In light of the fact that major wars between democratic nations, which are typically trading partners involved in lucrative import/export arrangements, are relatively rare from a historical standpoint, "liberals argue that economic interdependence lowers the likelihood of war by increasing the value of trading over the alternative of aggression ... (as) independent states would rather trade than invade"4 (Copeland, 1996, pg. 5). Unrestrained liberalism has often been touted by proponents as the prudent path to world peace, even as the world inches closer to a state of open conflict, such as through the Wilsonian foreign policy instituted by President Woodrow Wilson prior to World War I, or the Bush doctrine's fallacious notion of instilling democratic ideals in Iraq by virtue of an outright invasion. In fact, many scholars insist that "the human rights movement was built on a Wilsonian platform, insisting that governments make 4 Copeland, Dale C. "Economic interdependence and war: a theory of trade expectations." International Security 20, no. 4 (1996): 5-41.

specific pledges regarding their treatment of their citizens"5 (Ikenberry, 2009, pg. 107), which is an informative indicator of liberalisms efficacy considering the host of humanitarian issues still plaguing the international community.

Both realism and liberalism were developed to explain one of civilization's fundamental mysteries; to determine the factors which motivate the actions of organized bodies such as independent states? In a world where the village, kingdom, and nation have long transferred the collective will of individual members into international relations, ascertaining the underlying reasons for these often momentous actions is an eminently important task. While the postulations put forth by each model of foreign policy have been routinely tested throughout the course of history, with the regular redistribution of power providing a grand stage for the testing of realist and liberalist approaches, an objective analysis would likely conclude that both philosophies have their respective merits and flaws. It has been said that by "drawing on analyses of human nature, on arguments about the necessary structure of international relations, and on laws of political behavior derived from both of these sources, realists have quite frequently posed as the clear-eyed apostles...

141), but this analysis is simplistic in its approach to the relationship between realism and liberalism. Rather than representing diametrically opposed theories that remain fundamentally incompatible, the evolution in thought from realism to liberalism mimics mankind's own tumultuous progression.
5 Ikenberry, G. John. The crisis of American foreign policy: Wilsonianism in the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press, 2009.

6 Forde, Steven. "International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Neorealism." International Studies Quarterly (1995): 141-160.