Realists v Liberals: The Nature of the International System Flashcards
divisions between realists and liberals over the nature of the international system
disagree over the importance of the state within the international system
disagree over how likely they think war and conflict is within the international system
disagree over whether states are connected or independent units: billiard ball model v cobweb model
disagree over the importance of the state within the international system
Liberals and realists are divided over the nature of the international system in terms of the nation state’s importance within it. According to realists, states have always been and still are the most important actors in the international system. The world in anarchical, meaning that there is no authority higher than the state and no worldwide government that can compel states to act in a particular way, making the nation state the key actor on the international stage. As a result, states are able to act as they please as there is no higher power dictating what they can and cannot do. They act by themselves and for themselves as separate units and many realists claim that there is therefore no such thing as the ‘international community’. While it’s true that there has been a rise in non-state actors such as IGOs, NGOs and TNCs, this does not take away from the ultimate primacy of the nation state, as seen within numerous IGOs that continue to be dominated by individual states. For example, NATO, the IMF and the World Bank are all dominated by the USA and heavily reliant on its capabilities. The USA contributes the most to NATO and even wields a veto within the IMF, seeing as an 85% majority is needed for any decision and the USA has a 17% voting share. This demonstrates that even within IGOs, states are still the dominant forces and have the power to determine their agenda. However, liberals would argue that while nation states are still important, due to globalisation there has been a rise in non-state actors, which challenges the primacy and importance of the nation state. Liberals claim that the state is in decline as an actor in the international system and can no longer claim to be the most significant force. In particular, the number of TNCs have grown considerably, with there being around 7000 in 1970 and over 63,000 by 2013. They account for over 50% of production and over 70% of world trade, undoubtedly being key influences in the global economic system. In fact, due to TNCs, states often have to compete in a ‘race to the bottom’ in order to attract investment, which limits their own ability to dictate their laws and regulations, having to cater to TNCs by offering low corporation tax and minimal regulation in order to attract them to their countries. This seems to be evidence of the declining importance of the nation state, according to liberal theorists.
disagree over how likely they think war and conflict is within the international system
Furthermore, another division between realists and liberals over the nature of the international system concerns how likely they believe war and conflict is within this system. Realists believe that war and conflict is inevitable, largely due to their pessimistic view of human nature. They believe that humans are inherently selfish. Thucydides argued that humans are fundamentally self-centred and will place their own interests above and beyond the interests of others. Conservatives share a similar view of human nature, with Thomas Hobbes arguing that humans selfishly seek “power after power”. Consequently, because humans are selfish, states are selfish too because they are ruled by humans. This selfishness causes a lack of trust because states will always look out for their own interests, meaning others can never be sure of their intentions. This inevitably causes tension and leads to a clash of interests, which in turn leads to war. For instance, in 1941 Hitler invaded Russia despite agreeing to a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. This demonstrates that states behave selfishly and this creates conflict. More recently, China has been seeking to become a hegemon state by building islands and increasing naval patrols in the South China Sea. Thus, attempting to expand its territory without considering the interests of neighbouring countries such as Taiwan and Vietnam which inevitably creates tension and could lead to serious conflict. However, due to their more optimistic view of human nature, liberals do not believe that war is inevitable. Liberals argue that humans are naturally altruistic and capable of a selfless concern for others. Socialism also has a positive view of human nature. For instance, socialists believe that we can cooperate and behave altruistically as we are bound by fraternity and common humanity. So, if altruism is at the core of human nature, states can also act selflessly as they are ruled by people. Therefore, harmony and balance is possible. Liberals would point to international organisations as evidence of this. For instance, the EU was established as the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 to promote peace and unity among European countries after the atrocities of WW2. Thus, demonstrating the ability of humans to co-operate on a large scale.
billiard ball model v cobweb model
Finally, liberals and realists are divided over the nature of the international system because they disagree over whether states are inherently connected or independent units. Part of the realist theory is the billiard ball model which was proposed by John Dalton and essentially means that there is no connection between states, they constantly collide with one another like billiard balls. They collide due to their differing interests and because they find themselves in a competitive struggle for power, as in the Cold War 1945 – 91. All states (whether intentional or not) pose a threat because if they wish to gain power they must take it away from somebody else. This causes immense tension in the international system. Liberals reject this notion and believe in complex interdependence. Complex interdependence is a term coined by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane. It describes how states and inextricably tied together economically, politically, culturally and militarily. This is illustrated further using the ‘cobweb model’ in which states are increasingly interconnected and inter-reliant. So, if one part of the cobweb breaks, the whole system is weakened. For example, the EU has the highest level of economic interdependence of any regional or international organisation. There is a single currency, a single market and the free movement of people and capital.
