International Relations: Liberalism and Realism

Paper Summary:

The paper discusses the merits and flaws of liberalism, using negotiations, institutional measures, and other non-military means to achieve political goals; and realism, believing that a powerful military threat is the most effective method of influencing other states in the international arena. The paper examines how both schools of thought have had success in achieving their ideals. The paper analyzes the current military threats to the US, and how "soft power", a fusion of realism and liberalism, has been most effective in international relations. The paper further discusses how finding a middle ground between the two paradigms is vitally important in today's international climate, especially in light of the threats to the state. The paper concludes that an ability to address or reduce such a threat is imperative to U.S. national security, and neither liberalism nor realism alone has been able to provide this.

From the Paper:

"Liberalism and realism proceed from different fundamental interpretations about the international system: assumptions about the identity of the other state actors , the relationship of those actors to both state institutions and international ones like the United Nations, and the determining factors of state relations with one another. Realists must take the liberal critique seriously, and vice versa; neither theory has been proven as superior thus far. This essay will examine the underlying failures of both schools of thought and examine the possibility that they are in actuality much closer to one another than originally perceived."

More papers on International Relations: Liberalism and Realism:

• Comparison Essay # 70180 : "International Relations Theory"
• Analytical Essay # 135565 : "Realism in International Relations"
• Research Paper # 93460 : "International Relations"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: