Are liberal and realist views of international politics still applicable?

Liberalism and realism- the two theories that shape our perception of global politics. I like to think of them as two arch enemies who discover a long the way they actually have a few things in common. But this isn't about superheroes vs. villains unfortunately, this is about international theory which I'm sure is just as exciting...

So what is realism? Realism begins with human nature. Classical realists such as Thomas Hobbes believe we are inherently self seeking and egotistic. They believe that instinct always prevails over intellect and therefore conflict is inevitable. This in turn influences how a state acts, realists like Niccolo Machiavelli argue that political life is characterized by strife because humans are, by nature, violent and insatiable. 

(Disclaimer: I may or may not be paraphrasing Hobbes and Machiavelli here)

This logic also implies that global governance cannot work, no one group is strong enough to establish dominance over the international system. Therefore, realists argue international politics operates in a state of nature, meaning the international area is an area of anarchy. 
What are the implications of anarchy? Well, neo-realists argue that conflict (note: not necessarily war) is inevitable for three main reasons. Firstly, states are only concerned with maintaining their position relative to other states. While states may benefit from a particular action, those states are primarily concerned with whether another state has benefited more so. Secondly, because states are separate and autonomous they must rely on their own resources (i.e self help), they cannot rely on other states to help them. Lastly, there is always suspicious between states, we only have to look to the security dilemma to see that self-help means the build up of arms for defense, however this runs the risk of being interpreted as aggressive by other states. 

Realists therefore argue that conflict can only be contained by a balance of power. Neo-realists associate bipolar systems with stability and multi-polar systems with instability, for example they view the Cold War as the "long peace". The problem with applying this concept to our modern day system is that it is, for the most part, a multi-polar system. There are a number of great powers today such as Britain, China, America etc. that have yet to see any extreme conflict occur between one another. 

(George Bush + the security dilemma)

Then there's liberalism. Liberalism stems from idealism and focuses on harmony in that while groups/individuals may pursue self interest there will always be a natural equilibrium. Liberalists have a more optimistic view of human nature, while they agree people are naturally self-seeking they also suggest there is a harmony of shared interests meaning conflict can be resolved. For example, in 2012 several Asian countries pledged to contribute a significant proportion of the $456 billion offered to the IMF to combate the financial crisis, showing it's commitment to international cooperation.

Liberals look to intergovernmental organisations like the EU and UN for global governance based on collective security and respect for international law. While the UN and EU have certainly grown over the years, is this applicable today? What does Vladimir Putin think of international law? That isn't a rhetorical question I honestly don't know -someone ask him-  but if Russia's actions in Crimea are anything to go by I'm going to guess he isn't too bothered by it. 

Neo-liberalists also believe in complex interdependence, where states are affected by what happens elsewhere e.g. climate change which is classed as low politics. Realism on the other hand places far more importance on high politics, like defense. Liberalism in this case can be applicable as low politics is a fundamental concern for states, just as much as high politics. For example in June this year the G7 leading industrial nations agreed to cut greenhouse gases by phasing out the use of fossil fuels by the end of the century.

Liberalists would argue than international institutions such as the EU would be capable of encouraging cooperation between states and therefore move away from power politics (the fundamental principle of realism). So, naturally, the migrant/refugee crisis should be an excellent example of modern liberalism in action, right? We should see states coming together and cooperating, and yet so far the crisis has only served to further divide the EU. For example, while liberalists may see the EU's resettlement scheme (approved on Tuesday by a majority vote) as an act of successful global governance (the 'rule of law') it has received backlash from some member states who are not willing to cooperate with the quotas set. For example, Slovakia is launching a legal challenge against mandatory resettlement quotas. Surely this reinforces the realist concept of state-centrism, that the state is the key international actor and global governance doesn't work? 

Realists believe that states that have relatively more power have fewer restraints than states with less power. This can be seen to influence the international system today and be applied to the recent migrant/refugee crisis. Jordan, a country significantly less powerful than some EU member states, have taken over 600,000 refugees/migrants compared to, say, the UK which has a GDP 78 times that of Jordan but has stated it will only take 20,000 over the next 5 years. This is clearly an example of power politics and therefore surely realism is more applicable than it's counter theory in the migrant crisis. 

Furthermore, the Dublin Regulation, an established EU law, requires a refugee to stay in the state they arrived in first. This means border states were put under immense pressure. This includes countries such as Greece which, as we all know, isn't doing too good right now economically. These border states are left to struggle with the influx of refugees while there are states who outright refuse to accept refugees/migrants. For example, Arab States of the Persian Gulf haven't accepted any refugees despite international actors like Amnesty International calling it "shameful"- and if NGO's are being ignored by states then that reinforces the concept of state-centrism. 

However, liberalism argues cooperation is a gradual process that takes time, and certainly we have seen gradual improvement and more cooperation since the image of the drown Syrian child sparked international outcry from civilians. At the EU summit on Wednesday (the 23rd) Donald Tusk (European Council President) called for "a concrete plan" on how to stabilize the border crisis "in place of the arguments and chaos we have witnessed in the past weeks."

And yet, it is quite clear we are still not doing enough, we are not acting fast enough and we are by no means cooperating enough. It will take years to make a significant change in the crisis and we're highly likely to see more divisions in Europe and the western world on the way. Therefore I would argue that the theory of realism is very much applicable to the recent refugee crisis. 

_______________________________________________

Bibliography/Further reading

• Migrant Crisis: EU splits exposed as talks take place
• The World Tonight BBC Radio 4
• The European and Refugee Crisis Explained 
• Why is EU struggling with migrants and asylum?