6.3 - Comparing realism and liberalism
Realism and liberalism often recognise the same event but explain it differently. In 6.3 you will compare their answers to shared questions about human nature and power, order and conflict, and the importance of states and organisations, using evidence and relevant Component 1 ideas to explain each difference.
Human nature and the uses of power
A comparison begins with a common question: why might a government trust an agreement, or fear that the other side will break it? Describing realism and then describing liberalism without connecting their answers leaves the difference unexplained.
Realism emphasises the danger of self-interest, uncertainty and insecurity. Governments cannot be sure that another state will keep a promise when its interests change, so they attend closely to capabilities. Liberalism gives greater weight to the capacity for reason, learning and moral choice. Governments can recognise mutual benefits and construct arrangements that make promises more reliable. Neither theory requires the claim that humans are always irrational or always benevolent.
The Component 1 connections explain the disagreement. Conservative human imperfection supplies reasons for caution: psychological vulnerability encourages the search for security, moral weakness makes selfish conduct possible, and intellectual limits make the intentions of others hard to judge. Hobbes's argument about fear and common authority helps explain why realists regard enforcement as a central problem. These are relevant connections, not an equation of all conservatism with realism.
By contrast, liberal rationalism gives individuals a capacity to consider evidence, identify interests and make moral choices. Developmental individualism adds that people can develop this capacity through education and open exchange. These ideas underpin the international liberal expectation that cooperation can improve through experience. Revisit the actual reason and individualism teaching.
Both theories regard power as consequential. The difference concerns what power is used for and which relationships matter. Realists particularly ask whether resources secure survival and prevent domination. Liberals also investigate economic connections, legal rules and institutional influence that can enable cooperation. If two states gain from trade, a liberal may stress the benefits to both; a realist asks whether the distribution of gains will strengthen a potential rival. This compares absolute gains in welfare with concern over relative gains in position, rather than claiming that realists oppose every trade agreement.
Order, security and the likelihood of conflict
Both theories can recognise international anarchy, understood as the absence of a common authority above sovereign states. Their disagreement concerns what that condition does to the prospects of security and peace.
For realism, no guaranteed enforcer means states must retain ways to protect themselves. A balance of power and credible deterrence may maintain order, but insecurity remains. The security dilemma can cause defensive actions to generate reciprocal fear. War therefore remains a recurring feature of the states system, even when individual wars might have been avoided.
For liberalism, anarchy need not prevent stable cooperation. Repeated interaction gives actors reasons to protect useful relationships; monitoring helps them assess compliance; negotiation can address conflicts without force. Complex interdependence creates multiple connections and makes military force a poor solution to many common problems. This makes harmony possible under some conditions, rather than guaranteeing peace everywhere.
Finland's accession to NATO in April 2023 supplies a shared example. A realist interpretation stresses external balancing after the threat revealed by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. A liberal interpretation can stress how an established institution provides consultation, agreed commitments and repeated cooperation. These are different mechanisms within the same decision, not two unrelated cases. The event shows neither that alliances abolish anarchy nor that institutions are irrelevant.
Hobbes sharpens the enforcement comparison. His domestic solution authorises a common sovereign to provide security; sovereign states have no equivalent worldwide ruler. International liberalism does not simply assume such a ruler appears. It asks whether consent, information and mutual interests permit cooperation despite its absence. The distinction prevents the mistaken answer that realism recognises anarchy while liberalism denies that states are sovereign.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account