![]() Third, realists hold that calculations about power dominate states' thinking, and that states compete for power among themselves. In essence, great powers are like billiard balls that vary only in size. It is therefore difficult to discriminate among states, save for differences in relative power. Realists tend not to draw sharp distinctions between 'good' and 'bad' states, because all great powers act according to the same logic regardless of their culture, political system, or who runs the government. The structure of the international system, which all states must deal with, largely shapes their foreign policies. Second, realists believe that the behavior of great powers is influenced mainly by their external environment, not by their internal characteristics. Realists focus mainly on great powers, however, because these states dominate and shape international politics and they also cause the deadliest wars. First, realists, like liberals, treat states as the principal actors in world politics. This gloomy view of international relations is based on three core beliefs. Carr notes, 'tends to emphasize the irresistible strength of existing forces and the inevitable character of existing tendencies, and to insist that the highest wisdom lies in accepting, and adapting oneself to these forces and these tendencies.' Creating a peaceful world is surely an attractive idea, but it is not a practical one. Realists agree that creating a peaceful world would be desirable, but they see no easy way to escape the harsh world of security competition and war. In contrast to liberals, realists are pessimists when it comes to international politics. In an ideal world, where there are only good states, power would be largely irrelevant. Bad states might be motivated by the desire to gain power at the expense of other states, but that is only because they are misguided. Other kinds of political and economic calculations matter more, although the form of those calculations varies from theory to theory. Third, liberals believe that calculations about power matter little for explaining the behavior of good states. Thus, the key to peace is to populate the world with good states. Good states pursue cooperative policies and hardly ever start wars on their own, whereas bad states cause conflicts with other states and are prone to use force to get their way. For liberals, therefore, there are 'good' and 'bad' states in the international system. Furthermore, liberal theorists often believe that some internal arrangements (e.g., democracy) are inherently preferable to others (e.g., dictatorship). Second, they emphasize that the internal characteristics of states vary considerably, and that these differences have profound effects on state behavior. First, liberals consider states to be the main actors in international politics. Liberalism's optimistic view of international politics is based on three core beliefs, which are common to almost all of the theories in the paradigm. For this reason, liberal theories are sometimes labeled 'utopian' or 'idealist.' Most liberals believe that it is possible to substantially reduce the scourge of war and to increase international prosperity. Accordingly, liberals tend to be hopeful about the prospects of making the world safer and more peaceful. The liberal tradition has its roots in the Enlightenment, that period in 18th-century Europe when intellectuals and political leaders had a powerful sense that reason could be employed to make the world a better place. Most of the great intellectual battles among international relations scholars take place either across the divide between realism and liberalism, or within those paradigms. > Liberalism and realism are the two bodies of theory which hold places of privilege on the theoretical menu of international relations. The University of Chicago Magazine: February 2002, Features: "Liberal talk, realist thinking
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |