The liberal paradigm contrasts the realist’s view of the state being the main actor in the international sphere, as liberalists argue that humans have ‘fundamental natural rights to liberty consisting in the right to do whatever they think fit to preserve themselves’. Although Liberals accept that humans and states both have the desire to increase their own personal interest and power, they also strongly believe in international cooperation, which can be made possible through organisations such as the United Nations. Humanitarian intervention is evidently better understood through the lenses of the liberal paradigm due to the moral obligation humans have to prevent mass killings and human rights violations resulting in humanitarian intervention, …show more content…
Realist 's posit that in regard to humanitarian intervention, states only act in order to further their self-interest as realism believes the state is the only entity that is worth considering. Therefore, realism cannot be used as a basis to make a decision on humanitarian intervention due to the objectivity the paradigm has towards human rights and the morality states must have when considering intervention. The incapability of realist methods being implemented on the subject of humanitarian intervention is evident through considering the abundant of times realist methods have been used by states in intervention often resulting in failure and the loss of countless lives, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan being evidence of this. Liberalism on the other hand, and the belief in states being able to reach peaceful resolutions allows emphasis on moralism by many states. The evidence in humanitarian intervention being better understood through liberal methods is shown through the use of Responsibility to Protect in intervention resulting in success whereas, intervening for national and self-interests for example in Kosovo results in the losses of lives, and the failure in bringing peace. Therefore, it is apparent through the failures of realist methods in humanitarian interventions such as Iraq, Rwanda and Kosovo and the successes of the use of liberalist methods, that humanitarian intervention is evidently better understood through the lenses of the liberal
...heories outlined in this paper. One of the defining principles of realism is that the state is paramount to anything else, including morality. Realists argue that deviation from the state interests in an anarchic system creates vulnerability. Morality of state theorists uphold state sovereignty and argue that intervention is not permissible unless the circumstances are crass and warrant action. They talk about aggression as the only crime that one state can commit to another and suggest that aggression should only be allowed as a retaliatory measure. Finally, cosmopolitans believe that morality can be achieved at the individual level and that morality can be somewhat universally applied. Non-realists do not support preemptive actions or intervention under almost any condition, and the criteria by which intervention is warranted aligns with the principles of justice.
Humanitarian intervention after the post-cold war has been one of the main discussions in the International Relation theories. The term intervention generally brings a negative connotation as it defines as the coercive interference by the outside parties to a sovereign state that belongs in the community. The humanitarian intervention carried out by international institutions and individual sovereign states has often been related to the usage of military force. Therefore, it is often perceived intervention as a means of ways to stop sovereign states committing human rights abuse to its people. This essay will focus on the key concepts of allowing for humanitarian intervention mainly in moral and justice in international society. This essay will also contribute some arguments against humanitarian intervention from different aspects of theories in International Relation Theory.
Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush administration’s rationale for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq was based on two misleading assumptions: firstly, Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (along with Iran and North Korea) and secondly, that it was aiding and protecting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Such a conjecture based on unsubstantiated evidence helped Bush administration conjure up a dystopian situation which justified 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of “security maximization”. This explanation was given in pursuance of the realist assumption that States’ as rational actors always act in accordance with their national security interests.
The liberalism and the realism approaches the international relations from very different perspective, and even though many of its views contrast from each other, the ...
Realists disregard the fact that moral values guide ones foreign policy. They also believe that even though one might deceive themselves about considering democracy and morals, the matter of the fact is that people will always put their self-interest before anything else thus governments act upon things such as geopolitical, economic interests for example. According to realists, there is no higher authority to punish those countries that misbehave so a country can just do whatever it pleases.
Barnett, Michael, and Thomas G. Weiss. Humanitarianism in Question: Politics, Power, Ethics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2008.
In realism, states are seen as rational, unitary actors. Realists assume that the actions of a state are representative of the entire state’s population, disregarding political parties, individuals, or domestic conflict within the state (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2010). Any action a state takes is in an effort to pursue national interest. National interest is “the interest of a state overall (as opposed to particular political parties or factions within the state)” (qtd. in Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2010, p. 355). If a state is rational, they are capable of performing cost-benefit analysis by weighing the cost against the benefit of each action. This assumes that all states have complete information when making choices (Goldstein & Pe...
