Comparative realism, neo-realism, liberalism and neo-liberalism

Realism is the most influential paradigm in the discipline of international relations. One view is that realism has been in the dominant position since the formal study of international relations was conducted in 19 19. The reason for this situation is very simple, and realism provides the most powerful explanation for the state of war. Realism seeks to explain the actual situation of the world, not the ideal situation of the world. The question it wants to answer is: What is the world like? Not what the world should be: what the world should be? For realists, politics is an uninterrupted struggle between groups for power, prestige, influence and security in a world with scarce resources. This explanation just tells one of the most remarkable realities in international politics. It is precisely because realism has the most direct connection with the reality of international relations that it has been favored by many politicians and foreign policy makers. On the other hand, realism is the most complex paradigm in international relations, because it is never a strict single theoretical system, but a collection of many different branches. Under the banner of realism, classical realism, neo-realism and neo-classical realism have emerged, in addition to structural realism, historical or practical realism and free realism.

Realism) and other names. In recent years, the latest two branches are also called offensive realism and defensive realism. All these branches have different names and connotations, but since they are all called realism, they naturally admit and insist on something the same, which is the core of the so-called realism. However, it must be pointed out that these different branches emphasize different points. For example, Kenneth Waltz, the main representative of neo-realism, emphasized anarchy's self-help and power balance, while Timothy Dunn summarized the elements of realism as three s,

That is, nationalism, survival and self-help, so it is difficult to sum up a number of core principles that can form a complete theoretical system and be recognized by all practical branches. Maybe it can be expressed in mathematical language here, that is, we can't find their common divisor, but we can sum up their common multiples. That is, find out their important conclusions from various branches of realism and knead them into some realistic principles.

The views of the realism paradigm on international relations can be summarized as follows:

First of all, the international system is anarchic. This is the basic starting point of the realism paradigm. Realism holds that international politics and domestic politics are fundamentally different. In the international system, no world government or universal authority can enforce laws and establish order above sovereign States. In this case, violence and war are common phenomena. Some classical political philosophers often call it the state of nature. In this state, human beings mainly face each other not as individuals but as social groups. This social group brings together the loyalty and competitiveness of its members. The name, scale and organization of groups will change with time, but the essential attribute of conflicts between groups will not change. The assumption of anarchy shows that international politics is a non-cooperative game, in which promises are not binding and contracts are executed according to their own interests rather than external forces.

Second, in this system characterized by anarchy, the main actor is the country as a whole. How a country acts in the international system is determined by the nature of the international system and the strength of the country, not by the internal political system of the country. Although the ideology, social structure or government form of a country have an important influence on foreign policy-making, these variables are not decisive factors in international relations. The competitive pressure of self-help system is greater than ideological choice or domestic political pressure. The anarchy of the international system determines that countries are self-interested rather than altruistic. In the absence of universal sovereignty, the state must take care of its own interests. This self-help feature of the country is precisely the product of international anarchy.

Third, power is the key to understanding international relations. The fundamental goal of a country's existence is to strengthen power and security. The so-called international politics is the politics between countries, or power politics. This kind of high-level politics with the purpose of paying attention to national security and international peace is different from the low-level politics with the purpose of promoting economic and social welfare. In this kind of politics, force and threat of force are the main means for the country to advance its interests. Therefore, the measure of a country's strength mainly depends on its military capabilities. Since the responsibility of every nation-state is to safeguard its own interests and provide its own security, the universal characteristics of all countries are based on power and security, not on morality and ideals.

Fourth, the state is a rational actor. In the pursuit of relative power and security, the state has a purpose, and its policies or subjective expectations are based on utilitarian principles or rational norms. In the face of the uncertain international environment, all countries want to strive to optimize their own situation and maximize their own interests and power. Because every country wants to safeguard its best interests, the conflict between countries is absolute. Because human reason cannot transcend the most basic nature of conflicts in international politics, it is impossible for the international system to promote cooperation on the fundamental issues of peace and war. It must be clear that the above points are a summary of realism, not a summary of any school of thought in the realism paradigm. In fact, at different stages of the development of realism, there are quite a few differences and disputes in the theoretical interpretation of various schools and branches. To understand realism, it is necessary to understand the development of this paradigm and the emphasis of its main branches at different stages. In the realistic paradigm, classical realism,

Neorealism and neoclassical realism are three representative stages of development.