Difference between Realism and Idealism

States Behaviour:
Realism holds that all states pursue their interests as suggested by Thomas Hobbes “war of all
against all” while liberalism holds that states can cooperate with one another and act more
selflessly.

Major Actors:
Realism: States are the major actors in world affairs.
Liberalism: There are other key new actors in world affairs such as international agencies,
supranational bureaucracies, labour unions, and trans governmental coalitions.

Anarchy:
Realism: International anarchy is a major force for shaping the motives and actions of states.
Liberalism: Other concerns such as technology knowledge and interdependence of domestic
welfares on international society undermine the force of international anarchy.

Conduct of States:
Realism: States in anarchy are preoccupied with power and security.
Liberalism: States are becoming more oriented toward economic growth and social security.

Role of International Institution:

Realism: International institutions affect the prospects for cooperation only marginally.
Liberalism: International institutions offer more optimistic promises than realism has argued.

Human Nature:
Realists view human nature as selfish whereas liberals view human nature as fundamentally
peaceful.

The neo-liberal institutionalism accepts the first, second and third realist propositions
that states are the major actors in world affairs and are unitary-rational agents and recognize
realism ‘s emphasis on anarchy to explain state motives and actions. However, the new liberal
theory gives major credit to the power of international institutions.
In some cases, countries will be better off if they all cooperate. Nonetheless, as illustrated by
Prisoner ‘s dilemma, they are afraid of being cheat by the others and end up not cooperating.

Liberal internationalism: (Read Only)

Description
Liberal internationalism is a foreign policy doctrine that argues that liberal states should intervene
in other sovereign states in order to pursue liberal objectives. Such intervention can include both
military invasion and humanitarian aid.
Criticism on Liberalism:
• The assumption that the different economic classes, the capitalists and the skilled naturally
cooperate because it is to their mutual benefit. This is not always borne out in practice.
• The idealists were also naïve about the role of power in international relations. Not all states
had, according to E. H. Carr, an interest in peace. Those who dominated the international
system were more likely to pursue peace because it was in their interests to maintain the
international status quo. Contrary to the belief of the idealists, then, there was no natural
harmony of interests among states.
• The reckless pursuit of progress and material gains undermines traditional social values
rooted in community and continuity.
• Free trade ruins domestic companies and small-scale industries.
• Realists argue that liberalism is an alleged tendency to turn foreign policy into a moral
crusade.
• Collective security organizations naively assume that all members perceive threats in the
same way, and are willing to run risks and pay costs of countering those threats. Because
power lusty states are unlikely to see their vital their vital interest in this light.

Difference between Realism and Constructivism:

The Realist Approach regards international politics as struggle for power among nations and justifies
as natural the attempts of a nation to use national power for securing the goals of its national
interest.
Whereas, Constructivism is a distinctive approach to international relations that emphasizes the
social dimension of world politics. Constructivists insist that international relations cannot be
reduced to rational action and interaction within material constraints (as some realists claim) or
within institutional constraints at the international and national levels (as argued by some liberal
internationalists). For constructivists, state interaction is not among fixed national interests, but must
be understood as a pattern of action that shapes and is shaped by identities over time.

System Approach

Objective of System Approach:

Systems Approach can be regarded as a useful approach to the study of International Politics. It
can be used for an overall view of the relations among nations. It can be used for both macroscopic
as well as microscopic studies of regional sub-systems which form parts of the international system.
Ever since its introduction in the late 1950’s, Systems Approach has been regularly used by a large
number of Political scientists for analyzing relations among nations.

Meaning and Nature:

Systems Approach seeks to analyze international relations as a system of interactions which are
interdependent and interrelated. It studies international relations as a system of behaviour of
international actors. Each nation acts and reacts in the international environment and its behaviour
is characterised by regularities.
It influences the international environment and is itself influenced by the international environment.
McCllelend has observed, “A nation’s behaviour is a two-way activity taking from and giving to
international environment.” The process of exchange is fairly continuous, regular and patterned and
as such can be studied as a system of behaviour.

What is a System?

A system consists of a known set of actors and entities or a known set of variables (political
machinery, attitudes, interests and political activities) which set parameters to the study. System is
a set of interrelated and inter— dependent interactions among actors.
Morton Kaplan conceives of international system as “an analytical entity for explaining the behaviour
of international actors and the regulative, integrative and disintegrative consequences of their
policies.” International system is the set of interrelated and interdependent interactions among
international actors-national and supra-national actors.

Assumptions of Systems Approach:

International Relations as International System:
International relations can be analyzed as a set of relations among international actors i.e. as an
international system.

International System is not International Political System:

When the concept of ‘system’ is used in the context of International Politics it is, taken to mean
International System and not International Political System. It cannot be described as International
Political System because it does not allocate authoritative values. Basic international units or actors
are sovereign states and as such no international actor or agency can authoritatively implement
values/decisions over them. Hence, it cannot be described as International Political System.

