1

The Realist and Liberal Approaches to Security

Student Full Name

Institution Affiliation

Course Full Title

Instructors Name

Date due
 2

The concept of security remains at the core of discussion and understanding of

international relations. The concept of security has several aspects, such as the role of

political leadership and preferences in shaping the security of a nation. Still, the most

significant is the lack of threat and fear against the nation's values (Shiraev & Zubok, 2015).

Many sovereign states function to protect their autonomy and national integrity from both

local and foreign threats. States have different response strategies toward security threats,

with some nations choosing peaceful negotiation instead of military engagement. The

primary focus of this paper is to discuss the realist and liberal approaches to security and

strategy and make a connection in the similarities and differences they have in explaining the

concept of war and peace at the international level.

The study of security has significantly developed within the international spectrum

and serves as the basis for understanding the forces of international security politics. The

increased global catastrophes and conflicts have resulted in the issue of security being a

political issue dominated by Realism. According to Realism, the insecurity of states is the

most prevalent problem in international relations. Realism presents the international system

as the domain where self-help is the primary motivation. The nation-states are tasked with

protecting their territories because they are not dependent on any other actor. The issue of

national and international security is the full responsibility of the individual state.

National security protects a nation's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and interests. It

entails maintaining the state armed forces, acquiring and modernizing weapons, and other

relevant national security activities. On the other hand, international security is a mutual

security issue involving more than one state. It is more of a natural occurrence prevalent in

the era of globalization. There are several different realists' theories within the broad notion

of Realism. Still, they all recognize states as the key actors in global affairs and emphasize

that they exist simultaneously in an anarchic social order without specific authority to protect
 3

the states from each other (Shiraev & Zubok, 2015). Realists argue that maintaining security

is the role of the government, and failure to achieve this means it cannot tend to other

national and international roles. There are several conditions that a nation must achieve to

ensure maximum national and international security. A state must have an efficient military

force to support diplomacy, foreign policy, and the security of all citizens.

Realists view humans to be selfish and have the desire to have more power and

dominance. In this perspective, the world is seen to be in a state of chaos that cannot be

changed, therefore, states fight to gain more power to ensure national security and introduce

the main motive for the actions of all governments. According to realists, the state is a

phenomenon that threatens most foreign and military threats (Shiraev & Zubok, 2015).

Realists also provide the most significant recommendations for the government to achieve

national security by creating military installations to achieve military superiority, which leads

to a state of military balance in the nation. Realists also argue that insecurity is an indication

of the international system, and it exists as a norm, and the government is the key player in

the international political arena.

Liberalism is an ideological theory that seeks to change and transform human

societies and organize them based on principles and goals. Growth is constant in the liberal

approach to security, and the liberals do not view the government as the main actor in

international politics. Instead, liberals argue that in addition to the government, there should

be transnational actors like international organizations, multinational corporations, and

international regimes. Another important argument raised by the liberals is that they perceive

war as the reality of the international system and do not see war as that useful.

The politics of power is seen to be the product of ideas. Ideas, therefore, are

responsible for shaping the concept of security in the actors. Liberalism has always been

concerned with individual security and state or organizational security. The key aspects of
 4

analysis in the liberal approach are the individual persons. Liberals argue that contrary to

realists' approach on the issue of security, liberal democracies compete better and are more

secure and reliable in an anarchical international system (Shiraev & Zubok, 2015). It should

be noted that from the perspective of liberal and realist approaches to security matters, many

international actors have tried combined rationality and morality to formulate a common set

of international rules and regulations for the control of warfare and arms.

To understand national and international security matters, one must first be familiar

with conflict and wars. Conflicts are the antagonisms between states and non-governmental

organizations over territorial boundaries, resources, values, and perceptions. Conflicts reflect

the inability of organizations or governments to achieve their goals due to slight differences

or unwillingness of an actor. Conflicts can be violent or nonviolent; they are nonviolent if the

parties involved resolve issues peacefully and are violent when they choose to use force and

arms, which is the ultimate foundation of war.

To understand the possibility of peace in the international spectrum, it is best to

understand the reasons for the recurrence of war between nation-states. Since the past

centuries, liberalism and Realism have accounted for most of the international warring

activities and are still relevant (Shiraev & Zubok, 2015). There are several similarities and

differences between the liberal and realist theoretical perspectives that are useful in

explaining the concept of war and peace at the international level. One significant similarity

between realists and liberals is that the state and government are recognized as actors in the

international security politics. Both liberals and realists believe in anarchy in the chaotic

international system with no specific leader in the universal system. Both theories agree that

the international system has no sovereignty, rules, or regulations.

Realism is more pessimistic in security matters, while the liberals take a more

optimistic approach as far as the goals and relations of states are involved. Realism views
 5

humans as selfish in a chaotic world and is guided by the urge to pursue and promote the

interests of their given states at all costs. Many nation-states act to protect and safeguard their

interests which shows that any action by the state is aimed at safeguarding the interest of that

state (Shiraev & Zubok, 2015). Realism does not consider the interests of other states. This is

contrary to the liberal approach, which presents a change in the international scene aimed at

promoting interaction between states in several aspects of development. In national and

international security matters, liberalism presents a more optimistic approach, focusing on

policy changes.

Liberalism contrasts with Realism in that power is measured through state economies, the

possibility of peace and cooperation, and the notion of political freedom (Lecture notes).

They further argue for the progress and perfection of human conditions and reduce the strain

of war from human experiences (Shiraev & Zubok, 2015). Realists take the pessimistic

approach and argue that anarchy is equal to the Hobbesian state of nature, specifically in

cases where they do not act rationally or are unwilling to seek and acquire the power to

increase their security and rate of survival at the level of interactional. The struggle for power

and authority are determinant factors that result in war and conflicts between states, which is

the central dilemma for Realism. The status of anarchy is a significant factor that cannot be

entirely assumed in the relations between nation-states.

Another difference between realists and liberalists is that realists think the best way to

seek peace is through a balance of power. Becoming powerful is the only way that national

security can be enhanced and reduce threats of attack against nation-states. Each state is

responsible for its security and survival, and the realists do not have a specific definition of

peace. Liberals, on the other hand, recognize peace and mention several perspectives on how

an individual can view peace. From their point of view, peace is the absence of organized

violence. Both these two theoretical ideologies are essential in describing and explaining the
 6

concept of war, peace, and security at the national and international spectrums. Liberalism is

the most effective approach to explaining the concept of peace in the international system.

References

Lecture notes

Shiraev, E., & Zubok, V. M. (2015). International relations. Oxford University Press.