“COMPARISON OF REALIST AND LIBERAL THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS”

Abstract

This article compares two major theories of International Relations—realism and liberalism—by examining their assumptions about human nature, key actors, the international system, and state behavior. Realism views humans and states as inherently self-interested and power-seeking, operating within an anarchic international system where survival and security are the primary goals. From this perspective, states are the dominant actors, and military power and national interests largely determine international outcomes. Liberalism, by contrast, presents a more optimistic view of human behavior and emphasizes the potential for cooperation through rationality, shared interests, and institutions. Liberals recognize the importance of non-state actors such as international organizations, multinational corporations, and NGOs in promoting cooperation and stability.

The article evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of both theories, noting realism’s effectiveness in explaining conflict and power politics, particularly during crises, while also acknowledging its tendency to overlook cooperation and institutional influence. Liberalism’s emphasis on cooperation and interdependence is highlighted, though it is criticized for underestimating power politics. Drawing on contemporary geopolitical tensions, particularly U.S.–China relations and disputes in the South China Sea, the article concludes that realism currently provides a more accurate explanation of global politics, where national interests and power considerations often outweigh cooperative ideals.