Larger states often dominant the role of international relations within the region. Based on Neorealism, the state plays a very important role in international relations and possesses power to ensure domestic security and economy stability. It also indicates that state is the main actor and clearly specifies the role of the non-states, such as international organization, transnational organizations and many other social organizations.
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.
In addition, there are two principles that work within domestic level rather than international is laissez-fire, which means nonintervention on the side of government attitudes toward the society, and social welfare that indicates social services provided by a state for the benefit of its citizens. Furthermore, liberal theory regards the domestic circumstances of states as crucial variables and alternating in explaining their international behavior, in other words, liberals assume unlike realists that what goes on inside states has a fundamental and undeniable impact on how they behave internationally. Liberalism tells us that the make-up of different types of political systems, which affect their foreign policy decisions. For instance, democracies are meaningfully different from dictatorships as well as liberalism tells us that values (ideas) beyond national survival matter; thus, while realist principles may exert strong influence over the decisions of policy makers, liberal ideas cannot be not ignored—if they are, the results will often be disastrous. This paper examines how liberalism works in foreign policy and can liberal peace be effectively maintained and expanded without provoking
Many international relation scholars use the three main schools of thought, realism, liberalism and constructivism, to understand and analyze states’ behaviors in the international arena. Each of the three theories uniquely explains the reasons behind a state’s behavior in times of peace or during a conflict. Realism is the school of thought that believes that the international system is anarchic and thus the states try to gain material power. On the other hand liberalism focuses on the power of institutions, which are founded on common values and goals of the state, in the international system. The last theory constructivism believes that state goals are a reflection of social norms, values and history of a state.
In fact, the main drive of realism in international relations theory is to highlight the anarchic nature of international politics. Classical realists who are also known as traditional realists, held the view that international politics is an amoral exercise which is blighted by war and conflict because of human nature. Thomas Hobbes (1985) put forth the view that man operated in a state of nature where no law existed above him to prevent him from acting immorally or according to a specified set of rules. This state of nature shaped human nature which according to Hobbes was characterized by “competition, diffidence and glory” amongst humans. (Hobbes, 1985, p.185) For classical realists, the characteristics of human nature were put into practice in international politics where every state is functions to garner safety and as there is no power to keep states moral, they indulge in competition which often results in “war of all against all”.
It places the greatest importance not on state actors, but on the institutions and norms that exist in the international system (Karns, p. 59). Unlike Realism, Social Constructivism suggests that interests and identities of states can in fact change and are not assumed to be fixed. For example, the institution of state sovereignty is important, but the idea of what sovereignty is has changed as the social beliefs, cultural, and norms of states change (Karns, p. 59). According to this theory, the greatest means to affect these kinds of socially constructed changes is through multilateralism. Also in contrast to Realism, Social Constructivism purposes that IGOs have actual power, and their power comes not from their need to enforce authority, but their ability to act impartially as vessels for cooperation, and as actors that can teach and create new norms (Karns, p.
Offensive neo-realism: Mearsheimer is the leading proponent of the theory of offensive neorealism. It is a structural theory which, unlike the classical realism theory related to the IR scholar Hans Morgenthau, it places the principal emphasis on the struggled competition for security among the great powers within the anarchy of the international system, and not principally on the human nature of statesmen and diplomats. Realism however, focuses on the need for power and states that human nature is rational, power hungry with the main focus on state sovereignty. It focuses on the need for security as a state and how the states compete for it. Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive neorealism is mainly built on the five core assumptions.
According to realism, states works only to increase their own power. The world is a harsh and dangerous place. The only certainty in the world is power. A powerful state will always be able to control and outdo the weaker competitors. The most important form of power is military power.
Realism has much to say on the concept of power in international relations. Traditionally, realists have seen military capability as the essence of power, for fairly obvious reasons. The capacity to act military gives states the ability to repel attacks against themselves, and therefore to ensure their security. Or it enables them to launch attacks against others for specific ends. From this that the potential for military capability, and hence power was depends on a number of factors such as size of population, abundance of natural resources, as well as geographical factors and the type of government of a given
Great powers are primed for offense. They will defend balance of power when looming change favors another state but will undermine the balance when direction of change is in its favor. Specifically in World War I, the struggle for power was exacerbated by the three major assumptions of the security dilemma: Absence of central authority (anarchy), States all have offensive military capability, and states can never be certain about other states’ intentions. The result is fear, self-help, and power maximization, and so, the security dilemma ensued and ultimately led to the outbreak of World War I. Thus, the most persuasive theoretical explanation of the outbreak of World War I is the cascading security