DISTINGUISH BETWEEN REALISM AND LIBERALISM

Assignment No.2

By
USWA AZHAR
F23BA111

Course Instructor
MINAHIL ILYAS

Institute of Business and Information Technology

UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB
March,2024
Table of Contents
Abstract......................................................................................................................................................3

Introduction...........................................................................................................................................3
Realism...................................................................................................................................................3
Liberalism..............................................................................................................................................4
Distinguishing Features of Liberalism and Realism……………………………………………..5

Case Study…………………………………………………………………………………………………7

References.................................................................................................................................................10
 Abstract

A prominent area of social science, particularly political science, is international relations. The
intricate interactions that exist between the sovereign states of the world are referred to as the
scope of international relations. Its main focus is on thoroughly examining all events and
situations that have an impact on several states, among other things. Globalization has made
international connections between nations crucial around today's globe. This is because no nation
is self-sufficient. Consequently, nations across the globe have formed both bilateral and
multilateral ties to promote their social, economic, and security interests. Only two theories of
international relations—liberalism and realism—as well as their definitions are fully reviewed
and examined in this work. Jeremy Banthanl coined the phrase "international relations" in the
late eighteenth century, and several academics have characterized the field in a variety of ways
since its origin, according to the study's ultimate findings. Furthermore, the prevailing theory of
international relations has been realism or political realism.

Introduction

Realism
Realists contend that the desire to further advance the interests of a particular nation-state drives
every action taken in interstate relations. Realism has been regarded as the preeminent school of
thought since World War II and is still prevalent in politics in the twenty-first century. The five
main outlines proposed by the theory of realism are:

 The main participants in international politics are sovereign states;

 international politics are anarchic;
 States are logical, cohesive entities that pursue their national interests;
 The survival and national security of the state are its top priorities;
 One important yardstick for evaluating state-to-state relations is national might and
capability.
The "History of the Peloponnesian War" by Thucydides serves as the foundation for the theory
of realism, along with many other facets of international affairs. Although Thucydides is not
regarded as a realist because the theory was not named until the twentieth century, contemporary
academics and theorists have seen parallels between the attitudes and actions he described in
Ancient Greece and those of a more contemporary setting. This supports the theory that realism
is a historical theory that has stood the test of time.

The Indian author Chanakya composed "Arthashastra," which translates to "The Science of
Material Gain" or "Science of Polity," not too long after Thucydides, but in a different corner of
the world. According to Chanakya, a king's primary objectives are to strengthen his state, enlarge
his territory, and vanquish his adversary. He stated that it is preferable to embrace policies that
would allow one to survive and fight another day. "One should neither submit spinelessly nor
sacrifice oneself in foolhardy valor," he remarked.

Realism, which includes neorealism, is concerned with persistent interaction patterns in a global
system devoid of a single political authority. The logic of domestic politics, which is controlled
by a sovereign power, frequently varies from that of foreign politics due to this anarchic state.

Liberalism
It’s About More Than Liberty
Liberalism is a worldview or political ideology based on the concepts of equality and liberty.
Depending on how they interpret these concepts, liberals have a wide range of opinions, but in
general, they are in favor of concepts like free and fair elections, civil rights, press freedom,
private property, unrestricted trade, and religious freedom (Sinclair, 2010). Democracy and
liberalism have a tight but occasionally tense relationship. The primary tenet of democratic
ideology is that popular elections provide governments their legitimacy; liberalism, on the other
hand, is mainly focused on the extent of governmental activity (Schell, 2004). Similar to other
political ideologies, liberalism is extremely context- and time-sensitive. The liberal ideologies of
each nation vary and evolve with each generation. Liberal thought has evolved historically over
the past few centuries from distrust of the state's authority due to its propensity for abuse to a
readiness to use government authority to address perceived unfairness in the distribution of
wealth brought about by economic competition—inequities that are said to deny certain people
an equal chance to live in freedom (Heywood, 2003). Liberals' demands for greater governmental
authority and responsibility in the 20th century were obviously in opposition to their calls for
less government one hundred years earlier. Liberals typically formed the business and
entrepreneurial parties in the 19th century. They were middle class; and more inclined to
advocate for company restrictions and regulations for the majority of the 20th century to increase
possibilities for workers and consumers (Diamond, 2008). The liberals were inspired by the same
things in every instance, though a dislike for power structures that trample on people's liberties
and keep them from reaching their full potential, as well as a readiness to reevaluate and modify
social structures in light of evolving demands. What distinguishes the liberal from the radical is
that this eagerness is restrained by an opposition to abrupt, catastrophic change (Heywood,
2003). The liberal differs from the conservative, who thinks that change is at least as likely to
bring about harm as benefit, in that the liberal is ready to accept and promote beneficial change.

