1. Compare and contrast Realism and Liberalism in terms of the nature and number of international actors.

Both liberalism and realism are theories explaining why a nation decides to go to war. In terms of nature, they all have a similar origin, whereby liberalism emerged from a different thought of some realists. As a similarity, also, the two theories consider security is a central reason a nation decides to attack another. In regard to realism, Lieberfield (2005) argues that, a country attacks another in order to protect its interests, and its allies from being attacked by the enemy. In other words, it is also the implementation of preventive warfare policy. The other similarity is in terms of numbers. In realism, a country invades another in order to protect the interests of its allies, as well as, it’s interests. Similarly, in liberalism, even though a nation can act on behalf of its allies, it goes to war alone. This means that both theories can involve a single nation. However, realism and liberalism are two different theories, in terms of nature and numbers. As per realism, a country goes into war to fulfil its economic and political interests. For example, Lieberfield (2005) argues that, the US invaded Iraq with a view to securing oil, maintaining hegemony and preventing Iraq from using its weapons of mass destruction. In terms of numbers, a country goes to war alone. On the other hand, liberalists assert that a nation goes to war in obedience to international law, to prevent a dictatorial government from attacking it first, and to promote peace. In terms of numbers, a democratic nation may be backed by other democratic nations as it goes to war.

2. Discuss three premises (assumptions) of liberalism, and what its internationalism variant says about “perpetual peace”.

states represent societal preferences. This means that, if a state goes to war, it is representing the preferences of the society. Thirdly, liberalism assumes that the decision to go to war depends on the type of government, the internal features and obedience to the obligation of international law, to promote peace (Lieberfield, 2005). It holds that a democratic country is not likely to attack another democratic country. The theory also supports the use of force to eliminate a dictatorial government before it attacks the democratic one. The aim of attacking is to eliminate the dictatorship, and pave way for democracy. Since democracies do not attack one another, liberalists argue that, more democracies lead to perpetual peace.

3. There are a number of distinct ‘liberalisms’- which of these has most influenced the international relations agenda?

Classic liberalism is the direct descendant of realism. Theorists in this category are optimistic, unlike realists. They posit that human beings can join and better their existence by building a peaceful global society. Neoliberalism, on the other hand, is like neorealist. These theorists believe that conflict is caused by the competition between sovereign states.

4. What is democratic peace theory? How the theory is considered a serious challenge to realism?

The democratic peace theory is the assumption that, liberal democracies do not attack one another (Lieberfield, 2005). It supports the use of force to demolish a dictatorial government in order to establish a democratic one. Its challenge to realism is that realism cannot explain changes in the expanding regional blocs like the European Union, the NATO, and also an international organization like the United Nations.

5. How did realists and liberals explain the US-led invasion of Iraq 2003? Note: read the article entitled “THEORIES OF CONFLICT AND THE IRAQ WAR”, posted on Blackboard.

The realists argued that the US invaded Iraq to satisfy its political and economic interests. They assert that it wanted to show its military might to both allies and enemies (Lieberfield, 2005). Also, the US invaded Iraq in order to establish military bases, to secure oil supplies, maintain hegemony and prevent Iraq from developing and using the weapons of mass destruction. The liberalists argued that the US attacked Iraq as a preventive warfare policy, to prevent Iraq from attacking it before. The liberalists emphasize the promotion of peace, democracy and human rights as the main reasons behind US invasion of Iraq.

Reference

Lieberfield, D. (2005). Theories of conflict and the Iraq war. International Journal of Peace Studies, 10(2), 1-21.