Hans Morgenthau formulates the basic principles of political realism. Initially, the author justifies the idea that the basis of international politics are the laws of political behavior, the roots of which should be sought in human nature. He tried to substantiate the idea that the power is associated with the immutability of human nature and it is the basis of the state’s behavior on the world stage. He believes that the world is imperfect. To create a rationally justified political order, it is necessary to take into account the imperfect nature of man.
There is no greater barrier to clear political thinking than failure to distinguish between ideals, which are utopia, and institutions, which are reality,” (Carr, 93). Utopia and realism are two distinct ways to approach the world yet not one view is superior to the other. Utopianism calls for hope and liberalism, something to aspire to yet it fails to meet the reality of the world. Utopianism’s failure leads into realist theory, which presents a more realistic yet negative view of international relations. By using theories to approach the international structure, a more successful approach to international relations can be
Secondly, realists argue the inability or reluctance of states to balance against US hegemony is because states are either not in the position to balance or do not see the importance of balancing (Jervis, 2003) (Schweller, 2004). Realism anticipates band-wagoning, which means states align themselves with the hegemony. Randall Schweller explains, “ The other states do not balance against hegemony because they are too weak, individually or collectively, and more importantly they perceive their well-being to be inextricably tied up with the well-being of the hegemony.”(Schweller, 2004) State behaviour that deviates from
The theory is considered as an inappropriate model, as it does not take into considerations poverty and privileges that exists in the developing countries (Grugel and Bishop 2014:35). Therefore, many societies in the world are outright rejecting the empirical democratic theory or failing it completely in their process of achieving democracy. Conventional theorists see democracy simply as an end in itself, critical thinkers are much more likely to see democracy as a source of emancipation (Hobson 2010:17 in Grugel and Bishop 2014: 36). As a result, Bishop and Grugel proposed new prospect like participatory democracy, there the focus is on the participants, not on the elections or representation to ensure that democracy is achieved. For example, the participation of feminist in the political sphere is highly encouraged as it redefines the boundaries of the ‘political’ in democratic theory.
Also, Realism ideas believe that state would act according to their own ideas and needs when Liberalism believes that state would act according to citizens ideas and needs. Realism believes in conflicts, aggression, militaristic expansions and Liberalism believes in measuring of power trough countries economy, in the cooperation and peace, in the nation/people`s rights and in ideas of political and nations/peoples freedom. Also, Realism believes that United Nation is pointless because organization cant keeps another state what it wants for example: (Russian annexation of Crimea and Russian occupation in Georgia) but actually Liberalism believes that United Nations can`t force states to obey the organization, but Liberals think that UN is still important in our reality. Liberalism just believes that international organizations like United Nations, give states the ways in which to cooperate with each other and to gain one another's trust. Also Realists argue that all states have same interests and all countries are interested in increasing
Neoliberalism Neoliberalism is interpreted as new form of liberalism. Neoliberalism is a theory that holds that states should try to achieve absolute gains rather than trying to achieve gains relative to other countries. Neoliberalism argues that in an interdependent world, states will seek efficiency in managing collective problems presented by international anarchy. Neoliberalism is a direct response to neorealism, which emphasizes that states have no reason to cooperate with one another. They exist in an anarchic world where states must all compete with one another.
This is where it diverges from other forms of liberalism. Institutionalism is not necessarily interested, per say, in human behaviour. However, the theory is concerned with, the emergence of the differing political actors and how they can potentially impact world stability. The cobweb model, of interconnected international actors, was put forward by John Burton in his book World Society. Burton advocates, instead of seeing the world as only consisting of dominated cluster of states, which are always geared for war.
Ironically if Liberal nations actually stopped trying to force democracy across the globe there would be less war. Although highly convincing in theory the idea of republican liberalism fails to acknowledge the reality of the different types of government that exist in world. Trying to force one system of government on everyone is a form of imperialism. Peace should be sought through strong economic ties and negotiations through institutions instead. Peace should come through the realisation that war doesn’t bring about prosperity only economic specialisation
Necessarily, should the second claim hold true, in that the rules and functioning of the globalized world are skewed in favour of one party over another, then the first claim will necessarily be true as well, that globalisation’s potential has not been adequately exploited. The thrust of this paper will be to explore the rules and functioning of the globalized world, and to determine whether they indeed are skewed in favour of the advanced industrial countries and other elite interests within those countries. In Part B, we explore the problems of today’s globalisation, and see how it is largely unsatisfactory. In Part C, we consider possible ways forward for globalisation. For a focused
Some political thinkers may be of the idea that this had undermined the importance of geopolitics in the global political sphere. International borders and territories were thought of as less significant. However, is this indeed the end of geopolitical thought in international relations or is it not so? I think not. Lets us explore the relationship between globalisation and geopolitics and understand the crucial role of non-state actors, who have gained importance on the global scene in recent times.