World politics: concepts, systems, and international relations

Realism in international relations refers to the classical belief that states vie for power using economic and military means. Human nature is, according to the realist, self-serving and unavoidably power-hungry. Thus, the theory is concerned mainly with how states vie for economic and military dominance in the world's political arena and how to navigate through a usually treacherous world. Subsequently, realist international relations are based on power politics. Realism infers that states act selfishly, unilaterally, and largely independently. International rule of law and political norms are virtually nonexistent in the realist perspective.

Liberalism, on the other hand, offers a more nuanced perspective on international relations. Classical liberalism presumes that states do not act solely out of want for economic and military dominance. States are comprised of peoples and cultures, and their corresponding value systems. Moreover, a liberal theory of international relations points to the emergence of globalization in promoting cross-cultural communication and cooperation. Pluralism, multilateralism, and heterogeneity are integral to liberal theories of international relations.

Clashes between realism and liberalism have expanded international relations discourse and have given rise to neo-realism and neo-liberalism. An extension of liberal international relations theory, neo-liberalism posits the creation of global institutions and rules of law that promote common welfare and mutual benefit. Unlike either liberalism or neo-liberalism, neo-realism presumes an underlying anarchy in international law. In the absence of global norms, the neo-realist urges sovereign states to continue acting out of self-interest in the pursuit of military and economic prowess while allowing for some rule of law. In general, realism and neo-realism offer more pessimistic and conservative views of international relations than either liberalism or neo-liberalism.

2. Neo-realism and neo-liberalism offer widely diverging perspectives on international relations. The two theories can be combined in some ways to provide guidance vis-a-vis specific relations between states or blocs. Yet for the most part the two theories are rooted in divergent beliefs about human nature and sociology. Ideally, a sound international relations policy uses both theories at different times and in different circumstances.

In some cases, neo-realism offers a more effective approach to international relations than neo-liberalism. States that are hostile to one another, whose diplomatic ties are tenuous or whose core policies prove irreconcilable, should work within a neo-realist framework. For example, the United States and Venezuela may need to approach each other within a neo-realist framework instead of a neo-liberal one. The core economic, political, and social policies at work in each state are incompatible with one another. On the other hand, the United States enjoys solid diplomatic and trade ties with nations in Western Europe and so a neo-liberal approach works well in an amicable political environment as well as one with relatively transparent open markets.