Idealism vs. Realism in International Relations Theory
This paper examines two foundational theories of international relations — idealism and realism — by comparing their core positions on four key issues: sovereignty, the role of the state, relationships between actors, and state behavior. Rooted in the aftermath of the First and Second World Wars respectively, these theories offer contrasting frameworks for understanding international politics. Idealism, associated with Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and the League of Nations, emphasizes collective security and multilateral diplomacy. Realism, drawing on thinkers such as E.H. Carr, centers on national interest, the balance of power, and sovereign autonomy. The paper concludes by noting how both theories have evolved into contemporary variants such as neo-liberalism and neo-realism.
- Introduction: Historical context and scope of comparison
- Sovereignty: Contrasting idealist and realist views on sovereignty
- The State as an International Actor: How each theory positions the state's role
- Relationships Between Actors: Collective vs. bilateral inter-state relations
- State Behavior: Global vs. bilateral approaches to state conduct
- Conclusion: Synthesis and evolution into neo-realism and neo-liberalism
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper uses a clear comparative structure, systematically applying both theories to the same four thematic categories, which makes the contrasts easy to follow.
- It grounds abstract theoretical distinctions in concrete historical events — the Treaty of Westphalia, the League of Nations, the Cold War — giving the argument empirical weight.
- The conclusion acknowledges the limitations of both theories and gestures toward their modern descendants (neo-realism, neo-liberalism), demonstrating intellectual honesty and awareness of the field's development.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative theoretical analysis: rather than describing each theory in isolation, it positions them in direct dialogue across shared analytical categories. This approach — applying identical criteria (sovereignty, the state, actor relations, behavior) to each theory — is a standard and effective method in political science for revealing the assumptions that distinguish competing frameworks.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief introduction situating the two theories historically and identifying the four issues to be compared. It then moves through four body sections, each addressing one theme. The conclusion synthesizes the comparison and places both theories in the context of post-Cold War theoretical evolution. The structure is tight and thematic, with each section building cumulatively toward the final assessment.
Introduction
The theories of international relations have long served as mechanisms through which practitioners and scholars in international politics attempt to explain how 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 reflection on international politics, given the First World War and its aftermath. The idealist approach sought to explain state behavior following the end of that war and to characterize the inter-war period. The realist theory, by contrast, emerged in response to the Second World War and its aftermath. Although both theories engage with similar elements, their conclusions often stand in sharp contrast. There are four key issues that both theories address: sovereignty, the state as an actor on the international scene, the relationships between actors, and state behavior.
References
Griffiths, M. (1999). Fifty key thinkers in international relations. Routledge, London.
Guzzini, S. (1998). Realism in international relations and international political economy: The continuing story of a death foretold. Routledge, London.
Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster, London.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.