¶ … international relations: idealism vs. realism The theories of international relations have been seen as a mechanism thru which practitioners in the area of international politics as well as scholars tried to explain the way in which international politics function and how the behavior of states and actors on the international scene can be anticipated.

The beginning of the 20th century was a period of deep consideration for international politics, given the First World War and its aftermath. The idealistic approach on international politics tried to explain the behavior states had after the end of the war and also define the period between the two conflagrations. The realist theory on the other hand appeared as a result of the Second World War and its aftermath and, although it took into account similar elements, the points made in reference to these elements were somewhat in contrast. There are several key issues that both theories take into account: sovereignty, the state as an actor on the international scene, the relationship between the actors, and the behavior of the states.

Sovereignty:

Sovereignty represents the main attribute of an independent state and is the condition that allows the state to conduct its own foreign policy, to protect its citizens in relation to other states and to have an independent stand on the international arena. It is to this day viewed as the cornerstone of the international system. The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 established sovereignty as most important rule of the international framework (Kissinger, 1994, pg 50-6), after the 100 years war. This is one of the main elements of the realist line of thinking. More precisely, realists such as Carr believe that a sovereign state is the main actor on the international scene and the most legitimate (Guzzini, 1998, p61-2)....

Sovereignty implies that no external power has the right to exercise legal jurisdiction over the internal affairs of a state.
By comparison, the idealist belief concerning the state, although recognizing sovereignty as a sine qua non-condition, dilutes it in order to allow states to enter pacts in the international political world. Idealism was officially considered an approach once the League of Nations came into being after the end of the First World War. Although it maintained the notion of sovereignty as a paramount principle of the international system, it considered this principle inside a broader perspective of collective international scheme: the League of Nations. Whereas in the realist line of thinking sovereignty was defined thru a balance of power, the idealist theory replaced this balance of power with multi-level diplomacy and common security. American president Woodrow Wilson believed in his 14 Points that states could cooperate to ensure that the First World War would not repeat itself. The feeble collective security system created thru the League of Nations would ensure that states would not need to react to force, but rather would solve their matters thru multilateral diplomacy (Kissinger, 1995). History however proved that this approach would not be successful as the Second World War was, according to some opinions, the result of this inter-war period.

The state:

Both idealists and realists believe that the state is the most important actor on the international scene, for reasons that relate to sovereignty, legitimacy, and capabilities. However, idealists see the state as a tool inside an international system. The League of Nations introduced the modern version of world organization. Although this term was somewhat used since the Treaty of Westphalia and thru the Treaty of Vienna in 1815 (Kissinger,…