What are the differences (compare two areas) among the theoretical approaches to the study of international relations – realism, constructivism, feminism, Marxism, and liberalism? Why do you believe these different approaches have developed? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these theories when explaining the security dilemma? (Do not forget to integrate a current event)
Realism vs. Liberalism
Randall Schweller once said that "the term of realism is under every people skin". Realism is a theory essentially about power and security. Realist States relentlessly see power and security because they exists in a self help system. Realist states seek security, prestige, and most of all they seek autonomy because in a world where you cannot trust anyone, you do not want to be interdependent. The basic definition for liberalism is that International System creates opportunities for cooperation and conflict. According to liberalists, it is up to the states and other actors in the International System to either take advantage of those or not. For liberals, states are obviously important (some more important than others), but also businesses, churches, religious movements, social movements, and other sort of organizations.
Liberals believe in interdependence, in factors that lead to peace; while realists tend to be skeptical about interdependence because they want to be mutually dependant in a world that is very dangerous. The realist say that today's fine could be tomorrow's enemy. As for realists, there's never enough power because you would never know who is going to be aligned against you down the road, or who is making plans against you. Liberals, on the other hand, think of International System as having lots of opportunities to cooperate, to pursue goals that are beneficial to everyone and not just one state.
Realists do not believe in utopia. They don't think that the world provide perpetual peace globally, based on some notions of natural...