theoretical and empirical studies
In the international relations context, both theoretical and empirical studies have emerged as a reaction to world security status. Over more than five decades, realism has been incredulous of international law. This examination evaluates the two paradigms, realism and liberalism, in an attempt to take a closer approach to each school of thought regarding global insecurity.
Each school of thought tends to make a different approach, therefore emphasizing diverse concepts in their studies and analyses. The realist, for example, they tend to value anarchy, power, and security in an attempt to address insecurity matters in the world. Liberalists, on the other side, focus more on decision making and transnationalism as well as political regimes as the root cause of global insecurity matters.
A realist believes that countries which are unitary and rational, are the key players in world politics. These stats, according to the realists, seek to promote their interest at the expense of the foreign policy (Viotti & Kauppi, 2019). Liberalists, on the other hand, tend to assume that international foreign policy plays a crucial part in promoting world peace through coalitions as well as comprise.
While as the realists acknowledge the importance of interstate systems, it is, in fact, the neorealist. According to them, if we understand what causes the world war, we should focus on the interstate systems but not the individual nation interactions. Realists tend to believe that the solutions for the global insecurity lie within the structural units in the systems of balancing power (Booth & Erskine, 2016). Whereas the realist focuses more on interstate systems, liberalist pays less attention to the whole system but instead focus more on the various units making the system.
The thought of assuming that a society should be based on a wholly is political idealism. We need to combine some elements of thoughts for both liberalism and realist in order to achieve a comprehensive thought on world peace.