REALISM

In Realism;

1.State is the principal actor.

2.View of Actor is, State is unitary actor.

3.Behavioral Dynamic is, State is rational actor seeking to maximize its own interest or national objective in foreign policy.

4.National security issues are most important.

Lets see mostly used terms of Realism very quickly

Balance of power, The survival of the state, anarchy, sovereignty, military strength, security dilemma, self-help system, authority, hegemony, inherent pessimism

Here are there some basic assumptions of Realism

1. The most basic assumptions of realism reflect an inherent pessimism in the school of thought.

2. Realists begin with a Prisoners Dilemma. They assume that international politics is a zero sum game

and each player has a strong incentive to betray the other (defect).

3. They also begin with the assumptions that power is the means by which a states security is guaranteed, that power is fungible, that states are unitary and rational actors, and they
are the primary units of international politics.

4. Lastly, realists assume that the international system is anarchic; there is no super-state authority to enforce rules, norms, or contracts.

And here are the basic features of Realism;

1.There is an inherent pessimism for realists to explain the worldly events.

2.Prisoners dilemma: There is never a situation in international politics in which states value in absolute gains.

3.Power is the means by which a states security is guaranteed.

4. States are unitary actors.

5. States are rational actors.

6. States are the primary units of international politics.

7.International system is anarchic.

LIBERALISM

In Liberalism;

1.States and non-state actors (mostly institutions) are important.

2. View of Actor(s): State disaggregated into components, some of which may operate transnationally.

3. Behavioral Dynamic is, foreign policymaking and transnational processes involve conflict, bargaining, coalition, and compromise not necessarily resulting in optimal outcomes.

4. Multiple agenda with socioeconomic or welfare issues as, or more, important as national security questions.

Lets see mostly used terms of Liberalism very quickly

Democracy, institutions, democratic peace, corporation, international order and harmony, economy, inherent optimism, anarchy, non-state actors, integration

Basic assumptions of liberalism are below;

1. The most basic assumptions of liberalism reflect an inherent optimism in the school of thought.

2. Liberals, as well as realists, begin with a Prisoners Dilemma. Liberals, however, assume that the prisoners dilemma is non-constant because it is a product of conditions and can
beovercome.

3. Liberals also begin with the assumptions that states are unitary and rational actors. However, liberals do not share the realist assumptions that power is the means by which a states
security is guaranteed, that states are the primary units of international politics. Liberals believe

security can be guaranteed by other means.

4.Liberals, like realists, assume that the international system is anarchic, but do not assume that a super-national authority is the only means by which to enforce rules, norms, or
contracts.

5.Institutions can help with communication and interaction to overcome prisoners dilemma.

And here are the basic features of Liberalism;

1.Contrary to realists, liberals carry a inherent optimism for inter-state relations.

2. The prisoners dilemma is non-constant because it is a product of conditions and can be overcome.

3. Security can be guaranteed by means other than power.

4. Non-state actors matter: This is clearly the case. Consider the role of non-state actors such as the

WTO, EU, Al-Qaida, etc. . .

5. The international system is anarchic.

Realism holds that all states pursue their interests while liberalism holds that states can cooperate with one another and act more
altruistically. To realists, states want only to maintain their own security. They want to get power so that they can be strong enough to be
secure from attack. All of their actions are motivated by this desire. Liberals (also called idealists) argue that states are not always looking
for power.

Liberals believe that the international system can be manipulated to make peace more likely while realists believe that it cannot
be. Liberals believe in things like the United Nations. They believe that institutions like that which allow countries to interact with one
another in a variety of ways will lead to less conflict between countries. Realists argue that the international system is inherently anarchical
and cannot really be made more peaceful except through power.

Relatedly, liberals believe that democratization can bring peace while realists do not. Liberals believe that democratic countries
will not fight one another. Realists believe that countries will pursue power regardless of whether they are democratic. To them, countries
will fight if their interests dictate it, even if they and their opponents are both democracies.

