Introduction to International Relations
Comment Paper : What are the major points of debate between neo-realism and
neo-liberalism? Which camp do you think have won the debate ? Why?
Professor : Kim, Jaechun/ Student ID : I35018 / Student Name : LIN YI-LING
1. Both agree the international system is anarchic.
Neo-realists : Anarchy put more constraints on foreign policy. Also, Neo-liberals
minimize the importance of survival as the goal of each state.
Neo-liberals : Neo-realists minimize the importance of international
interdependence, globalization, and the regimes created to manage these
interactions.
2. Neo-realists : International cooperation will not happen unless states make it
happen. It is hard to achieve, maintain and dependent on state power.
Neo-liberals : The cooperation is easy to achieve in areas where states have
mutual interests.
3. Neo-liberals : The actors with common interests try maximize absolute gains.
Neo-realists : Neo-liberals overlook the importance of relative gains, they want
to maximize the total amount of gains for all parties involved, whereas
neo-realists believe that the fundamental goal of states in cooperative
relationships is to prevent others from gaining more.
4. Neo-realists : The anarchy requires states to be preoccupied with relative power,
security, and survival in a competitive international system.
Neo-liberals : more concerned with economic welfare or international political
economy issues and other non-military issue areas such as international
environmental concerns.
5. Neo-realists : The capabilities(power) of states over the intentions and interests
of states. Capabilities are essential for security and independence. They also
claim the uncertainty about the intentions of other states forces states to focus
on their capabilities.
Neo-liberals : They emphasize intentions and preferences.
6. Neo-liberals : see institutions and regimes as significant forces in international
relations.
Neo-realists : Neo-liberals exaggerate the impact of regimes and institutions on
state behavior.
Neo-liberals : They facilitate cooperation.
Neo-realists: They do not mitigate the constraining effects of anarchy on
cooperation.
Before reading the content of the debate between Neo-realists and Neo-liberals,
I support Neo-liberals’ state since it focus on issues of cooperation, international
political economy, and the environment. However, I found Neo-liberals is too
optimistic and doesn’t take various elements into consideration, just like what
Neo-realists indicted during the debate.
In the beginning of the debate, Neo-liberals claim that neo-realists minimize
the importance of international interdependence, globalization, and the regimes
created to manage these interaction. Both are important, but In my point of view,
the survival of each state is more important than globalization If a state is lack of
the space of survival, it also lose many chances for globalization.
As to the international cooperation, Neo-realists believe that international
cooperation will not happen unless states make it happen. I agree with
Neo-realists’ this state. The international cooperation should be supported by
the states bilaterally, it is hard to achieve automatically. Therefore, I think
neo-liberals are too optimistical, it will not happen only if the states have mutual
interests. For example, Taiwan is trying to cooperate with many countries both
diplomatically and economically, many countries shows interest in cooperation.
However, many of them have failed due to China’s intervention.
Neo-realists emphasize the capabilities are essential for security and
independence, the uncertainty about the intentions of other states forces states
to focus on their capabilities. In my opinion, capabilities are important and
necessary because you can never expect what other states will do . Both
neo-realists and neo-liberals believe “anarchy”, therefore, the state should
protect itself from other state’s attack. For me, international cooperation is
possible, but it is unsure that states can in international cooperation forever, why
the decided to cooperate is because of the regime. Also, “interdependence” is
not always be “inter”, even “asymmetric”. Sometime one state depend on
another state more, and it doesn’t mean it can be peaceful between the states.
The states have their own intention for international cooperation, win-win can
be possible, but it is also possible for a state to lose much than it expected.
In conclusion, I agree neo-realists’ opinion during the debate, especially for the
security and capabilities are the priority. Neo-liberals has good ideas in the first
glance, but it may be not cover most what will happen in reality.