Rationalism: Idealism Or Reflectivism?

Introduction
In international relations, there are four great debates that are well known where all great thinkers before had based their argument on how the state is governed. We have the first great debate which is the ‘Idealism vs Realism’, the second; ‘Traditionalism vs Behaviourism’, the third; ‘Neo-realism vs Neo-liberalism’, and lastly, the debate of ‘Rationalism vs Reflectivism’. Though all of the debates are well enlightening to be talk about, here on forth, the main focus would be on the debate of ‘Neo-realism vs Neo-liberalism’. To further understand the third great debate, it is crucial to first understand the parts involved in the debate which is neo-realism and neo-liberalism. The word ‘neo’ generally means new and revived. This

As suggested by Donnelly, (2000) there are; structural realists, who give predominant emphasis to international anarchy; biological realists, who emphasize a fixed human nature; radical realists, ones that adopt extreme versions of the three realist premises of anarchy, egoism, and power politics; strong realists, adopt realist premises in a way that allows only modest space for politically salient non-realist concerns; and finally hedged realists, who accept the realism definition of the problem of international politics – anarchy and egoism – but show varying degrees of discomfort with the solution of power politics. However, it is stated through Donnelly’s writing that “Hedged realism gradually merges into views that are fundamentally something else. At some point, (non-realist) ‘hedges’ become as important as the (realist) ‘core’, making it misleading to label the resulting position or argument ‘realist’ ” (2000,

As Sanders had cited, Morgenthau, 1967; Carr, 1946, “Traditional realism was both a simple decision-making theory and a protostructural theory about outcomes in the international system”. Sanders also suggested, “State strategy was aimed fundamentally at maximizing the state's interests and was underpinned by three "Hobbesian" motives: achieving and maintaining the state's security; satisfying the economic demands of politically significant sections of the domestic population; and enhancing the state's international prestige. The paramount need for security was best achieved by maximizing the state's power capabilities. Traditional realism took on the character of a protostructural theory in two senses. First, the condition of international anarchy (which derived from the absence of a Leviathan-like world government) was seen as the determining structural factor that lead decision-makers to adopt "safety first" strategies of realpolitic in order to protect and maximize the interests of their respective nation-states. Second, the character and outcomes of the interactions between different states were determined by the overall pattern of national interests: friendship and co-operation between states were considered to derive fundamentally from convergences of their respective national interests;