Finally, liberals believe that non-state actors are important while realists believe that only the state matters. Liberals pay attention
to individual leaders. They pay attention to non-governmental organizations. Realists argue that only the state matters.
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM/IDEALISM
1) Introduction:
Liberalism has much to its credit. But as John Stuart Mill said about Christianity, all truths need fundamental re-examination from time to time and if that was true of
Christianity in the 18th century, I think that it is just as true of liberalism in the 21st.
One of the most respected contemporary theorists in the field, Stanley Hoffman, once famously wrote, International relations have been the nemesis of liberalism. The
essence of liberalism is self-restraint, moderation compromise and peace whereas the essence of international politics is exactly the opposite: troubled peace, at best,
or the state of war.
Liberalism is an ideology whose central concern is the liberty of the individual; liberals see the establishment of the state as a necessary part of preserving liberty either
from harm by other individuals or by states; the state must always be the servant of the collective will, not the master, and democratic institutions are the means of
guaranteeing this. Liberalism is, in fact, a theory of government, one that seeks to reconcile order and justice within a particular community.
Liberalism is primarily a theory of government; one that seeks to reconcile order and justice within a particular community.
It is the most dominant approaches and named Idealism as it has a vision of how a new and peaceful world order might be constructed. It emerged after WWI when
there was a dire need for universal peace. This approach is also known as Utopian Approach as its ideas can be true only in imagination not in reality.

Interwar period 1919-39 is taken as idealist era. Idealists were advocates of League of Nations, World Federalism and of peace through international law. Its writers
and scholars regard power politics as passing phase of history and the present. They desired the international system in future free from power politics in morality and
violence. The basic concept of this approach is quite old and can be found in Declaration of American War of Independence (1776) and in French Revolution (1789).
Another image of this approach is world government that would be above all national governments.

2) Important writers:
Condorcet, Rousseau, Kant, Russell and Wilson.
Rousseau says in Fragment on War, Lets dismiss evil which makes men slave and miserable.
Kant made strong plea for the prevention of war among states and creation of conditions for perpetual peace. But probably greatest advocate was Woodrow Wilson,
who gave concrete shape to his idealism through treaty of Versailles. The whole theory proceeds with assumption of optimism that interest of various groups or nations
are likely to be adjusted in larger interest of mankind as a whole.

3) Assumptions: Kegleys
I. Human nature:
II. Bad human behaviour: evilness of institutions and structural arrangements which make human selfish.
III. Worst feature of international politics The War:
IV. War can be eliminated:
V. Role of international society:

4) Criticism:
I. Adaptation of moral principles: reality is material.
II. Behaviour of states: diplomatic tricks and systematic relations, not moral.
III. Utopian approach:
IV. Formation of world government:
V. Disarmament:
VI. Ignorance of past:
VII. One sided theory:
VIII. Situation of power politics:

NEO-LIBERALISM (SCHOOL OF THOUGHT)

1) Introduction:
Neo-liberalism generally refers neo-liberal institutionalism or now what is called Institutional Theory. However, in the policy world, neo-liberalism means something
different. Neo-liberal policy promotes free trade and open market and western democratic values and institutions. Most of the leading western states have joined US led
chorus, calling for the enlargement of community and of democratic and capitalist nation-states. In reality, neo-liberal foreign policies tend not to be as wedded to the
ideals of democratic peace, free trade and open borders. National interest takes precedence over morality and universal ideas, and much to the dismay of traditional
realists, economic interests are given priority over geo-political ones.
Neo-liberals study political economy and focus on cooperation and institutions.

2) David Baldwins varieties of liberalism:

These four varieties of liberalism influence contemporary international relations.
I. Commercial Liberalism: it advocates free trade and a market or capitalist economy towards peace and prosperity. Today its view is promoted by global financial
institutions, major trading states and MNCs.
II. Republican liberalism: it states that democratic states are more inclined to respect the rights of their citizens and are less likely to go to war with their democratic
neighbours. This view is presented as democratic peace theory.
Commercial and republican liberalism combine to form core foreign policy goals of many of the world major powers. The new liberal internationalism is promoted by the
US and its G-8 partners in trade, aid and security policies.
III. Sociological Liberalism: the notion of community and the process of interdependence are important elements. As transnational activities increased, people in distant
lands linked and the governments become more interdependent. Resultantly, it becomes more difficult and more costly for states to act unilaterally and to avoid
cooperation. Many of the assumptions of the sociological liberalism are presented in current globalization literature dealing with popular culture and civil society.
IV. Institutional liberalism: neo-liberal institutionalism is the most convincing challenge to realist and neo-realist thinking. Its study suggests that the way towards
peace and prosperity is to have independent states pool their resources and even some of their sovereignty to create integrated communities to promote economic
growth. EU is one such institution that began as regional community for encouraging multilateral cooperation. Neo-liberal institutionalists see institutions as mediator
and the means to achieve cooperation among actors in the system. They are focusing their research on the issues of the global governance and creation and

maintenance of institutions associated with managing the processors of globalization.

THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE NEO-REALIST/NEO-LIBERAL DEBATE

According to Baldwin:
1) Both agree that the international system is anarchic. Neo-realists say that the anarchiy puts more constraints on foreign policy and that neo-liberals minimize the
importance of survival as the goal of each state. Neo-liberals claim that neo-realists minimize the importance of international interdependence, globalization and the
regimes created to manage these interactions.
2) Neo-realists believe that international cooperation will not happen unless states make it happen. They feel that it is hard to achieve, difficult to maintain, and
dependent on state power. Neo-liberals believe that cooperation is easy to achieve in areas where states have mutual interests.
3) Neo-liberals think that actors with common interests try to maximize absolute gains. Neo-realists claim that neo-liberals overlook the importance of relative gains.
They believe that the fundamental goal of states is cooperative relationships is to prevent others from gaining more.
4) Neo-realists state that anarchy requires states to be preoccupied with relative power. Security and survival in a competitive international system. Neo-liberals are
more concerned with economic welfare or international political economy issues and other nonmilitary issue areas such as international environmental concerns.
5) Neo-liberals see institutions and regimes as significant forces in international relations. Neo-realists state that neo-liberals exaggerate the impact of regimes and
institutions on state behaviour.

LIBERALISM
The theory of classic liberalism (to most Americans) is most directly traceable to John Locke (1632-1704), the French philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778), and American
founding father Thomas Paine (1737-1809) who believed in the following idea -- that if you just give people as much freedom and liberty as possible, authoritarian
political patterns would disappear, democracies would flourish, wars would never be fought, and world peace and prosperity would surely follow. Numerous protoliberals exist [see Contributions to Liberal Theory], and the precise heritage of liberalism is debatable (Renaissance rational humanism or Enlightenment ideology), but
most scholars would agree that Locke should probably come first in importance. (In contrast to conservative) the meaning of the word liberal traditionally refers to
someone who is free, noble, and generous, and has a commitment to tolerance and the right of self-determination by individuals. Most dictionary definitions suffice, but
connotations vary. In general and perhaps as more an ideal-type, liberals usually favor constitutional government, representative democracy, and collective rule of law.
Core beliefs tend to derive primarily from Lockean theory that free individuals themselves (if given economic and intellectual liberty) can and should form the basis of
political order, without the need for government regulation, other than the governments responsibility to protect and promote the individuals making up that order.
Adam Smith (1723-1790) expressed Lockean theory as laissez-faire economics where individuals structure moral and economic life without direction, enlightened
self-interest harmonizes with the public good (the "invisible hand"), and nations which leave individuals free to follow their own initiative would be the strongest. The
German philosopher Kant is sometimes brought into classic liberalism for his ethics of the categorical imperative (a categorical imperative is something that
"commands" action without reference to any purpose or consequence), and also included are natural (human) rights theory and portions of Rousseau's Social Contract
theory. Liberalism usually defines itself by contrast, and Marxist ideas are not usually incorporated, except selectively, if at all. Libertarianism is the name given to an
opposing (yet derived from the same heritage) philosophy of minimal government regulation in freedom and where the government is held to the same moral
standards as individuals. Neoliberalism is the name given to strands of thought separate from (yet connected with) "commercial" liberalism (the linking of free trade
with peace), "republican" liberalism (the linking of democracy and peace), "sociological" liberalism (theories of international integration), and (opposed to) anticapitalist ideologies (like Marxism, socialism, anarchism, and fascism). Neoconservatives are conservatives who were once liberals. The four (4) core beliefs of classic
liberalism in international relations have been aptly summarized by Evans & Newnham (1998) as including the following:
peace can best be secured through the spread of democratic institutions on a world-wide basis
a natural harmony of interests (the "invisible hand") will ensure people and states make rational calculations which make national interest and international interest
one and the same
if disputes occur, they should be settled by established judicial procedures under the rule of law
collective security would replace notions of self-help
These core beliefs may need some elaboration. First of all, it should be noted that some IR scholars refer to classic liberalism (and neoliberalism) as "institutional"
liberalism precisely because of the focus on spreading democratic institutions. Regime theory, technically a subfield of study in Treaty Law, is also a liberal (and pluralist
or consensus-oriented) strand of thought. Secondly, liberalism holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinants of state
behavior, and the analogy is carried over into the domestic level regarding individual motivations. What makes the "invisible hand" work is tolerance of preferences,
along with democratic institutions like "enlightened" educational institutions which promote rational calculations among both individuals and states that "war doesn't
pay." Preferences may vary from state to state, depending on culture, economic system, and type of government. Governments make war, however, not people, so the
best hope for peace is democracy (as the highest form of expressing the popular will of the people who will surely choose peace - a self-evident proposition based on
reason and natural law). Thirdly, the rule of law is just as applicable to states as it is to people, and a voluntary system of international organizations ought to exist
fulfilling the functions of a legislature, an executive, and most of all, a judiciary while preserving tolerance for as much freedom and independence among states as
possible. Fourthly, just as it is always possible to identify aggressors and belligerents, it should always be possible to put together an effective coalition of law-abiding
states to oppose such violators. Collective security is a Kantian idea as much a part of classic liberalism in this regard, and one can easily see that liberalism is part of
the theoretical foundation upon which organizations known as the League of Nations and the United Nations were built.
Liberals can be distinguished as to whether they are (a) interventionist; or (b) non-interventionist. The first school, interventionists, believe, as Woodrow Wilson,
American President from 1913 to 1921, did that war on behalf of the liberal ideal may occasionally be necessary to rid the world of illiberal and persistent opponents.
Although progress is historically inevitable, sometimes it is necessary to help it out. Liberal interventionists are especially opposed to totalitarianism in all its forms, and
justify war mainly in terms of just war theory. A related strand is "positive" liberalism, where the concern is whether people have "positive" freedoms (freedom to,
expression e.g.) as well as "negative" freedoms (freedom from, crime e.g.), but it is unclear, on the basis of theory alone, whether intervention is justifiable in this
case. The second school, non-interventionists, believe that liberalism should spread on the basis of historical inevitability alone, without any help by its adherents,
particularly its most prominent proponent, the United States of America. Non-interventionism should not be confused with isolationism, whereby the latter is technically
the avoidance of alliances altogether. Instead, non-interventionists usually advocate containment -- a middle ground between the two schools -- for the ultimate defeat
of illiberalism on moral and/or economic grounds. Neoliberalism in many ways is an extension of this idea that the appropriate battlefield is the marketplace and/or
moral high ground.
Critics of liberalism (and there have been many) generally zero in on the ambivalence in almost all liberal theories over coming to terms with the use of force (for
exactly what reasons and for what ends). Other critics challenge the spirit of moral omnipotence and self-righteousness that is prevalent in much liberal thinking. The
second line of criticism makes for a lot of stalemate and anti-Americanism in the world, especially among competitive superpower players.