Realism as defined, actually applies to pretty much anything. Whether discussing science, mathematics, ethics, or politics, the nature and application of realism can be applied. As such, it is essential therefore to narrow down the scope of individual study on realism. For the purpose of this paper, the focus will remain on realism solely in terms of its application to International Relations of which it is seemingly the most dominant of theories.1 Also called “Political Realism”, its antithesis is generally considered to be Liberalism. Political Realism stresses the conflicting and competitive nature required of states that seek to remain stable and positively ever evolving. Adversely, Liberalism suggests the necessity of cooperation amongst states.2 The defining factor therefore in Realism is the ever present necessity of a state to look out for its own well-being while promoting its...
However, the structure and process of international relations, since the end of World War II, has been fundamentally impacted through an immense growth of a variety of factors at multiple levels, which leads to the liberalist theoretical perspective of global complex interdependency. The complex interdependency is constructed from the liberalist theoretical perspective emphasizing interdependence between states and substate actors as the key characteristics of the international system (Ray and Kaarbo 7), which means that cooperation can be made more te...
Realism is one of the important perspectives on global politics, it is a notion about the conservative society and political philosophy (Heywood 2011: 54; Shimko 2013: 36). Besides, Gilpin (1996) claims that “realism…, it is not a scientific theory that is subject to the test of falsifiability, therefore, cannot be proved and disproved.” (Frankel 1996: xiii). The components of the realist approach to international relations will be discussed.
To start, Liberalism traces its roots back to the Enlightenment period (Mingst, 2008) where many philosophers and thinkers of the time began to question the established status quo. Such as the prevailing belief in religious superstition and began to replace it with a more rational mode of thinking and a belief in the intrinsic goodness of mankind. The Enlightenment period influenced Liberalism’s belief that human beings are thinkers who are able to naturally understand the laws governing human social conduct and by understanding these laws, humans can better their condition and live in harmony with others (Mingst, 2008). Two of the most prominent Liberal Internationalists of the Enlightenment period were Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham who both thought that international relations were conducted in a brutal fashion. It was Kant who compared international relations as “the lawless state of savagery” (Baylis and Smith, 2001, pp 165). It was also Kant who believed nations could form themselves into a sort of united states and overcome international anarchy through this (Mingst, 2008). This was probably the beginning of a coherent belief in a sort of union of sovereign states. Toward the end of the seventeenth century William Penn believed a ‘diet’ (parliament) could be set up in Europe, like the European Union of today (Baylis and Smith, 2001). We can see much of this liberal thinking today in organizations such as the United Nations.
Political Realists clearly state that war is acceptable once it is in the state's best interest to do so, and once embroiled in a war, a nation must employ all methods to ensure that victory is the end result (Morgenthau 14). They believe that "war is an intractable part of an anarchical world system ("War"). And that it ought to be resorted to only if it makes sense in terms of national self-interest. While political realism is an intricate and highly developed doctrine, Political Realists assert that its core propositions center on a strong rejection of applying moral concepts to the conduct of international relations (Ibid).
Magno, A., (2001) Human Rights in Times of Conflict: Humanitarian Intervention. Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2 (5). [online] Available from: http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/publications/dialogue/2_05/articles/883.html> [Accessed 2 March 2011] United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report (2000) Human Rights and Human Development (New York) p.19
Liberalism assumes that the war and can be policed by the institutional reforms that empower the international organizations and law.
The international community has undergone extensive change in the last century. We have seen atrocities like the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and more recently, the violence of Al Qaeda and ISIS. Each time a new tragedy strikes, the world is asking “Should we help?” or “Who will help if we do not?”. In an era and globalization and interdependence, these questions need to be considered carefully. As Adam Roberts points out “It is sometimes suggested that the changes in the world in the past decade require exponents of the academic subject of international relations to go back to the drawing board.” (Roberts, 3). In the end, it comes down to the fact the United States, along with the rest of the international community, needs to intervene