Liberals v Realists: The State Flashcards
the differences that exist between liberals and realists in regard to the importance of the nation state in global politics
the importance of the nation state in global politics
the importance of the nation state in terms of how their behaviour affects the whole international system
the importance of the nation state in global politics: realists
liberals and realists disagree about the importance of the nation state in global politics
according to realists, states have always been and still are the most important actors in the global system
the world in anarchical, meaning that there is no authority higher than the state and no worldwide government that can compel states to act in a particular way, making the nation state the key actor on the international stage
as a result, states are able to act as they please as there is no higher power dictating what they can and cannot do
they act by themselves and for themselves as separate units and many realists claim that there is therefore no such thing as the ‘international community’
while it’s true that there has been a rise in non-state actors such as IGOs, NGOs and TNCs, this does not take away from the ultimate primacy of the nation state, as seen within numerous IGOs that continue to be dominated by individual states
for example, NATO, the IMF and the World Bank are all dominated by the USA and heavily reliant on its capabilities
the USA contributes the most to NATO and even wields a veto within the IMF, seeing as an 85% majority is needed for any decision and the USA has a 17% voting share
this demonstrates that even within IGOs, states are still the dominant forces and have the power to determine their agenda
the importance of the nation state in global politics: liberals
however, liberals would argue that while nation states are still important, due to globalisation there has been a rise in non-state actors, which challenges the primacy and importance of the nation state
liberals claim that the state is in decline as an actor in the international system and can no longer claim to be the most significant force
in particular, the number of TNCs have grown considerably, with there being around 7000 in 1970 and over 63,000 by 2013
they account for over 50% of production and over 70% of world trade, undoubtedly being key influences in the global economic system
in fact, due to TNCs, states often have to compete in a ‘race to the bottom’ in order to attract investment, which limits their own ability to dictate their laws and regulations, having to cater to TNCs by offering low corporation tax and minimal regulation in order to attract them to their countries
this seems to be evidence of the declining importance of the nation state, according to liberal theorists
the importance of the nation state in terms of how their behaviour affects the whole international system: liberals
another difference between liberals and realists in regard to the importance of the nation state in global politics concerns how the behaviour of states affects the whole international system
both liberals and realists believe that the state is important in determining the nature of world politics but disagree as to how states naturally behave and what this leads to
according to liberals, states are capable of a selfless concern for others, meaning that the state is important in fostering cooperation in the global system
liberals like Rousseau argue that humans are naturally altruistic, meaning that states are capable of selflessness and do not have to be driven by national interest
they may point to the fact that most states give 0.7% of their GDP to international development aid, despite this not necessarily being the most useful strategy for them, as evidence of this
John Rawls, a key figure in liberalism, also argued the case for a more positive view of human nature, believing that humans are capable of rationality and empathy
such rationality manifests itself in states, meaning that states are highly influential in creating balance and harmony in the international system
therefore, it seems clear that while realists believe that the state is important in defining conflict in the international system, liberals disagree and believe that the nation is important in defining cooperation
the importance of the nation state in terms of how their behaviour affects the whole international system
realists believe that states will always behave selfishly, meaning that cooperation is not always possible and war is inevitable – therefore, the nation state is important in determining the conflict and tension ridden international system we see today
realists believe that humans are inherently selfish, meaning that states are too as they are governed by such people
for example, Machiavelli believed that humans are “malignant, iniquitous, violent and savage” and motivated by a selfish quest for power
similarly, conservatives also have a pessimistic view of human nature, as seen in Thomas Hobbes’ hypothetical state of nature in which he believed humans would resort to their negative base instincts of selfishness and life would become “nasty, brutish and short”
in a world where humans are selfish, and states act accordingly, there is bound to be tension and conflict as states will clash over their national interests
as Randall Schweller argued, there is “always the danger of war lurking in the background”
