This essay evaluates the two schools of thought to determine which one best explains the state of global politics. It is argued that realism is a more practical representation of the world politics than liberalism as evidenced by global power struggles, wars, isolationism, and ineffective international organizations.
International relations or global politics is characterized by different schools of thought, including realism and liberalism. Basically, realist thought in global politics emphasizes the view that nation-states should pursue unitary political objectives such as power and influence to protect national interest. To realists, the world is a harsh place and application of moral standards limits leaders to do what is logically in the interest of the nation. As such, non-state actors are viewed as antagonistic to the wellbeing of the nation and should be given a wide berth. Contrastingly, liberalism advocates for international cooperation in the interest of collective benefits. Liberalists oppose the use of military power, which they claim is an outdated realist thought.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Global Domination
3. Isolationism
4. Prevalence of War
5. Bias and Ineffectiveness of International Organizations
6. Pressure of Globalization
7. Less Aggressive Foreign Relations
8. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This work evaluates the two primary schools of thought in international relations—realism and liberalism—to determine which framework better explains the contemporary state of global politics, ultimately arguing that realism provides a more practical representation of international dynamics.
- The pursuit of power and hegemonic influence as drivers of state behavior.
- The impact of isolationist trade policies and economic nationalism.
- The historical prevalence of war as a realist indicator of international conflict.
- The systemic bias and perceived ineffectiveness of international organizations.
- The growing tension between traditional state-centric realism and the integrating forces of globalization.
Excerpt from the Book
2. Global Domination
As aforementioned, realists believe in accumulating more power than other nation-states in the world. They believe that in a harsh world, only power has real value and meaning to establish hegemony that can claim pride of place in the international community (Joseph and Kurki, 2018). Based on the concept of transcendental power accumulation, global politics embodies real power struggles to establish global superpowers (Walt, 2018). This obsession with superpower status has driven countries in the direction of unitary foreign policies. For instance, the Sino-American relations represent a perfect case of power struggles to gain global political domination. During president Trump’s reign, the relations between the two countries became increasingly constrained. Hopewell (2021) argues that Trump was obsessed with the belief that the US would assert its position in global politics through power accumulation. In retaliation, China progressively built a formidable military and diplomatic power to counter the rising US aggression (Acharya, 2019). Based on the realist notion that the international space is harsh and perilous, the two countries have become apprehensive of each other. The only way of asserting power to protect their hegemony is military power, which is witnessed in the establishment of sophisticated artillery such as nuclear weapons (Joseph and Kurki, 2018). The foreign policies of the powerful nations are always aimed at countering the influence of rival nations abroad. In situations of war, these countries are likely to deploy military troops to support their allies. Liberalist thought about international cooperation is more of an idealized perception of global power struggles (McKeil, 2022). To suggest that countries in pursuit of global domination use moral persuasion is to be unrealistic. It is not imperceptible to assert that these struggles, dismissive of morality, have resulted in catastrophic loss of life and destruction of property.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Introduces the debate between realism and liberalism, positioning realism as a more practical framework for understanding international power struggles.
2. Global Domination: Analyzes how the quest for superpower status and hegemony drives unitary foreign policies and aggressive power accumulation.
3. Isolationism: Examines how economic interests and trade protections reflect realist, inward-looking tendencies that challenge liberalist cooperation.
4. Prevalence of War: Argues that the recurring nature of armed conflict confirms the realist assertion that the international environment remains dangerous and self-interested.
5. Bias and Ineffectiveness of International Organizations: Discusses the inability of international bodies to exert influence over powerful nations, highlighting their systemic bias.
6. Pressure of Globalization: Explores the evolving influence of liberalist thought through globalization, which blurs national boundaries and promotes interconnectivity.
7. Less Aggressive Foreign Relations: Highlights the transition toward economic and social power as sophisticated alternatives to traditional military aggression.
8. Conclusion: Summarizes that while realism remains dominant in explaining global conflict, liberal perspectives are increasingly relevant due to technological and globalized influences.
Keywords
Realism, Liberalism, Global Politics, Power Accumulation, Hegemony, International Relations, Foreign Policy, Isolationism, Globalization, International Organizations, Trade Agreements, Sovereignty, Economic Power, War, Nationalism.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper examines the theoretical tension between realism and liberalism to explain the current landscape of global politics.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
Key themes include power accumulation, international trade policies, the legitimacy of global institutions, and the impact of globalization on state sovereignty.
What is the main objective of the research?
The objective is to determine which political school of thought—realism or liberalism—offers a more practical and accurate explanation of contemporary global political behavior.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The study utilizes a qualitative assessment of international relations theory, supported by historical case studies and modern geopolitical analysis.
What topics are discussed in the main narrative?
The main body covers state competition for hegemony, the rise of isolationist trade policies, the frequency of wars despite international peace efforts, and the role of international organizations.
Which keywords characterize the work?
The work is characterized by terms such as realism, liberalism, global politics, hegemony, and globalization.
How does the author view the US-China relationship?
The relationship is cited as a prime example of realist power struggles, where both nations prioritize military and diplomatic dominance over cooperative ideals.
What role does globalization play in countering realist trends?
Globalization fosters technological interconnectivity and provides platforms for international accountability, which challenges strictly realist, state-centric agendas.
- Arbeit zitieren
- D. Maina (Autor:in), 2023, Theoretical basis for global politics between realism and liberalism, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1405565
