International relations theory aims to provide a theoretical framework in which relations between states can be better understood. This theoretical framework is laid by multiple theories, two of the major ones being realism and liberalism. Both theories view the international system differently and give various insights on how state behaviour is determined by the structure of this system. This essay will first focus on realist and liberalist perspectives, their views on the international system and its impact on state behaviour. To concretely illustrate the difference, it will then provide an example of state behaviour with the use of international institutions and their relevance.
It is essential to understand the main divergences between realism and liberalism views, knowing that both theories take their roots in the state of anarchy in which states exist. One of the definitions of anarchy, an absence of world government, comes from a Hobbesian concept of “the State of nature” (Hobbes, 1951).
Neorealism, as opposed to classical realism which underlines the role of human behaviour in state decisions, stems from this concept. Indeed, it stipulates that one state cannot know for sure the intentions of another, therefore putting the other state in a potentially hostile category. As there are no central authority to impose rules and laws, an offensive military capability for all states and no certainty about other states’ intentions, states are left alone to care about their security enforcement. Therefore, they are forced to pursue power while evolving in an ever-shifting balance of power as it is in their best interest to be the strongest in case of an attack. This leads to the security dilemma concept developed by John H. Herz (1951), explaining that a nation increasing its defence affects negatively the security of the others states and builds tensions likely to cause conflicts, leading these states to, in turn, increase their defence.
Liberalism, on the contrary, challenges the realist view of the international system and gives a new insight on the relations between states. It takes anarchy as a foundation without seeing the international system as a competition between states. Three main concepts shed a light on this theory. The first one is democratic peace, that is to say, the more there are democracies, the less conflicts there are. The second concept, interdependence between states, especially economic, mitigates the incentives for conflict under anarchy. The third and final one, institutionalism, builds trust and transparency among states and is also responsible for taming international tensions, promoting cooperation.
Overall, state behaviour is indeed determined by the anarchist structure of the international system. While realists consider conflict is inevitable, liberalists argue it can be avoided through regulations and interstate help, which are made possible with institutions.
The case of international institutions can now be studied in order to observe state behaviour and their perspective in regards and how they view these organisation. Institutions are defined as a “set of rules that stipulates the ways in which states should cooperate and compete with each other” (Mearsheimer, 1995). These rules are formulated by the states concerned, then ratified in international agreements and formalised in organisations. Nevertheless, these organisations are not a
form of world government, they are only a way to make nations cooperate between them. How are they viewed by realist and liberalist? Are they relevant in both views?
