challenges that curtail the achievement of lasting international peace and cooperation and diversifying on the new opportunities to maintain the relations (Ikenberry 2018, p.10). Liberalism is thus founded on the political and moral philosophy, which aim at ensuring that individual rights, consent and equality are all maintained for all individuals within the international scope.

Since liberalism supports human rights and freedom, they express a wide scope of their views, which encomprise liberal democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, private property, and the market economy. Liberalism since its advocation by Western philosophers aimed at abolishing the absolute monarchy, hereditary priviledge, and the traditional conservatism with the current norms of the representative democracy across all nations. Liberalism also advocates the rule of law (de Graaff et al. 2017, p.340). Each state and individuals have a natural right to life, liberty, and property that any of the countries should not contravene; hence promoting equality in the international community inculcates international peace. Liberalism also fosters global gender and racial equality, consequently expanding human and civil rights across the international community.  

Realism

The realism approach in international relations is defined by its subjective manner that nations are driven by national interests, disguised as moral concerns rather than international interests. According to this philosophy, realism believes that the national interest is fundamental for any given state and that states aim to preserve their political autonomy and national integrity, which they believe is supreme (Keohane 2020 p. 115). However, the fulfilment of political independence and territorial integrity may direct the national interests to various other forms, such as securing more resources for control by the specified nations. However, some other states may opt to expand their political and economic prosperity in contrast to other states yearning for their political independence without interference by the international community.

Realism defines the national interest guided by the territorial power for their specified nation. However, their definition of national power includes; political, economic, military, diplomatic, and cultural resources (Keohane 2020 p. 119). The major driving force for the realism view is the military power that defines the ability of the given nation to defend itself against any interference and attack or influence from another state and coerce another given nation to change its political belief.

Similarities

The independence of any given nation is the supreme ideology driving any liberal or realism ideologies. The independence of a given country is defined by its absolute ability to defend its territorial boundaries and the enforcing agreements as agreed upon in the various agreements that they sign (Özdamar and Ceydilek 2019 p.140). Therefore, just as the realism, liberal belief on the anarchical environment in which the nations rely upon their primary resources in securing the interests and enforcing the agreements that they whatsoever have agreed upon with any other international community in the maintenance of the domestic as well as the international order and command (Ikenberry 2018 p.15). This further explains the nations’ ability to control their resources and have exclusive rights in bargaining for their extraction for their benefits directly, hence maintaining peace and cooperation. 

Both the liberals and the realists believe in protecting the supreme independence and resources by using the available resources. Both the liberals and realists believe in preserving the decentralized system regulated through the balance of power. This hence indicates the urge of the two differing ideologists to maintain peace and cooperation amongst themselves in the community (Özdamar and Ceydilek 2019 p.146). However, as defined in this clause, the balance of power calls for the major powers to agree tacitly on preserving each member’s state autonomy communally. Therefore, even if the war would occur within the system is only constrained by the limitation of the objectives accrued to a few major nations as opposed to disagreement on limited objectives, which translate to more open-ended conflicts (de Graaff et al. 2017, p.344). This hence explains the two opposing ideologists championing peace consideration in the international community.

Although liberalism and realists differ in their ideologies, they share the rule of equality and concern for its advocation in international community relations. This is mainly witnessed in the sharing of the resources and the agreements the various nations come into signing amongst themselves. The liberal view on equality is more based on human rights in their advocation for international equality, which all parties should uphold irrespective of the nations involved. The realist view on equality is based on the equal measures in the acquisition of the exclusive rights in bargaining for their respective resources within their territory, which further drives the idea of peace and cooperation upon upholding these policies among the parties involved (Ikenberry 2018, p.19). Besides, both liberalism and realism recognize private property and resources protection with the aim of the maintenance of peace and international relations.

 Differences

Although both the liberal and the realist belief in the independence of the nations and their supreme control of the resources for the benefit of the state’s projects, realists have a stunning stand on the belief as a belief on the independence of the resources irrespective of whether they will protect it through civil war (Özdamar and Ceydilek 2019, p.150). This is contrary to the liberal beliefs, whose belief might be cornered into sharing the resources to maintain peace as guided by the various other international nations within the high ranks in the control of the various nations (de Graaff et al. 2017, p.350). This hence contravenes the smaller and less superior nations whose resources are easily manipulated by the high rank and superior nations.

Although the liberals highly worship international peace and cooperation, they recognize the greater authority, diversity, and respect for power-sharing. This is in contrast to the realist who does not recognize the greater authority of the nations and belief that all nations are equal irrespective of the size and the resources they control and the population density (Keohane 2020, p. 116). Politically, realists have high concerns over the centralized authority in which a few nations have the mandate of controlling and manipulating the minority nations. The limitation of the realists accepting the centralized authority is based on the authority being limited to be derived from the power of their state (Ikenberry 2018, p.19). However, the decentralized international system is believed to permit much diversity compared to empires that the realists define. Hence, the state’s pressure of increasing power will lead to utilizing the power to obtain the decentralized system control over the whole nation.

The ambitions and beliefs raised by the two ideologies as sponsored by the various nations also differ, especially on their aims and objectives. The realist, for instance, believes in the national interests being political autonomy and territorial integrity, which hence govern the different other forms of interests the government is likely to pursue upon their achievement. Mostly the ambitions and objectives are all centered on the increase of more control and power over the various resources such as land, political, economic, as well as diplomatic and cultural resources. Self-centered management thus guides the scope of the realist beliefs and views. They are determined to secure more power control against the liberals, whose mandates include the promotion of international cooperation (Keohane 2020, p. 118). Therefore, this may indicate a likelihood of manipulating some liberals to share the resources and highly pushing of the global policy and guidelines that serve the interests of the international as a method of showing commitment rather than championing and championing for primary resources (Ikenberry, 2018 p.21). Besides, the liberals have a high chance of being manipulated by the international community in a bid to share the resources rather than negotiate the deal.

Ultimately, liberalism and the realist differ exponentially on their beliefs and views on international relations and corporations. Liberalism is more concerned about maintaining peace and stability amongst the parties involved as they are built on the advocation for equality of human rights and freedom amongst the parties involved. However, the strong belief in peace by liberalism is on the verge of being influenced by stability to share resources. They also recognize greater authority, which differs exponentially compared to the realist. The realists strongly advocate for more power and recognition of the decentralized system not unless the centralized system involves powers from all parties and strongly believes in territorial autonomy. Thus, they can extend their influence to using extreme power to protect exclusive resources and independence. However, although both liberalism and realism differ in their ideologies, they share relatively various beliefs, such as the recognition of equality before law across all nations and individuals within the international community. They also both recognize the international community and the private resources that each of the specified individuals should uphold in their dealings and agreements. Therefore, ideally, all the parties, irrespective of whether liberal realists, aim to promote peace and stability of each nation, provided each party respects the autonomy of each country as well as its resources and power.

Reference List

de Graaff, N and van Apeldoorn, B  2017, US elite power and the rise of ‘statist’ Chinese elites in global markets. International Politics, 54(3), pp.338-355.

Ikenberry, G 2018, The end of liberal international order?. International Affairs, 94(1), pp.7-23.

2020, The global politics paradigm: guide to the future or only the recent past?. International Theory, 13(1), pp.112-121.

Özdamar, Ö and Ceydilek, E 2019. European populist radical right leaders’ foreign policy beliefs: An operational code analysis. European Journal of International Relations, 26(1), pp.137-162.

Yom, S 2019. Roles, identity, and security: foreign policy contestation in monarchical Kuwait. European Journal of International Relations, 26(2), pp.569-593.