Distinguishing Features of Liberalism and Realism

Liberals, first of all, have a positive perspective on human nature in connection to the state. It is
a school of thinking that favors nonviolent means of conflict resolution and "soft" forms of
power over military might (Nyce, 2010). Global government and liberal organizations like the
UN, which liberals contend are successful in promoting cooperation and ensuring international
security, can help achieve this. Liberals disagree with the notion of great power politics as well,
believing that mutual dependence and peace define the nature of the international system. The
concept of economic globalization serves as an illustration of this; it is backed by liberal
ideology because it fosters interdependence and is meant to foster diplomacy.

The realist worldview, on the other hand, contends that states with greater strength would
inevitably rule weaker ones since the world is a zero-sum game. Great power politics, or the
view that all states are driven solely by self-interest and would do whatever it takes to achieve
these selfish goals, even at the detriment of cooperation and security in the international system,
serves as an example of this. Similar to liberals, realists contend that because war and strife will
always be a part of the global system, life will always be "poor, nasty, brutish, and short"
(Hobbes, 1651)

Liberalism uses self-reflection to determine the ultimate reality. According to Plato, people
possess immense knowledge from birth, which may be expanded upon by applying the Socratic
Method, which involves asking a series of questions to help the idealist become more
knowledgeable. For example, in Plato's dialogue Meno, Socrates, despite having no prior
instruction, helps a slave child acquire an innate knowledge of arithmetic. An idealist aspires to
be a guide, pointing others in the direction of truth. Idealists search for the truth on their own.
They have cautious instruction yet are independent thinkers. An idealist can access inner stores
of wisdom and understanding just as well.

People are instructed by realism as if they were empty canisters. It is in line with behaviorism,
which uses rewards and punishments to teach lessons. Realism minimizes the unique thought of
the individual since it is based only on information from the outside world.

The Dominance of Liberalism in Addressing Modern Global Challenges

Both liberalism and realism continue to have a big impact on modern international politics,
though in different circumstances and methods. But in light of the interconnectedness of today's
world, liberalism seems more applicable in tackling many of the urgent issues that governments
and international organizations are facing. Within the complex terrain of modern international
relations, liberalism surfaces as a prominent player in tackling a wide range of urgent issues that
states and international organizations must contend with. Liberal ideology's tenets—diplomacy,
collaboration, the advancement of democracy and human rights, and so forth—provide a flexible
and sophisticated framework for negotiating the complexity of our globalized society. This
liberal domination is visible in many areas of international relations, such as the settlement of
disputes, the advancement of economic growth, and the encouragement of global government.
Liberalism's focus on pandemic preparedness and global health governance is a reflection of its
dedication to the principles of human welfare, solidarity, and collaboration in today's
international politics. Liberal democracies support international cooperation, fair access to
healthcare, and investments in health security to develop a more robust and inclusive global
health architecture that can meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. In international
politics, liberalism asserts that free commerce, private enterprise, and the individual rights of
citizens must be supported. This indicates that the private sector is growing stronger and the state
is becoming weaker.

Case Study
Title: The Iran Nuclear Deal

Introduction
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), formerly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal,
offers a thought-provoking case study to examine the opposing perspectives of liberalism and
realism. Whereas liberalism places more emphasis on diplomacy, collaboration, and the function
of international institutions, realism stresses power dynamics, security concerns, and the pursuit
of national interests. This comparative analysis investigates realist and liberal viewpoints on the
perception and interpretation of the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Problems:
The delicate balance between Iran's nuclear aspirations and the international community's
attempts to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons was the main issue facing the Iran Nuclear
Deal (JCPOA). Even with the diplomatic breakthrough brought about by the JCPOA, several
fundamental issues remained:

1. Nuclear Proliferation Concerns:

The international world was concerned about Iran's nuclear program because of
allegations that the country was working to create nuclear weapons. Making sure
Iran's nuclear operations were peaceful and compliant with international non-
proliferation laws was the main challenge.
2. Trust Deficit:
 Years of mistrust and animosity created a serious trust gap between Iran and the
rest of the world. Establishing mutual trust and confidence among Iran and the
P5+1 nations, especially the US, was essential to the JCPOA's successful
execution.

