Summary
Summary essay plans - Unit 3: Comparative theories
- Module
- Unit 3: Comparative theories
- Institution
- PEARSON (PEARSON)
Providing in depth essay plans for Alevel politics, Unit 3: Comparative theories.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
Analyse the difference that exists between realists and liberals in the ways they view human nature andpower. In your answer, you must discuss any relevant core political ideas.
P1: HUMAN NATURE
Realists:
CR= Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Morgenthau
- Thucydides imagined the dialogue between Athenians and Melians. Melians take a chance on fighting, arguing that the
gods would protect them because they were in the moral right. However, Athenians say that the gods are only interested
in power, not morality.
The Athenians represent the realist view, which mocks the moral idealism of the Melians.
- Machiavelli – ‘the Prince.’ Humans are ‘malignant, iniquitous, violent and savage’.
- M – anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved. ‘Men must be either
pampered or annihilated’.
- As there is no moral element to state behaviour, states know that it is rational for other states to act in their own interests –
impossible to trust each other.
- Morgenthau – links realism to global politics.
- ‘politics is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature’
- Prioritised the national interest over freedom. There is no moral element to state behaviour other than the national interest.
- If we understand human nature, we can understand state behaviour.
- Hobbes – states that cannot trust each other cannot build lasting-cooperation without protection.
NR: during the cold war…
- Obsessed with power and do not care about human nature
- It is rational for states to act in their own self-interest to disadvantage their competitors.
- International anarchy means that states must look after themselves.
- As IGOs do not have legitimate authority over states and cannot be depended upon, the international state system
operates on a ‘self-help’ basis – there is no supranational ‘nightwatchman’ that can be relied upon to maintain security.
Liberals:
CL = Locke, Kant, Smith and Ricardo (followed the ‘footsteps’ of smith)
- Contrasting to Hobbes… humans are rational and so we create rational states. States are formed based on
collective consent via a ‘social contract’.
- Locke – ‘the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it..’ to be equal no one ought to harm another in his life, health,
liberty or possessions = are rational.
- Social contract
- The state of nature is a place of freedom and equality. ‘Natural law’ based on reason protects these rights.
- Rational individuals realise that it is in their own interests to form a society in which they can cooperate for the common
good – commonwealth.
- Unlike Hobbes, legitimate government arises as a result of a social contract – transfer some rights in return for security.
Since government exists by the consent of the people, a government that fails to promote the common good can be
replaced.
- Locke describes international relations as a state of nature. The power if the government can only be legitimately used to
protect the rights of its own citizens, who have consented to its authority. Commonwealth?
- Smith – laissez-faire, the self-regulating ‘invisible hand’ of the market should be left to do its work without intervention from
the state.
- Kant – war could be come by ‘perpetual peace’. States can create the conditions for peace through republican
constitutions, the rule of law, and trade.
- Ricardo – it is rational to cooperate for ‘win-win’ outcomes. We all rationally want what is best for ourselves (Locke)
- Liberal Nationalism, Rousseau, and Woodrow Wilson – liberal societies are based upon foundational and formal equality.
NL:
- Opposite to neorealists… democracies don’t go to war.
- Motivation is, should be, based on universal moral principles of humanitarianism rather than narrow self-interest.
- Democratic peace theory – liberal democracies rarely fight each other as they share rationality, moral values and are
constrained by their electorates.
- Rawls – humans and states should be guided by moral principles such as justice.
- Equal rights are the foundation of a just society, shown in the enabling state which promotes freedom, individualism, and
opportunities.
P2: POWER
Realists:
CR: Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Morgenthau
- Machiavelli ‘the Prince’ – the prince’s ultimate goal is to maintain the state, which requires loyalty. He cannot rely on
people’s loyalty unless it is based on fear. Cruelty us a more reliable way to maintain power than benevolence. He must
therefore be ruthless and pragmatic and should prioritise self-interest, not morality or justice. Humans are ‘violent and
savage’
- You must destroy your enemies completely so losers risk annihilation (T and M)
- Morgenthau – ‘the struggle for power is universal in time and space and is an undeniable fact of experience.
- ‘power positions do not yield to arguments, however rational and morally valid, but only to superior power’
- Power is finite, so if one state wins another must lose
, - The state system is anarchic and therefore prone to conflict (Hobbes)
- States that cannot trust each other cannot build lasting cooperation without the protection of a hegemonic power.
Therefore conflict between states is highly likely and alliances are destined to fail. (h)
Liberals:
CL: Locke, Kant, Smith and Ricardo (followed the ‘footsteps’ of smith)
- Locke - Social contract formed by collective consent – ‘where law ends tyranny’.
- ‘the liberty of man is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent.
- state of nature is not perfect, and conflict can occur.
- hope to maximise individual freedom for all people, but state sovereignty is important too.
- Locke describes international relations as a state of nature, so states have the power to punish those who break natural
law (rogue states.) BUT the power of the government can only legitimately be used to protect the rights of its citizens when
they have consented to its authority.
- Ricardo – developed Smith’s laissez-faire idea.
- States should be self-sufficient – should produce surplus of whatever they can produce efficiently. This gives them a
‘comparative advantage’ over competitors in the market for these goods. Will result in economic growth.
- Win-win outcomes
- Kant – perpetual peace. The incentives to war could be overcome by having republican constitutions, international law,
and international trade.
P3:
NR:
- Only interested in global anarchy and the different powers of states and not about human nature or regime type
- States exist in an anarchic system. There is no legitimate authority above states.
- In any given power relationship, any state would behave in a similar way. Therefore, they are also not very interested in
regime types unlike liberals
- There is a finite amount of power in the international system – if one state gains power, another must lose it.
- States are obsessed with the balance of power. They cannot trust each other so must prioritise maximising their own
power and security. This leads to predictable strategies. Strong states will seek to maintain their defences against potential
challenges with military spending.
- Weaker states… will band wagon or will try and balance against the power.
- There is a debate between Mearsheimer and Waltz neorealists about whether this makes conflict inevitable or not.
NL:
- The Kantian Triangle – a collection of three theories.
- Liberal institutionalism - bills on social contract theory is to argue that I GIO's Canon force the rule of law to constrain
powerful actors, prevent tyranny and provide the conditions for peace.
- Democratic peace theory - liberal democracies do not in usually go to war with each other due to shared values. However
they would go to war with non-democracies on their own terms.
- Interdependence liberalism - economic interdependence maintains peace because states will not go to war with a state
that they depend on for key resources.
- These three, or routes to peace.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller katiek007. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £7.16. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
83637 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now
