Explain or compare theory of liberalism and realism in international relations?

Answer 1

in liberalism principal acters are individuals associated with characteristics of peace loving nature common inerest seeking for world welfare in favour of global free trade where as in realism principal actors are states which are concered with their own security having first preference to their national interests and do struggle for more and more power to over come their competent states

Answer 2

Liberalism in international relations emphasizes cooperation, diplomacy, and the importance of institutions like the United Nations for resolving conflicts. Realism, on the other hand, focuses on power politics, self-interest, and the idea that states prioritize their own security above all else. While liberals see potential for peace through interconnectedness and shared values, realists view the international system as inherently competitive and characterized by anarchy.

Answer 3

The most defining difference in the two world views has to do with whether power is zero-sum (Realism) or positive-sum (Liberalism). Thinking abstractly, what this means is this: If China gains 13 "power", and the US gains 20 "power", then each has either gained 13 and 20 power, respectively (positive-game), or the US has gained 7 power and China has gained nothing (zero-sum). It is a distinction based upon relative power, and based upon the idea that even if you gain something, if your opponent gains more, you really didn't gain anything (Realism). This is the fundamental difference between Realism and Liberalism. Every other assumption arises from this, and this is the simplest way to describe it without writing a novel.