Realism and liberalism in international relations

Realism and Liberalism are both considered to be prominent theories in International Relations studies. They shaped debate among scholars worldwide. Whilst liberals held an assumption that security is best achieved through cooperation, realists argued differently. According to the suggestion on realism from Wendt (1992), ’each wants to survive and has certain material capabilities, but neither actor has biological or domestic imperatives for power, glory, or conquest (still bracketed), and there is no history of security or insecurity between the two’. This essentially means that anarchy puts states in a position of self-help in order to protect their own interests. Anarchy is the absence of central government who are responsible for the transnational level work. On the contradictory, liberals commonly believe that all actors, include both domestic and international levels, are and should be equally important. In addition, they pose idea that another key feature to be fully flourish involves ’freedom for the individual’ according to Jehangir (2012). Moreover, Kant (1784) suggested that ‘but the attitude of mind of the head of state who favours in the arts and sciences extends even further’. This refers to how liberals think towards freedom and to what extend it can further our vision. Additionally, liberals suggest that the stronger relationship among nations can translate to more chances of compromisation as well. Gaddis (1986) said ‘it has long been an assumption of classical liberalism that the more extensive the contacts that take place between nations, the greater are the chances for peace’. However, realists might challenge their theoretical counterparts. They often held premise that less developed countries in the global south need to find their own path towards economic development. Blessner and Guilthot (2015) explained that ‘the émigré realists saw American political culture as a liability, and they believed that their experiences confronting Nazism and their witnessing the failures of 1930s liberal diplomacy provided them with evidence of liberalism's deficiencies that no one could challenge’. This demonstrates a criticism of liberalism particularly in 1930s that when many factors including misregulation of the financial sector along with Eastern European fear of what is known as an Islamic tsunami led to the inequality and hatred among liberals.