Paper 3 Question 2

Question 1

Analyse the divisions regarding human nature that exist between realists and liberals

Answer 1

• How rigid human nature is. Realists will argue that human nature is fixed and fashioned by nature whereas liberals will argue that humans are capable of self development. This is why realists think states can’t change in their behaviours whereas liberals believe global progression to better governance is possible.
• Optimistic vs Pessimistic viewpoint. Liberals have an optimistic view on human nature, it is rationalistic and progressive whereas realists view human nature pessimistically as self centred and aggressive. This is why liberals think states can be rational and broker peace whereas realists see conflict as inevitable.
• Power. Realists believe that all humans are driven by accruing as much power as they can. Liberals will argue that humans are not as simple, and seek for self progression and development too. This is why realists view IR as a zero sum game, where states compete solely for power, but liberals believe states can also be interested in integration and development.

Question 2

Analyse the divisions regarding power that exist between realists and liberals

Answer 2

• Humans are only interested in power. Realists will argue that power is the sole aim of human nature, whereas liberals will argue that humans are not as simple, and seek for self development too. These views on human nature then link into their IR views, with realists viewing states as solely interested in power, while liberals think states have other motivations too.
• Power is a zero sum game. Realists will argue as one state accrues power, this is bad to another state. Liberals don’t agree, and think that states can collaborate for their mutual benefit. This is why liberals support the pooling of sovereignty in institutions.
• Rivalry for power will inevitably lead to conflict. Realists view conflict as inevitable as they see states aggressively competing for power. Liberals disagree, and they think states are more rational than aggressively rivalrous. They would point to the economic integration in Europe showing how states aren’t always warring over power.

Question 3

Analyse the divisions regarding order and security that exist between realists and liberals

Answer 3

• Inevitability of conflict. Realists will argue due to the structure of IR and states acting on behalf of human nature, that conflict is inevitable. Liberals will say conflict can be avoided with changes to the structure of global politics. This is why liberals support the creation of international defence organisations like NATO to bring more security.
• Ideal world order. Realists think the ideal world order is a bipolar one. This is because it brings the most security. Realists will argue the world needs a balance between 2 powers to prevent the existence of a global hegemon. (Waltz). Liberals support a multipolar world order, as it tends towards international cooperation. This is why realists think the world order during the Cold War was best.
• Necessity of conflict. Realists will argue conflict is at times necessary to defend a state’s interests or increase its power. Liberals will argue that economic interdependence between states makes conflict unviable. They may point to the EU as an example of economic interdependence removing the necessity of conflict, whereas Realists may point to the Ukraine war as evidence of Russia protecting its national interests.

Question 4

Analyse the divisions regarding likelihood of conflict that exist between realists and liberals

Answer 4

• Inevitability of conflict. Realists will argue due to the structure of IR and states acting on behalf of human nature, that conflict is inevitable. Liberals will say conflict can be avoided with changes to the structure of global politics. This is why liberals support the creation of international defence organisations like NATO to bring more security.
• Role of human nature in conflict. Realists will argue human nature is inherently selfish and aggressive. This is then reflected in the actions of states. This then makes the likelihood of conflict high. Liberals however view humans as rational. They think humans are capable of cooperation and discussion. This is why they think states are also capable of brokering peace and working together for mutual aims. This reduces the likelihood of conflict
• Polarity of the world. Realists support a bipolar world most as they think it makes conflict least likely. This is because there is a balance between 2 super powers, preventing the existence of a global hegemon. (Waltz). Liberals prefer a multipolar world, as they think this fosters more cooperation between states, reducing the likelihood of conflict.

Question 5

Analyse the divisions regarding the impact of international organisations that exist between realists and liberals

Answer 5

• IGOs and global governance. Realists are sceptical that international organisations can create global governance. This is because states cannot cooperate as they are competing for power. Liberals will argue global governance can be achieved through international organisations which can produce peace and cooperation throughout the world. Realists will argue the failures from UN peacekeeping show international organisations cannot have global governance.
• Growth of international organisations. Realists think this is undesirable because they undermine state sovereignty. Liberals support the growth of international organisations. This is because it shows that states are cooperating as it is in their best interests.
• International organisations and state power. Realists think that powerful states can use international organisations to promote their own national interests over other states. They would say the expansion of NATO into former communist countries shows how the US is using NATO to dominate the region and challenge Russia. However, liberals will argue that international organisations are not just dominated by great state power. This is because they promote complex interdependence between states, where they are reliant on each other.

Question 6

Analyse the divisions regarding the significance of states that exist between realists and liberals

Answer 6

• IGOs. Realists will argue that IGOs are merely tools of state power and states are still the most significant. They will say states use IGOs to enhance their national interests. However, liberals will argue that IGOs are not that simple. The significance of the state is declining due to increased interdependence through these bodies.
  Globalisation. Realists will argue that the state continues to be the most important actor internationally. Whereas liberals believe globalisation is leading to the declining importance of the state. They will say how supranational bodies like the EU show a decline in the significance of the state. Realists will say how states can leave at any time showing they are still just as significant.
• Billiard vs Cobweb model. Realists view IR as a system of billiard balls. This is because they view states as clear sovereign entities who do not interconnect but collide with each other due to their different interests. Liberals view the relationships between states as a cobweb, as if one part breaks the whole system will be weakened. States are significant but not as the realists view them, as they are interdependent on other states.

Question 7

Analyse the explanations of global politics provided by the anarchical society theory

Answer 7

• Acceptance of international anarchy but acknowledging a ‘Society of states’. Bull’s core idea is that society is anarchical. States do not accept any authority above them. However, this does not mean that there is an inevitable power struggle like Realists think. A society of states means that states are members of a society despite the anarchical nature of the international system.
• States have an informal understanding that ensures a degree of cooperation. States have become aware they share a set of interests and values. This is why they develop institutions and rules, norms and values they agree to. States however do not give up their sovereignty and the theory falls short of the idea of global governance or a supranational authority. The UN is a good example.
  Respect for sovereignty comes first yet an understanding of solidarism. State sovereignty is still recognised as the most important factor, and states have control over what happens in their borders. However, there is an understanding of the collective support for other human beings and states have a goal to sustain the goals of the individual: life, truth, property etc. This is why states seek to maintain a minimal order which sustains their goals.