6.5 - Realism and liberalism in post-2000 case studies

The state and globalisation: vaccine supply chains

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed both the value of cross-border connections and the political importance of reliable access. Vaccine production in 2020–2021 depended on scientific cooperation, firms, equipment and inputs moving through international supply chains.

The WTO's October 2021 work on vaccine inputs examined tariffs and bottlenecks that could impede production. It provides evidence that national supply was connected to decisions and resources beyond one state's territory. Revisit the distinction between interdependence and lost sovereignty in 1.2.2, 1.3: a state can retain legal authority while facing high practical costs if a connection is disrupted.

A liberal explanation identifies complex interdependence. Governments had reasons to coordinate standards and trade because separate national action could not readily reproduce every input and technical capability. Firms and researchers supplied channels beyond interstate diplomacy. Shared information could reveal bottlenecks, enabling coordinated attempts to remove them. The mechanism is an improvement in achievable outcomes through cooperation, not the assertion that every country received adequate vaccine access.

A realist explanation asks who controlled scarce resources and how dependence affected security. A government may value cooperation but fear being unable to protect its population if an essential supplier stops deliveries. Seeking alternative suppliers or retaining control over scarce supplies can therefore be rational responses to vulnerability. This reasoning explains pressures towards national control; it does not establish that every restriction was effective or morally justified.

The case challenges extreme conclusions. Cross-border production does not show that states disappeared, and border powers do not show that networks were irrelevant. Liberalism better identifies how multiple connections can produce shared benefits; realism highlights unequal vulnerability and the priority governments can give to protecting their own populations. Judging their reach requires evidence about which choices actually improved supply and how the benefits were distributed. The globalisation interpretations remain distinct from these international theories.

Political and economic governance: Ukraine and Sri Lanka

International governance has different instruments in security and finance. Comparing their mechanisms avoids judging an economic institution by whether it can stop an invasion, or a diplomatic vote by whether it directly finances recovery.

In Ukraine in 2022, the Security Council could not adopt the 25 February draft because Russia used its veto. The General Assembly then demanded withdrawal on 2 March by 141 votes to five. The Council and Assembly records show a contrast between blocked collective action and widespread diplomatic opposition. The actual UN powers lesson explains why these organs differ.

Realism explains the enforcement limit through state power and institutional design. A powerful member could protect itself from an adverse substantive Council decision. Liberalism explains how the institution still coordinated a common position and provided a public standard against which conduct could be challenged. Diplomatic condemnation did not compel withdrawal, so it limits any claim that institutions automatically overcome military power. It also prevents the opposite claim that a veto ended every form of international cooperation.

In Sri Lanka in 2023, economic institutions supplied different forms of support. On 20 March, the IMF approved an approximately US$3 billion four-year programme aimed at stability and debt sustainability. On 28 June, the World Bank announced US$700 million for reform and social-protection operations. These are verified IMF and World Bank decisions, developed in the Sri Lanka finance case. Approval does not mean that every dollar was immediately delivered or that every intended outcome occurred.

The liberal explanation is that pooled finance, expertise and coordination can help manage an interconnected crisis. Stability and social protection can reinforce one another: recovery is harder if households lose essential support, while protection is harder to finance during collapse. The realist explanation examines bargaining power. A borrower needing external resources may have less freedom to reject conditions, and weighted institutional voting gives influential states a greater role. The governance lesson supplies that institutional basis; it is stronger than guessing hidden motives from the size of a loan.

Across these cases, liberalism explains what organised cooperation makes possible, while realism explains important conditions and inequalities under which it proceeds. To assess economic effectiveness, examine implementation, stability and distributional outcomes. To assess security effectiveness, distinguish collective enforcement from representation or legal condemnation. An institution can make a real contribution without solving the whole problem.

Human rights and the environment: Libya and Paris

Universal goals can generate cooperation while leaving sharp disputes over authority, burdens and consequences. Humanitarian protection and climate stability reveal both sides of that relationship.

On 17 March 2011, Security Council Resolution 1973 authorised measures to protect civilians in Libya, including a no-fly zone, while excluding a foreign occupation force. Ten members voted in favour and five abstained. The UN record establishes the mandate and votes; the intervention lesson compares its significance with Syria.

Liberalism explains the authorisation through a shared responsibility to protect people and a rule-based route to collective action. Component 1 foundational equality gives individuals equal moral worth, providing a reason why their protection should matter beyond nationality. Consent and limited authority help explain why a defined mandate matters: cooperation is easier to sustain when participants know what they have authorised.

Realism asks why the powerful states allowed this particular action and supplied the means to carry it out. The absence of a veto and the willingness of an implementing coalition were necessary conditions. Different interests and strategic risks help explain selective responses. This account does not require treating humanitarian concerns as fictitious; it questions whether those concerns alone explain the action.

The outcome complicates any simple success claim. The UK Foreign Affairs Committee's 2016 inquiry criticised the drift towards regime change and preparation for the aftermath. Its conclusions are an institutional assessment, not a judicial finding. The comparison teaches a distinction: agreeing a protection goal, stopping an immediate threat and sustaining later security are different outcomes. Liberalism's explanation of legitimate cooperation must address damaged trust when limits are disputed; realism must explain the original cooperation as well as later disagreement. See the paired theoretical readings.

For the environment, the Paris Agreement of 2015 created common procedures around national climate contributions and review. The UNFCCC account establishes the agreement's design. Liberalism explains why shared knowledge and repeated negotiations can reduce uncertainty and encourage stronger commitments. The IPCC–UNFCCC teaching explains how evidence can inform negotiations without itself determining policy.