What is Idealism?

What is Realism?

The Post-Cold War Debate

Conclusion

What is Idealism?

The defining characteristic of idealism is that it views international relations from the perspective of moral values and legal norms. It is concerned less with empirical analysis (that is, with how international actors behave) than with normative judgements (that is, with how they should behave).

What is Realism?

The classical Realist tradition in international relations is grounded in an emphasis on power politics and the pursuit of national interests. Its central assumption is that the state is the principal actor on the international stage, and being sovereign, is able to act as an autonomous entity in an otherwise anarchic international arena.

The Post-Cold War Debate

With the end of the Cold War, the long-running debate between the idealists and realists renewed and intensified, albeit in new guises. For neo-idealists, the end of the Cold War was a momentous turning point ushering in a ‘new world order’ in which common international norms and values would gradually subdue conflict between states and groups. For neo-realists, the end of the Cold War simply meant that one conflictual relationship was being replaced by another, intra-state strife.

Criticisms of the Neo-Idealist view of Post-Cold War era

1. Neo-idealist perspective tends to exaggerate non-military aspects of security. But the 1990s underlines the continuing importance of military force, especially in internal conflicts.

2. Little evidence that sovereign states in the post-Cold War period were prepared to put international interests ahead of national interests.

Criticisms of Neo-Realist view of Post-Cold War era

1. Neo-realists exaggerate the instability of the post-Cold War world by falsely claiming that the Cold War era was an oasis of stability.

2. Neo-realists seem unwilling to recognise the qualitatively new changes on the international stage brought about by the forces of globalization, especially the erosion of the traditional distinction between a state’s internal and external policy.

Conclusion

Both neo-idealism and neo-realism has some validity. But neither is wholly convincing. There is certainly scope for competing approaches. All of these may be necessary to help us understand and explain international relations. Moreover, the prospect of some form of partial convergence between idealism and realism cannot be ruled out. Several factors seem to point to this:

1. New security environment after the Cold War.

2. Emergence of new global architecture.

3. Re-shaping of traditional Westphalian notion of state sovereignty.