Realism vs. Liberalism Essay Sample free essay sample

The concern about ownership of arms goes back to the period between the universe wars and has been a uninterrupted concern since the early 1950s. After World War II The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ( NPT ) was negotiated. â€Å"The NPT prohibited extra provinces who did non hold already atomic arms from geting them and required current owners from helping in the in the spread†¦made them promise to cut down and extinguish their ain. † ( Snow. 2008:189 ) Throughout history. some provinces have felt the demand to possess arms for protecting themselves while others seek to demo their power. for illustration the U. S. A and the USSR during the Cold War. For decennaries. power and security have been the major issues. but through clip. the economic system has become progressively of import in the docket of provinces. The purpose of this paper is to explicate two major international dealingss theories. pragmatism and liberalism. and how these theories try to reason for the de mand and ownership of atomic arms in the modern-day epoch. We will write a custom essay sample on Realism vs. Liberalism Essay Sample or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Realists have four chief statements: the chief histrions. in the international system. are autonomous provinces ; the international system is in a province of lawlessness ; provinces must be concerned with their ain security ; and provinces are rational incorporate histrions. ( Viotti. 1999:188 ) Realism based its statements on the Cold War. during this clip. security and power were the most of import concerns for the provinces. chiefly for the United States and the USSR. Due to the history of this theory. it is non a surprise that some realists support the thought of the provinces possessing atomic arms to equilibrate power and protect themselves. in instance they feel threatened. The realist Kenneth Waltz. provinces that â€Å"we should anticipate war to go less likely when armss exist to do conquest more hard. to deter pre-emptive and preventative war. and to do coercive menace less credible†¦nuclear disincentive and atomic defence better the chances for peace† ( Waltz. 2008:260 ) Therefore. from his position. proliferation of atomic arms is a affair of security. On the other manus. there is Kegley’s realist statement saying that â€Å"disarmament and weaponries control have served throughout history as vehicles to keep ( non extinguish ) the balance of power†¦the distribution of military might is critical to the saving of the balance of power†¦Ã¢â‚¬  ( Kegley Jr. 1995:246 ) For him. weaponries control is path towards balance of power. and hence. peace. These two writers exemplify the chief statement of realists that weaponries. in this instance atomic arms. maintain the balance of power and as a effect peace is achieved. But even when realists province the positive impact of atomic arms. there is still the job of what states are allowed to posses. in other words. exists the job of how to command the proliferation of atomic arms. Due to the importance of commanding atomic arms. state’s governments become autocratic and close. At the same clip. some possible atomic provinces are non strong and stable plenty ; hence. theses states can non be trusted on control of their arms and the determination to utilize them. ( Waltz. 2008:163 ) The fact that some provinces posses atomic arms and are non dependable bends into a failing in the realist theory because so states’ security is threatened by atomic arms. alternatively of being preserved and guaranteed. In contrast there are the progressives. who assume that in the internatio nal system there are different international histrions that pursue different aims. like international establishments. At the same clip. they argue that in an lawless system. like the international. there is no higher authorization that controls other units in the system. hence. units interact as peers. ( Vinci. 2008:41 ) Taking into consideration that the international system is lawless. one could state that the balance of power and the accomplishment of peace depends an all the international histrions. non merely on the sates. Liberals besides believe that international dealingss and particularly international political economic system offer opportunities for everyone to derive at the same clip. ( Viotti. 1999:185 ) From the broad position. the competition among provinces to possess atomic arms reduces the security of single states and international instability. For progressives like Mark Zacher and Richard Matthew â€Å"open trading system act upon the chances for peaceable political relations †¦once the state opens its markets to the universe. democracy follows. † ( Kegley Jr. 1995:24 8 ) Liberals strongly believe that weaponries merely generate war and that the lone manner to avoid it is by international cooperation through an unfastened economic system. Another of import broad statement is about the democratic values ; Michael Doyle has the thought that broad democracies do non contend other broad democracies. ( Nye. 2007:48 ) This happens because in a democratic state people have the pick whether to take or non to take traveling to war. and this public consent legitimizes the conflict. in instance there is one. But the intent of the broad is to avoid war via democracy. because when there is democracy there is opportunity for dialogue. which in the terminal can forestall war without the demand of weaponries. However. this broad statement about broad democracies non traveling to war with other democracies merely applies to those states who have a democratic signifier of authorities and go forth outside those who have other type of governments. which in the in the terminal have the potency to travel to war with other states. Realist and broad theories have contrasting statements ; one is based on province power. while the latter focal points on international economic system. civil society. and democracy. In the instance of the broad theory. it has the advantage that it is newer and is more consistent with today’s universe. where the economic system has become critical for provinces. civil society has influence in international personal businesss. and democracy is strong in states like the US. Realists. like Waltz. believe that the ownership of atomic arms will heighten the state’s security by equilibrating power. while other minds like Kegley argue that the non lone ownership. but control of atomic arms is the way towards universe peace. But what theses writers and some relists do non see is the hazard that the proliferation of atomic arms may do in instance they are used. particularly when possessed by states that are non dependable. On the other side. progressives are cognizant that atomic arms are a menace to the world’s peace ; they believe that cooperation among provinces and international organisations along with thoughts of broad democracy. However. they do non undertake the fact that differences arise between provinces and that the international economic system would non be able to avoid struggle in instance it emerges. During the Cold War epoch. pragmatism had a batch of followings since universe power was split between two strong states. USSR and US. During this clip. the ownership of atomic arms. to some extend. stopped these two states from get downing a Third World War. Nowadays. progressives statement about international cooperation ad democracy is possible because. even when there are stronger states than others. the international histrions like civil society and international organisation have the modules to acquire involved in international personal businesss and act upon the powers determinations. every bit good as the public sentiment has the power to act upon in their authoritiess determinations. Mentions: Cimbala. S. J. ( 2004 ) . Nuclear Proliferation and International Systems. Defense A ; Security Analysis. 20 ( 4 ) . 321-336. Consulted Agust 31st. 2011 on hypertext transfer protocol: //0-web. ebscohost. com. millenium. itesm. mx/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? sid=b80eb504-62d4-4e2b-b115-a1214a4778af % 40sessionmgr112 A ; vid=2 A ; hid=123 Kegley Jr. C ( 1995 ) Controversies in International Relations Theory. Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge. Belmont. United states: Wadsworth Magnarella. P. J. ( 2008 ) . Attempts to Reduce and Eliminate Nuclear Weapons through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Creation of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones. Peace A ; Change Consulted Agust 31st. 2011 on hypertext transfer protocol: //0-web. ebscohost. com. millenium. itesm. mx/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? sid=d69fba83-877f-488e-a354-3556cb0fb85a % 40sessionmgr112 A ; vid=2 A ; hid=123 Nye. J. ( 2007 ) Understanding international Conflicts. An International to Theory and History. Sixth Edition. New York. United states: Pearson. Salmon. T. ( 2000 ) Issues in International Relations. New York. United states: Routledge. Snow. D. ( 2008 ) Cases in International Relations. Portrayals of the Future. ( 3rd ) United States: Pearson Sutch. P ; Elias. J. ( 2007 ) International Relations. The Basics. New York. United states: Routledge. Vinci. A. ( 2008 ) Armed Groups and the Balance of Power. The International dealingss of terrorist. warlords and insurrectionists. New York. United states: Routledge. Viotti. P ; Kauppi. M. ( 1999 ) International Relations Theory. Realism. Pluralism. Globalism. and Beyond. ( 3rd ) Needham Heights. United states: Allyn and Bacon. Waltz. Kenneth ( 2008 ) Realism and International Politics. New York. United states: Pearson.