Quote:
|
My other question is what are the differences between conservatives and Liberalism as I have often seen these two as somewhat interlinked
|
Liberalism is a word with various meanings. In terms of international relations theories, conservatives can be either Liberals or Realists, there is no conflict there. They tend to lean more towards Realism though.
Quote:
|
1.Control of weapons of mass destruction
|
Realism would say that the high-minded talk of reducing weapons of mass destruction is a load of rubbish. What it's really about is strong states keeping their weapons of mass destruction and forcing weak states to get rid of theirs.
Liberalism would say the opposite. It would say that it is a simple case of countries realising that weapons of may try and unilaterally get rid of their weapons.
Neo-liberalism would say that all countries want to keep their weapons of mass destruction, but don't want other countries to have them. They realise the only way to get other countries to give them up is to give them up themselves, and will do so in a multilateral treaty of some sort.
Neo-realism would say the same, except that if a nation thought other nations would gain more from this, then they'll pull out. For example, America may refuse international treaties banning nuclear weapons, because although it wants other countries to get rid of their nuclear weapons, it thinks that if everyone does so, this will help America less than other nations.
To be honest none of the main theories give a good explanation for this. Realism is incapable of explaining things other than from a state-centred system. So it would say that Islamic terrorism is purely the creation of Muslim states, as a weapon against the west.
Liberalism also finds it difficult to explain terrorism, but would probably say something about economic causes.
Neo-Realism, unlike Realism, accepts the existence of non-state actors, and would simply say this is Muslims (or whichever group) trying to maximise their own power.
Neo-liberalism would say something similar, but believes humans cooperate effectively, so the terrorists will eventually learn to cooperate with others to increase their standard of living, etc.
Quote:
|
3.Human rights violations
|
Realism would say that states simply exist to maximise their own security, so will carry out whatever human rights violations are necessary to do so. They may stop if they believe this harms them: for example, if America feels the torture of muslims is a good recruiting tool for Al-Quaeda, they will stop. They won't stop on the other hand, because it is illegal.
Liberalism doesn't really give much of an explanation.
Neo-realism would say it is a simple matter of cheating. States sign a treaty banning, say, torture, but are perfectly happy to break the treaty if they think it will be better for their state than for others.
Neo-liberalism would say that states may want to commit human rights abuses, but if they feel they can gain from the banning of such a thing, they will create a treaty with others, and follow the rules, to prevent such things being used against their state.
Quote:
|
4.Politics of environmental protection.
|
Realism would say that powerful states will use this as a way of controlling weaker states, for example a treaty putting a cap on CO2 emissions may be supported America because it hurts China but not America.
Neo-realism would say the same, except that America might do it even if it hurts itself, as long as it hurts China more. It also says that states may do a treaty to help the environment, but they will cheat and ignore it.
Neo-liberalism would say they won't cheat or ignore it.
Liberalism would say that all states will recognise that the environment must be protected, and all work together to make it happen.
Linear Mode
