IGP

Yusuf Ahmed

Department of Politics

COURSEWORK COVER SHEET

Student Number: 12838518

Programme of Study: GPIR

Module Code/ Title of Module: IGP

Essay Title:

Does realism or liberalism better account for the evolution of the international system? Discuss in light of
evidence from the 19th and 20th centuries.
Word Count: 1188

For official use only

Mark:

Tutor signature:

Date:

IGP

Yusuf Ahmed

Does realism or liberalism better account for the evolution of the international system?
Discuss in light of evidence from the 19th and 20th centuries.
Statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power, and the evidence of history bears
that assumption out.
(Morgenthau, Politics among nations, P.5)

The primary aim of this essay is to seek a basic understanding of change in the international system
during the 19th and 20th centuries in light of political theory. As a preliminary point, it is worth
mentioning that one who has conducted a brief study of the works and critiques written by various
political theorists on this subject-matter, cannot truly pin-point a decisive theory in order to explain
the evolution of the international system during this period. What is quite clear however is that there
are of course elements of both theories that have their respective contribution in shaping the
international system. I argue in this essay that despite the difficulty to determine a particular theory in
explaining events of this period and the fact that both theories have contributed a substantial amount, I
believe that realism has appeared, sadly, to be the main IR theory which has explained the evolution
of the international system during this period. Having said that, I also believe at the same time that
both theories need to go hand-in-hand in order to fully account for the evolution of the international
system, something which I shall explain in the conclusion of this essay.
Since realism is going to be given more attention in this essay than liberalism, it is important to put a
few things into perspective regarding this theory. Firstly, the realism that is at discussion in this
essay, refers to classical or political realism as it is traditionally understood by its scholars and
thinkers, i.e. Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and more recently Carr & Morgenthau. Although
realism comes in various forms, virtually all realist international theory takes the struggle for power
and security of sovereign states in conditions of international anarchy as their central focus.1 Realists
therefore do not believe that a state of anarchy that exists between two states can be overcome, which
is why they propose the idea of a self-help system, and since self-interested states are not subject to
any regulatory authority of any supernational body (world government)2, they will have to interact in
an international arena shaped by anarchy rather than peaceful co-operation.3 Classic Liberalism on
the other hand, is a theory that is characterized by an optimism concerning the prospects of a
peaceful international order established through strong international institutions underpinned by

Introduction to politics, Part 3, Global politics, p.340

Klaus Dodds, Global geopolitics, Ch. 2 Realism and the westphalian model of world politics, p.34
3
Global geopolitics, Ch. 2 Realism and the westphalian model of world politics, p.34
2

IGP

Yusuf Ahmed

international law.4 In essence, liberalists believe that the spreading of liberal ideals would certainly
make it possible for states to have meaningful interaction and trust one another.
Amongst the major events during the 18th and 19th centuries that account for the evolution of the
international system are: The French revolution, Napoleonic wars, The First World War, Second
World War, The Cold War, The treaty of Versailles, The Paris peace conference, The League of
Nations, Concert of Europe and The Congress of Vienna. Each series of events has its reasoning
behind it that has inevitably lead political theorists and analysts to determine whether it was explained
more cogently through a realist prism of understanding or liberal . And depending on how each event
and its consequences are politically viewed, the outcome of whether it is explained in political theory
by the realists or liberalists will undoubtedly give a sense of insight in to the intricacies and
complications faced by IR scholars when determining the causes of evolution in the international
system, thus making it rather difficult to decisively argue for one school of political theory.
For the sake of brevity, it is sufficient to briefly touch upon a few of the aforementioned key events.
Prior to that, it worth mentioning how Morgenthau envisaged the political arena prior to the First
Word War. He states that the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars had initiated so much
change in the international system that the survival of the old order would have required The
continuous use of armed force in order to protect and restore absolute monarchies and their
possessions throughout the world.5
The First World War was seen as a significant event of major conflict that was unprecedented in
nature. The sheer damage and loss of life that had occurred was enough for the realists to get their
point across: Politics is a struggle for power over men, and whatever its ultimate aim may be, power
is its immediate goal and the modes of acquiring, maintaining and demonstrating it determine the
technique of political action (Hans Morgenthau).6 The aftermath of the First World War, saw the
liberals endeavouring to put their theory in to action. The result was The Peace Conference of Paris
(1919-1920), which consequently lead to The Treaty of Versailles and meant the creation of new
states in Europe as well as an attempt to achieve just peace amongst the states.
Unfortunately, only twenty years after The Paris Peace conference, the world was once again
overcome by anarchy and chaos when it was plunged again into total war in World War Two, which
as a direct result cost the lives of at least 50 million people more than five times the number killed in
World War One. The implication of this as far as IR is concerned is that there came about
different theorists from both the realists and the liberalists explaining this phenomenon according to
their political theory. On the one hand, Realists like E.H. Carr, argue that those who intended to create
4

Introduction to politics, Part 3, Global politics, p.335

Michael C. Williams, Realism reconsidered, Ch.6 Balance of power, P.148-149
6
Andrew Heywood, Global Politics, Ch.3 Theories of Global Politics, P.54
5

IGP

Yusuf Ahmed

a just peace and the Paris Peace Conference relied completely on their liberal ideals of utopia and
an idealistic world. He further alludes to the fact that they failed to realise the basic fact of IR: All
states are ultimately driven by self-interest, only power can be constraint on power; a reliance on law,
morality and international institutions will be of no avail.7 On the other hand, liberalists argue that
there lied a great inconsistency in the application of liberal rules at the Paris Peace Conference. They
claim that the Treaty of Versailles was in fact never a proper liberal peace, stating that it left many
nationalistic conflicts unresolved, thus soiling the seeds of feud and aggression amongst many of the
nation states.
To conclude, The notion that the evolution of the international system during the 19th and 20th
centuries is best explained by both realist and liberalist insights, is something that encourages
recognition of the counter-balancing forces of conflict and cooperation8, and is one that is becoming
increasingly popular amongst political theorists. This view known as international society - of the
international system as a form of liberal realism seeks to coherently integrate some of the key
feature of both theories, and I believe in light of what was briefly touched upon in the essay this
can be seen as a plausible account for the evolution of the international system.

Word Count: 1188

Bibliography
-

7
8

Robert Garner, Peter Ferdinand and Stephanie Lawson, Introduction to politics, Oxford,
second edition
Klaus Dodds, Global geopolitic, Pearson, 2005
Andrew Heywood, Global Politics, Palgrave foundations, 2011
Edited by Michael C. Williams, Realism reconsidered, Oxford, 2007
Edited by Martin Griffiths, International Relations Theory for the twenty-first century,
Routledge, 2007
N.J. Rengger, International Relations, Political Theory and the Problem of Order, Routledge,
2005
Martin Griffiths, Realism, Idealism and International Politic, Routledge, 2002
Edited by Trevor C. Salmon and Mark F. Imber, Issues in international relations, Routledge,
second edition 2008
John T. Rourke, International Politics on the World Stage, twelfth edition.

Ibid, P.59
Ibid, P.65