How does Realism and Neo-Liberalism view international order differently? What’s the alternative?
Created Time: November 16, 2021 6:55 PM Database: Evergreen Database Last Edited Time: December 31, 2021 12:12 AM Tags:#Essay Type: Permanent Notes
Compare and contrast the nature/characteristics of “Order” in Realism and Neo-Liberalism. Which theory do you think is better? In your opinion, what is the role of state in the new order of international relations in the future?
International relations debates has been on-going for decades. With the introduction of Neo-Liberalism, a more pragmatic interpretation of the idealistic Liberalism, the two theories interpret the means of anarchy similarly, but to different ends. This essay will first discuss the overlapping and contrasting features of Realism and Neo-Liberalism’s interpretation of international order, followed by my opinion on the debate, then finally ends with my speculation of what the role of states are in the new order of the future international relations.
To begin, both Realism and Neo-Liberalism interprets international order as both anarchic and state-centric. The two theories agrees that the international system is bound to be conflictual and anarchic, as in the lack of overarching authority. Neo-Liberalism also holds the Realist idea of state-centrism and selfishness, in which states are the only influential actor in international politics, who are rational but selfish. However, that is where the similarities between the two theories end. Although Neo-Liberalism believe states are the selfish and prone to conflict the two theories disagree on the possibility of cooperation. Neo-Liberalism argues the more optimistic view that even though anarchy is an obstacle to international cooperation the prospect of cooperation is possible through the use of properly designed international institutions. It assumes that there are transnational issues that a single state cannot handle on its own and which affects multiple countries at once. Therefore a structured cooperation-inducing organization is required to tackle these problems and states have the incentive to do so. On the other hand, the traditional realists assumes that strictly states are selfish to a point that long term cooperation is impossible. Domestic politics can be achieved but the international politics cannot be organized in such a way. The nature of anarchy makes states focus on self survival or gain and conflicts are to be resolved by wars. Therefore Realism and Neo-Liberalism differ in their perspective of international order in the possibility of cooperation in the international system.
However, the role of international institutions in each theory is the deciding factor of this possibility of cooperation. Traditional Realism believes that states are only tools of states, to be used to gain their national interests and for powerful states to exploit. This is apparent in the most prominent international organization today. The United Nations gives what is called the ‘Permanent 5’ privilege to powerful states of the United States, France, Britain, Russia, and China, who can veto decisions unsatisfactory to their interests. International institutions are also considered weak if without states backing, unable to enforce its rulings due to the respect of sovereignty. whereas, as Neo-Liberalism argues that as states practice continuous interactions with one another, trust is built and betrayals are remembered. Therefore International institutions are essential to international cooperation due to its ability to make repeating cooperation cheap and efficient. Commitment, trust, and transparency can be maintained and wrong-doings can be punished through collective actions.
To me, Neo-Liberalism is the most fitting of the two to describe the current world. The modern world, especially in the recent decades, has grown evermore interconnected and globalized. With the positives of a more diverse and peaceful world, also comes the bad(s) of countless problems brought on by the lowering of borders and interdependence. Climate change, terrorism, human trafficking, cyber-security, global financial crisis, and the global supply chain brings vulnerabilities to all states around the world. Furthermore, these trans-boundary problems cannot be solved by a single state. Organized discussions, management, and cooperation between the world’s states is needed which necessitates the need of international organizations, institutions, and conferences to tackle these ever present problems. Although I understand the consistently accurate Realists’ explanation of past conflicts, especially the 20th century, the world has changed dramatically in these recent years. I would like to hope the prospect of international cooperation is possible which also seem practical as explained by Neo-Liberals.
In my opinion, the role of states in the future international system will be lessened in their importance but are still required in international relations. As transnational corporations such as Amazon, Google, and Facebook grows in influence non-state actors such as multinational corporations can have a say in not only domestic policy making but also foreign policies. This concept is expressed as Liberal Corporatism in the Corporatism theory, which explain the nature of mature liberal democracies as granting companies institutionalized access to policy formation because of their role in determining the state’s economic prosperity (Heywood, 2017). Furthermore, non-state actors such as Non Governmental Organizations, Intergovernmental Organizations, and private groups that can affect many countries with their decisions in the complex interdependence world. However, this does not negate the fact that statehood and its role is not needed in the international order. Unless the world turns out to be a cosmopolitan universalized nation, there will still be symbolic divisions even in an interconnected world. Nations represent ethnicity, historical background, values, and unique cultures. Furthermore, a state still have the role of protecting its own security because an no matter how interdependent the world is, conflicts are inevitable. Therefore, I see the future’s world as complexly interdependent in ways that brings out non-state actors’ importance in some aspects while preserving states’ role in other fundamental ways.
Therein, Realism and Neo-Liberalism do share similarities in how they view the nature of international order as anarchic. However they differ in their interpretation of what anarchy means for cooperation. Realism is pessimistic, while Neo-Liberalism is positive about the possibility of cooperation as expressed through their own perspectives on the role of international institutions. For me, I believe Neo-Liberalism more accurately represent today’s world with its assumptions. I also believe non-state actors will gain in importance while states are preserved for its own roles in the future.
References
Heywood, A. (2017). Chapter 7: Fascism. In Political Ideologies: An Introduction (pp. 306–342). Palgrave.
IS405 Mid Term Compare and Contrast Realism and Neo-Liberalism