Distinguish between liberal and realist international relations theory

Firstly, liberals take an optimistic view of human nature in relation to the state. It is a school of thought which advocates peaceful co-operation and 'soft' forms of power rather than military resources (Nye in The Future of Power: 2011). This can be achieved through the advent of global governance and liberal institutions such as the UN, which liberals argue to be effective in providing international security and fostering co-operation. Liberals equally reject the idea of great power politics, and instead believe the international system is characterised by peace and mutual dependency. This is illustrated through the idea of economic globalisation, which is supported by liberal ideology because it is intended to build diplomacy and acts as a means of interdependence. It has therefore been argued that liberals, unlike realists, view the world through rose-tinted spectacles.

Whereas, realist ideology argues that the world is characterised by a zero-sum game where it is inevitable that less powerful states will be dominated by those with more power. This is exemplified by the idea of great power politics - or, the notion that all states are motivated by self-interest alone and will go to whatever means necessary to attain these selfish ends, even at the expense of co-operation and security in the international system. Realists likewise argue, unlike liberals, that life will be "poore, nasty, brutish and short" (Hobbes in the Leviathan: 1651) because of the fact that the global system will always be characterised by war and conflict. Finally, realists advocate a state-centric model of international relations. For instance, the billiard ball model describes the notion in which all states are constantly colliding with one another in an anarchic state system - as supported by neo-realist ideology.