New World Order: Realism and Liberalism

"Realism” and “Liberalism” are two basic theories in the discipline of international relations. Important thinkers of the period in which they appeared gave life to these two basic theories. In this study, I will try to explain some of the main features of these two theories and specifically how they handle the "New World Order" that emerged in the post-Cold War period.

Realist theory defines the international system with its anarchic structure and explains this anarchy depending on the concept of power. It says that the main element of the ınternational system is states and these states are descended from humans. Humans are selfish by human nature and act in his/her own interests. Therefore according to the Realist view, wars and disputes will always exist. So much so that almost the entire system is explained through these conflicts of interest and disputes. In the anarchic international system, all states are on their own and must ensure their continuity. ( Gözen,2019).

 On the other hand, Liberalist theory explains the international system through individuals. Despite the pessimist point of view of realism, it is always mentioned that a peaceful environment is possible. The relationship between the state and individuals is also based on the benefits of individuals. İndividuals are rational, so States can establish an environment of peace with the same rationality. Individual rights and freedoms must be protected, and the state provides for it. As in realism, the state is not seen as an absolute superior authority, but as a mechanism that protects the rights and freedoms of individuals. (Gözen, 2019)

In the period after the end of the Cold War, many different approaches to explaining the new world order also emerged. Realists also interpreted this new world order, which emerged from a structure-realistic view that discussed which great power or forces dominated the international system. Some theorists described the new system as unipolar or bipolar (Efegil, Musaoglu). John Ikenberry said that the balance of power deteriorated after the Cold War and that America was rapidly rising in the unipolar structure of the international system (Ikenberry,2003). America's unipolarity was an undeniable fact, and it was because the balance of power was scattered in incredible inequality ( Woohlforth 1999).

When the new world order was announced, America's economic, political and military resources had already made it a Leading Actor in the unipolar system. (Krahmann, 2005). Different thinkers who saw the system as bipolar and even multipolar explained the new world order according to these poles. Some thinkers considered the other great powers in the system from a military-economic and political point of view. Because even If they accept America is the only polar in the international system, they argued that it could not be long-lasting, and searched for a new polar state (Bruce Russett et al., 1992). Hans Binnendijk, who thought that there were five different actors in the system and sorting out the forces that could face America, divided them into classes such as Democratic states or states in transition. (Binnendijk, 1999).

On the other hand, the Liberal paradigm did not explain this post-Cold War period through the balance of power. Theorists such as Michael W. Doyle, John W. Burton, have tried to explain the structure of the new system through some non-state structures and their capabilities. In explaining this system, Liberals have given a lot of space to the democratic approach and international or even Transnational Relations (Efegil, Musaoglu). The perspective of Liberal theory continued without a major change in the new order established before and after the Cold War (Folker, 2015). The Liberals, who advocated a new world order based on cooperation and democratic peace rather than conflict, argued that liberal democracy and a market economy would be effective in this order (Baharçiçek 1996). Francis Fukuyama, who claimed that the new order would be based on liberal democracy, was planning a victory over communism. He thought that these victories would be through the liberal ideas of the west.(Fukuyama 1989). In a similar view, it was thought that the thought structures that won the Cold War belonged to liberalism, and in the post-Cold War period, the structures of liberalism should be applied to the entire international system ( Held, 1995).

As with the entire discipline of international relations, it is impossible to justify a single opinion in all aspects here. But my view is that structural realism multipolar worldview is explained by realistic thinkers. Because even though America is seen as the only sovereign power after the war, there are always States in the international system that have the capacity to compete with America in a military, economic and political sense. The idea that a single power can dominate the international system does not seem very possible to me in general terms.

 As a result, both views tried to explain the new world order that emerged after the Cold War from their perspective. Realism dealt with this period and the new order through polarity and put the balance of power at the heart of polarity. Liberalism, on the other hand, started from liberal values and adopted a new democratic approach when explaining the new system.

 BİBLİOGRAPHY

Gözen, R 2019, Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul

Efegi̇l, E & Musaoğlu, N 2009, ‘Soğuk Savaş Sonrası Dönemin Uluslararası Sisteminin Yapısına İlişkin Görüşler Üzerine Bir Eleştiri’, Gazi Akademik Bakış, vol.2, p. 1-24.

John G. Ikenberry, “Strategic Reactions to American Preeminence: Great Power Politics in the Age of Unipolarity”, National Intelligence Council, 2003

Elke Krahmann, “American Hegemony or Global Governance? Competing Visions of International Security”, International Studies Review, 2005

William C. Woohlforth, “The Stability of Unipolar World”, International Security, Volume 24, Issue 1, 1999, s. 5 – 41

Bruce Russett ve diğerleri, World Politics: The Menu for Choice, Boston, St. Martin’s, 1992, p. 68 –70; 72 – 78.

Baharçiçek, A 1996, ‘Yeni Dünya Düzeni: Barış ve İşbirliği mi, Çatışma ve Düzensizlik mi?’, Bilig Türk-Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, no.1, p. 101-105.

Hans Binnendijk, “Back to Bipolarity”, The Washington Quarterly, Cilt 22, Sayı 4, Güz 1999, p. 7 – 12.

Fukuyama, F 1989, ‘The End of History’, The National Interest, p. 3-4.

David Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 1995

Jennifer Sterling-Folker, Liberal IR Theory in the New World Order, International Studies Perspectives, Volume 16, Issue 1, February 2015, Pages 40–45,