Difference Between Realism And Liberalism

1354 Words6 Pages

From the beginning of time, as early as the Greek Empire, states interacted and had mutual agreements/disagreements surrounding common goals. As time progressed, formal agreements were made, treaties signed and worldwide institutions and organizations developed. In the past decade, theories devoted to why institutions and organizations existed, how they functioned, developed and what effects they had and are still having on world politics, have become increasingly refined and the methods employed in empirical work more sophisticated. Two of these theories are that of liberalism and realism; forerunners for neo-realism and neo-liberalism. The purpose of this reaction paper is to present and analysis of these theories as it related to the history and the development of international institutions and organizations more specifically the United Nations (UN). Historically, during the interwar years, various theorists attempted to explain universal issues such as war, power and sovereignty between states. Both liberalism and realism had some convincing ideologies. In my opinion, Realism was effective in defining man’s selfish nature and the state’s role as the principle actor in war. This was because each state was responsible for its own safety, security and progress which could be obtained through military might and power. I also saw liberalism as being credited, as it rejected this reality of power politics and proposed that wars occurred because of the absence of democracy in

Open Document