International Actors and National Actors:

What are known as international actors are basically the national actors acting in the international
environment.

National and Supra-National Actors:

The International actors can be classified into two main categories:

(i) The national actors acting in the international environment, and

(ii) The supra-national actors like the UN, regional organizations and other international agencies.

The latter can be sub-classified as bloc actors or regional actors like the EU, ASEAN, NAFTA and
others, and universal actors like the United Nations, World Bank & other international agencies.

A System of Interactions:
International System is constituted by a set of interactions among the actors or entities (nations,
interests and international actors).
Regular Interactions:
Nations are in continuous contact. There is a continuous process of interactions among international
actors and entities.

Patterns of Behaviour:
There are certain identifiable and describable regularities in the patterns of interactions among
nations.

Several Variables or Elements:

All systems’ approaches use units (or actors), structures, processes, and context (environment) as
major elements of the system. These elements are considered as major factors in terms of which
all substantive phenomena are explained.

Views of Morton Kaplan:

Morton Kaplan has been the chief exponent of the Systems Approach in international Relations. He
advocates that international politics offers the best sphere for the application of the concept of
‘system’ as a tool for investigating all its phenome

Morton Kaplan’s Six Models of International System: (Memorize if you

get time)

Morton Kaplan discusses six models of international system:

The Balance of Power System:

This model of international system refers to the balance of power system that operated in the 19th
century Europe.

Features of a Balance of Power System are:

(1) It is constituted by 5 or 7 major powers/actors.

(2) Each actor seeks to increase its capabilities through negotiations and not through resort to war.

(3) Each actor is prepared to fight rather than pass on an opportunity to increase capabilities for
protecting its national interest.

(4) The actors maintain a balance in their power positions, and no actor is permitted to become
unduly powerful.

(5) No actor is to be eliminated from the system. The actor terminates the war before the opponent
is eliminated.

(6) The defeated or constrained essential actors are permitted to re-enter the system as acceptable
role partners.
In the early years of the 20th century these rules were not followed by major international actors
and the Balance of Power system suffered a breakdown. It led to the outbreak of First World War
in 1914.

2. The Loose Bi-polar Model:

The breaking down of the Balance of Power System leads to a Bi-polar system.

It has two forms of manifestation:

1. The Loose Bi-polar and

2. The Tight Bipolar system.

The Loose Bi-polar System is constituted by two major bloc-actors, non- member bloc-actors (like
the group of Non-aligned), and universal actor/actors, like the UN. In it, blocs try to increase their
relative capabilities as well as to limit or weaken their rival bloc. Each bloc strives to use the universal
actor for increasing its own power. The non-bloc actors tend to support the universal actor for
reducing the danger of war between rival bloc

3. The Tight Bi-polar System:

The Loose Bi-polar System easily gets transformed into a Tight Bi-polar System. It is a bi-polar
system in which the two major powers lead their respective blocs of allied powers. Each bloc is
dominated by a major power. The international organizations are very weak and there are no neutral
blocs or nations. International relations take the form of interactions between the two blocs.

4. The Universal System:

The fourth model is the Universal System in which the nations get organized in a federal system. It
is a hypothetical model in which the world gets transformed into a Federal World State based upon
the principle of mutual toleration and universal rule of law. The universal actor is powerful enough
to check war and preserve peace or a balance in international relations.

5. The Hierarchical System:

Such a model can come into existence when a single powerful super power dominates the world
stage. The superpower becomes the universal actor and absorbs all other nations. In case this
system comes into existence through conquest.

6. The Unit Veto System:

The sixth model projected by Kaplan is the Unit Veto System. It involves the conception of a situation
of multi-polarity in which each state is equally powerful. Each possesses such weapons (nuclear
weapons) as can be used by it for destroying any other state.

Critical Evaluation of Systems Approach:

Robert J. Lieber has summarized the major limitations of the Systems Approach as under:
Only Frameworks:
The first limitation is, as Easton and Kaplan have acknowledged, that the systems approaches are
not yet theories but only conceptual frameworks. As such, these cannot lay down an intellectual
policy of international relations.

Inadequate:
The second major limitation is its methodological inadequacy. There is lack of operationalization of
concepts in a way that can make them accessible to empirical testing.

A Limited Approach:
Systems Approach is a limited approach because it does not accept the study of political institutions
and important domestic variables of international relations. It wrongly ignores the value of historical
and ideological factors.

Kaplan ignores Geo-Strategic Factors:

Kaplan’s models ignore the role of economic, technological, personality, geo- political and political
factors of international relations.

Kaplan’s analysis is Too General:

Morton Kaplan has listed some major variables for identifying and analyzing the models. But he has
failed to specify the priority positions among these variables.

Arbitrary Classification:
Morton Kaplan’s classification of international relations into six systems is arbitrary. One can
increase and decrease the number of these models.