3. Sustainability of the Agreement:

There were doubts over the JCPOA's long-term viability, particularly in light of
the possibility of future changes in political leadership or modifications in
geopolitical dynamics. There were questions regarding the agreement's efficacy
and longevity once the US withdrew.
4. Regional Instability:
The broader regional dynamics in the Middle East, including conflicts, proxy
wars, and geopolitical rivalries, added complexity to the implementation of the
JCPOA. Concerns about Iran's support for proxy groups and destabilizing
activities in the region heightened tensions and threatened the stability of the
agreement.

Realist Perspective
1. Power Dynamics:
Realists believe that each party is pursuing its own strategic goals in the Iran Nuclear
Deal, which is an example of power politics. The balance of power between Iran, the
P5+1, and other regional players is reflected in the negotiations and compromises made
inside the JCPOA, with each party looking to maximize its relative gains and minimize
its vulnerabilities.
2. Security Concerns:
Realistically speaking, controlling security risks and preventing Iran from obtaining
nuclear weapons were the main drivers behind the Iran Nuclear Deal. By limiting Iran's
nuclear aspirations and lowering the possibility of nuclear proliferation—which may have
led to a regional arms race and increased security tensions—the pact sought to preserve
stability in the Middle East.
 3. National Interests:
Realists contend that, to varied degrees, the JCPOA benefited the member states' national
interests. Iran benefited from the agreement by being freed from economic sanctions and
given a way to rejoin the global economy without compromising its strategic autonomy,
while the United States and its allies were able to limit Iran's nuclear program and
improve regional security.

Liberal Perspective:
1. Diplomatic Engagement:
The Iran Nuclear Deal is seen by liberals as evidence of the effectiveness of multilateral
cooperation and diplomacy in settling disputes and furthering common goals. The
JCPOA's discussions demonstrated states' willingness to compromise on difficult matters,
have civil conversations, and reach an agreement through diplomatic channels as opposed
to using force.
2. Institutional Framework:
The JCPOA emphasizes the significance of international institutions and norms in
influencing state behavior and promoting cooperation from a liberal perspective. The
accord was given legitimacy and control by organizations like the United Nations and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which increased its credibility and efficacy
in resolving worries about nuclear proliferation.
3. Normative Values:
Liberals draw attention to the normative principles of non-proliferation, peacekeeping,
and conflict resolution that are ingrained in the Iran Nuclear Deal. Through the
preservation of these principles and the encouragement of adherence to global standards,
the JCPOA aimed to create a rules-based system that fosters state collaboration, stability,
and security.

Comparative Analysis:
 Realism sees the Iran Nuclear Deal largely as a strategic maneuver to manage security
concerns and further national goals, emphasizing the role of power dynamics and security
interests in forging the agreement.
  Liberalism presents the JCPOA as a diplomatic achievement that fosters collaboration,
peace, and adherence to international rules, highlighting the significance of diplomacy,
multilateralism, and normative ideals in it.

Conclusion:
The Iran Nuclear Deal highlights the interaction between power politics, diplomacy, and moral
principles in modern international affairs and provides a fertile field for comparative research
from realist and liberal viewpoints. Liberals emphasize the possibility of diplomacy and
cooperation to address difficult issues and advance peace and stability, while realists emphasize
the practical calculations of states and the pursuit of security interests. We can better
comprehend the dynamics of international relations and the challenges of negotiating and
carrying out multilateral agreements in a diverse and interconnected world by looking at the
JCPOA through these opposing lenses.

References
Diamond, L. (2008). The Spirit of Democracy. New York: Macmillan.

Heywood, A. (2003). Political Ideologies: An Introduction. New York, NY: Palgrave.

Hobbes. (1651). Leviathan.

Nyce. (2010). The Future of Power.

Schell, J. (2004). The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People. New York:
Macmillan.

Sinclair, T. (2010). Global governance: critical concepts in political science. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.