International relations has various theories that all differentiate from one another in various ways. Realism is known as the belief that self-interested states compete for security and power. Realists believe that there is no greater authority above the states, and that states are the only important actors in international relations. Although realism argues that it is most accurate, liberalism and constructivism have their own international relations theories that contradict realist beliefs. This essay will focus on arguments set forward by realists, followed by counter-arguments through the eyes of liberalists and constructivists.
Realism argues that power is the opportunity for states to secure national interests (Lamy, 74). The difference between defensive realism and offensive realism is that defensive realism searches for security, while offensive realism searches for power and leadership dominance. The two main types of realism include classical realism and structural realism. Classical realism argues that it is human nature to crave power, to create laws, and that human nature itself can create conflict. Furthermore, justice is important for classical realists because it determines an understanding and a response to all international relations (Dunne, 42). On the other hand, although structural realists also believe that “international politics is a struggle for power”, they do not follow the belief that the struggle for power is human nature. Alternatively, structural realists believe that conflict and competition are results of weak authority over states. (Dunne 80). Structural realism, or neorealism, follows a self-help system. Self-help is that idea that states cannot assume other states will come to their defense, regardless if they are allies or not (Lamy, 77). Self-help falls under the anarchic system, the international setup where there is no common power that forces states to act in a specific matter. This can include but is not limited to pushing states to place their own interests over ideologies.
When the United States grew tension with their ally known as the Soviet Union during World War II, each focused on protecting themselves to increase political and economic power. Their radically different theories on economics and government led them to full distrust one another, creating tension. Realists can argue that if they had fully trusted the Soviet Union, their ally, they could have started a nuclear war when tension began. For this reason, the idea of self-help can lead a state out of trouble if any allies decide to turn on them. Realists may argue that their ability to be skeptical about interdependence only helps them formulate a plan incase any allies plan to turn against them. To extend their argument, realists say that they are better prepared than other states who do not take one state’s security as another state’s insecurity (Lamy, 77). Realists believe that it is inevitable to disagree. The League of Nations was a failure because the United States decided “not to join the institution it had created (Lamy, 90).
Liberalism is a more optimistic international relations theory, practiced domestically since the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Lamy, 83). It argues that states should spread democracy, due to their belief that human nature is good. Unlike realists, liberals also focus on trade and economics. They believe that humans can prosper by learning from their mistakes, and they try to avoid war at all costs. One major leading liberal of the Enlightenment was Immanuel Kant, who came up with plans for “perpetual peace”. The plan included democracy, trade activity, and international organizations. Kant also argues that liberal states are peaceful in their international relations with other liberal states (Lamy, 87). One idea that has been greatly debated is the validity of the democratic peace theory. The democratic peace theory proposes that democratic states do not become involved in conflict with each other, instead they have norms and laws that help eliminate disagreements or discussions (Lamy, 87). This is all based on the idea that states have common interests, and although the international system is anarchical, it is not as dangerous as other theories claim.
Constructivism is the international relations theory that emphasizes on social interactions and seeks to understand change (Lamy, 98). In order to understand the system, constructivists focus on shared rules, norms, beliefs, etc. Through the study of social relations, constructivists examine how actors make their activities meaningful (Lamy, 109). In other words, they make their interpretations and meaning evolve from personal experiences, their upbringings, and other subjective forms of interpretations. However, constructivists believe that through reflection, interpretations that have been learned in the past can be unlearned as new experiences or ideas arise. For constructivists, social categories are created by humans. These include the subjective classifications of race, ethnicity, etc. These terms change meanings because categories are not fixed and over time they can evolve through social interactions to have new definitions. A constructivist’s optimistic views that through selective behavior change is possible, demonstrates how they are more doubtful of mainstream social science methods (Dunne, 167).
One major critique of realism is that it is overly pessimistic and negative, assuming that the worst will always happen. Realists can’t rely on anyone including their allies, demonstrating that they are too negative and independent. Liberals may argue that learning from past experiences is possible, and that war can be avoided. For example, the Declaration of Independence demonstrates the turning point that confirmed the separation of the thirteen colonies from their previous mother country, Britain. If they didn’t urge for a peaceful way to separate from Britain, then the United States would have still been exploited to discrimination, high taxation, and abuse. Also, if realists had wanted to obtain greater power, they could have began war and ruined any opportunity of creating peace with Britain.
It can also be argued that realism is not accurate or useful because it is made up to be far too simplistic. Constructivists and liberalists believe that realists overestimate how insecure states really are. Realists believe that states will not cooperate and have mutual agreements. However, states have demonstrated that they can create relationships that benefit both parties. For example, war between the United States and Canada is highly unlikely because both meet agreements in regards to “economic and political power” (Lamy, 87). Another agreement that prevented war was after the United States decided to remove their missiles from Turkey, after the Soviet Union decided to remove their missiles in Cuba, from the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Lastly, a criticism against realism is that realists focus too much on the wrong things. It can be argued that realists have excess focus on military power and greater states such as the United States. However, it is impossible to quantify or define the amount of power that determines success or dominance for a state. Although both realism and liberalism derive from the observations and interpretations of political situations, realism does not extend their focus past the states. Beginning in 1929, after World War I, began the Great Depression. The Great Depression is an example of how too much emphasis and focus on military power ended up in destruction of jobs and debt for allies. If the allies focused on bettering their trading relationships and finding mutual agreements, post World War I might not have negatively affected so many people.
Personally, I am pro-constructivism. I believe that constructivism has a better international relations theory than other theories because constructivists are open to change and learning from their mista
kes. Constructivists are willing to admit that they are not always correct and that through time they can improve by changing their morals or ideas. Although I do not believe any theories are 100% correct, I believe realism and liberalism are too one sided. Realism is too independent and stubborn, which can lead to miscommunication and wars. I think they focus too much on military power instead of focusing on other important factors that can lead to success, such as trade or improving associations between the states. On the contrary, liberalism is too naive because they believe that all states will coexist and always find a mutual agreement, when ultimately that seems impossible. I think the international relations theory of constructivism allows relationships between states to grow, and it encourages states to prosper and better communicate.
Ultimately, realism argues that focus on states and militarism is most important. Realists believe that they cannot afford to trust other states, they must only focus on themselves in order to prosper and gain power. The idea of how much power is enough power, and how much power is too much power, is not defined for realists. Liberalists and constructivists have international relations theories that contradict the main ideas set by realists. Although no international relations theories will ever have every answer, each urges to have explanations for failed and positive events in history.