NEOLIBERALISM
Neoliberalism is institutional liberalism that distinguishes itself by contrast and/or selective inclusion with the ideas of "commercial" liberalism (the linking of free trade
with peace), "republican" liberalism (the linking of democracy and peace), and "sociological" liberalism (theories of international integration). The more inclusive
theories, according to Baldwin (1993), tend to be the best challengers to realist/neorealist orthodoxy, and neoliberalism is best understood as opposed to
realism/neorealism orthodoxy (its war-mongering and militaristic thrusts). According to Kegley (1988), the classical realist world view places moral standards
subservient to the power concerns of international actors. In their favor, some realists sometimes address the issue of morality with seriousness and concern. However,

neorealist thinking embraces the ultimate conclusion of realist premises that statesmen never act according to moral precepts thus such concerns need not be
addressed by a political theory. Strongly opposed to this is the neoliberal position (sometimes called the neoidealist position) that states consistently act according to
values more than power concerns. Neorealism ignores these factors, and neoliberalism (or neoidealism) seeks to expands the notion of self-interest to include the moral
sphere.
Neoliberalism defines "security" in broad terms, often arguing that factors such as health, welfare, and environmental issues need to be included in institution-building
efforts, whether passive (non-interventionist) or active (interventionist). Thompson (1989) points out that the literature on "declinism" (the idea that nation-states
have declined in importance as actors) is a fundamental underpinning of neoliberalism. The result of declinism is a quasi-anarchic system where "absolute" (rather than
relative) gains need to be advocated as mitigating strategies in order to get nation-states to fulfill the essential functions they ought to be fulfilling for their citizens.
Keohane & Nye (2000) point out that most neoliberals advocate a mixed-actor model called the theory of interdependence. This theory is based on the complex
spillover effects possible for change toward world governance (by norms, rules, processes, and institutions) when one-dimensional militaristic solutions are abandoned
and reliance is, instead, placed upon the possibilities when other actors are involved, like international organizations, transnational organizations, NGOs (nongovernmental organizations), and MNCs (multinational corporations).