Introduction
This essay examines the contrasting approaches of realism and liberalism to the concept of security within the field of international relations. Security, a central concern in international law and diplomacy, is interpreted differently by these two theoretical paradigms, which fundamentally disagree on the nature of the international system, the role of states, and the means to achieve stability. Realism views security through a lens of power and state-centric survival in an anarchic world, while liberalism emphasises cooperation, institutions, and collective security mechanisms. This analysis will explore these differences by discussing their core assumptions, policy implications, and practical applications, providing a foundational understanding for students of international security studies. The essay aims to highlight the strengths and limitations of each perspective, supported by academic evidence, to underscore their relevance in contemporary global politics.
Realist Approach to Security
Realism, a dominant theory in international relations, posits that the international system is anarchic, lacking a central authority to enforce order. Consequently, states are the primary actors, driven by self-interest and the pursuit of power to ensure their survival. Security, from a realist perspective, is predominantly national security, achieved through military strength and strategic alliances. Realists argue that states must prioritise their own defence, as trust in others is limited in a world where intentions are uncertain (Mearsheimer, 2001). For instance, the Cold War era exemplified realist security approaches, with the United States and the Soviet Union amassing nuclear arsenals to deter potential threats, illustrating a balance-of-power strategy.
Furthermore, realists are sceptical of international institutions, viewing them as tools of powerful states rather than genuine mechanisms for peace. This perspective often leads to policies focused on deterrence and unilateral action, as states prepare for worst-case scenarios. While this approach arguably ensures short-term stability, critics note its potential to escalate conflicts, perpetuating a cycle of mistrust (Waltz, 1979). Realism’s strength lies in its pragmatic focus on power dynamics, yet it struggles to address non-military threats like climate change or pandemics, which require cooperative responses.
Liberal Approach to Security
In contrast, liberalism offers a more optimistic view of international relations, advocating for security through interdependence, diplomacy, and institutional frameworks. Liberals argue that states can achieve security by fostering economic ties, promoting democratic values, and engaging in multilateral cooperation (Keohane and Nye, 1977). Collective security, as embodied by organisations like the United Nations, is a cornerstone of this approach, aiming to prevent conflict through shared norms and dialogue. A practical example is the European Union, where member states have historically reduced hostilities by integrating economies and policies, demonstrating how liberal principles can mitigate traditional security concerns.
However, liberalism faces challenges in addressing the harsh realities of power politics. Critics argue that its reliance on cooperation assumes a level of trust and goodwill that may not exist in crisis situations, as seen in the limited effectiveness of international responses to conflicts like Syria (Doyle, 1983). Despite this, liberalism’s focus on broader definitions of security—encompassing human rights and environmental issues—offers a more holistic framework, adapting to modern global challenges.
Comparison and Implications
The fundamental divergence between realism and liberalism lies in their view of human nature and the international system. Realism assumes perpetual competition and prioritises military might, while liberalism envisions a potential for progress through collaboration. This contrast shapes distinct policy approaches: realists advocate for robust defence budgets and strategic autonomy, whereas liberals support peacekeeping missions and international treaties. Indeed, the tension between these perspectives is evident in contemporary issues, such as NATO’s role in Eastern Europe, where realist deterrence clashes with liberal calls for diplomatic resolution.
Conclusion
In summary, realism and liberalism present competing frameworks for understanding and achieving security in international relations. Realism’s emphasis on state power and military readiness provides a practical, albeit narrow, approach to national security, often at the expense of long-term peace. Conversely, liberalism’s focus on cooperation and institutional mechanisms offers a more inclusive vision, though it may falter in the face of entrenched conflicts. Both theories contribute valuable insights for policymakers, highlighting the complexity of security in a globalised world. For students and practitioners, recognising the strengths and limitations of each perspective is crucial, as neither fully captures the multifaceted nature of modern threats. This analysis underscores the ongoing relevance of theoretical debates in shaping diplomatic and security strategies, encouraging a balanced consideration of power and cooperation.
References
- Doyle, M. W. (1983) ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(3), pp. 205-235.
- Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
- Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
- Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
