Distinguish among realist, international society and liberal approaches to international order.

Before discussing the various approaches towards it, a definition of international order is required. International order is itself a somewhat ambiguous term. Different interpretations are made depending on whether the term is being used in a prescriptive or descriptive context. In the prescriptive context, it is usually associated with some form of rightful order, an order which is one of desirable goals. This would be primarily in international relations, peace, but there are other goals such as the advancement of human kind globally. At a more descriptive level, international order can simply refer to the way that things actually are; the patterns, trends and systems that can be identified as constant enough to show an order. This explanation of this slight ambiguity can help to later explain and justify differences between the various approaches, as they might be based on these differing interpretations.

In this study, I wish to first define the three approaches towards international order and then use various devices to compare and contrast them. For the most effective contrast, I will aim to use the extreme models of each case, so to extenuate their differences. By the end of this analysis, I hope to be able to make judgements as to what definition of international order best fits each, so trying to differentiate the approaches as prescriptive, descriptive or a mixture of the two.

In order to contrast the various approaches, various questions must be asked of each. This questions will enquire as to in what ideology or political agenda each is rooted; if they explain trends in international relations in twentieth century history as well as if they can account for current trends.

The aim of this analysis will ultimately be to try to see which approach is most appropriate to modern international relations, or, as might be expected in such a study, if the reality is a combination of all three approaches.

The international system is one of anarchy, an absence of rule. Without clear legitimate structures with sovereign power above state level, there can be no other description of the system. Perhaps, as might be shown later in the international society approach there are some key institutions which command such power, but complete credibility and the power to punish powerful actors for violations suggest these are limited. Therefore, the various approaches point towards how order can be accomplished in an anarchic system.

The first approach to define is the that of the realist. It is useful to start here as this approach is contrasted most starkly with the other two. Indeed, some theorists do not even differentiate between the international society and liberal approaches, instead giving a mixture of the two as a contrast with the realist approach. In order to avoid confusion, it is worth noting that the realist approach is also known as the Hobbesian approach, stemming from the work of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes' domestic political views have had some effect on the construction of his approach to international order, so giving the theory a slight bias or agenda.

The basis of this realist view is the strong belief in an international system made up of the strong unit of sovereign military states. Within their own territory there is unity with the state's objectives common throughout. Remembering that the models that are trying to be produced here are the more extreme approaches, this model suggests that the advancement of the state as its core objective. No responsibility or thought towards other states is expected, other than when such considerations can be used to the domestic state's advantage. As Bull points out, in the realist theory, morality and law obligations are limited to society and the international system is beyond their perception of society. In the realist world, conflict is the natural state of affairs, seemingly a macro model of social-Darwinian domestic theory. Strong states will exert control over others for their own interests. Peace will occur when it is clear that conflict will be of no advantage, or their is a chance of losing. This therefore suggests that times of peace, (or at least periods between war) will occur during times where there are balances of power, where powerful groups form in alliances for their own self-interest and counteract other 'enemy' blocs. Still though it is clear that pacts will be kept for as long as it is in the state's interest to keep them and there is no obligation placed on the state actors by the realist theorists to behave otherwise.

The next of the approaches to define is that of the liberal. The liberal approach has been defined in a way that also encapsulates much of what is specifically referred to in the international society approach. For this reason I will try to define the liberal approach as being to its extreme, towards the Kantian or universalist approach. Again, domestic philosophical roots can be seen in these ideals, which stress a need for morality within international relations. This morality will lead to order, to peace. One of the first differences to contrast here with the realist approach is that of the core unit of international acting. For the realist, this is strongly seen as the state, where as the liberal or Kantian approach is to see the individuals of each nation as having shared interests, crossing these national ties. The liberal approach suggests that conflict will be due to differences of issues that affect individuals and so they will unite with those in other states with shared values. Extending this would suggest that these issues must include economics, political ideology and religion. Kantian views suggested even further, that this uniting of individuals (he thought through the universality of the moral imperative) would lead to the end of states and the formation of a cosmopolitan society. There are weaker interpretations of this liberal approach, that the forces of these individuals will act within the institutions of states in able to find order. This leads to what I shall define as the international society approach.

It has been accepted that for the international society approach to have any value, certain premises must be true. These largely relate to how the different states view one another. In this model, the states are still the principle actors of international affairs, but their relationships are based on less hostile actions than the realist model. This is closely related to the Grotian perspective. Here, state actors have interests which are more than simply those of power and dominance as in the realist model, instead interests can include economics or ideology. By working together, state actors can further their own interests.

The model of international society is an interesting one, as it is based on certain premises, as eluded to before. The first of these is the acceptance of the legitimacy of other states, suggesting an acceptance of shared moral considerations and respect for the rule of law. For this reason, it is only recently that this model has been started to be used globally, as previously such occurrences were specific to regions and in particular Europe. Once there is an understanding and recognition of shared aims between states they can work together on their goals. This trust can also lead to legislation and binding alliances forming, not out of fear or mutual distrust, or the need to co-operate to be strong against other blocs of states, but instead in a more co-operative fashion.

Now that the various approaches have been defined, it is worth briefly analysing them according to the criteria set out in the introduction. The first question to ask, is about which definition of order best suits their study. The realist approach makes a point of not making value judgements about how international relations should occur, but instead the identification of patterns of the order of states and giving descriptive results. To the other extreme is the liberal approach. Here, the value added basis of the approach necessarily suggests that the order they aspire to is one of peace and co-operation between individual's (as opposed to state's) interests. Although some Kantians believe that the liberal tradition has proved some descriptive successes, including the sphere's of ideology, economics and religion, the ideas of the cosmoplitanisation of global society and the removal of states as the key players seems to be at the moment a prescriptive approach to order.

As seems to be a common theme in this study, the international society approach comes somewhere in between these two extremes. The order it seems to aspire to seems to point towards the actual shapes of institutions that exist and trends that can be observed. This can be seen in the evolution of international society theory through stages of Christian, European and now global systems. But there are also value judgement aspirations of giving these real institutions greater emphasis and strength (than perhaps is yet to truly exist) so that they can work towards co-operation and peace.

These variations in the order to which they aspire can also be seen to be based in the ideologies and political agendas in which they are rooted. As can almost be attained by its name, the realist approach is a more cold analysis of the way things are in an anarchic world. Looking at world history, interactions seem to be at state level. The social-Darwinist theory suggests that in any such anarchy, power will be used in its purest form and strength will be the main objective. If this was not so, those that don't play the game this way would be beaten by those who do, so evolving into a world with all those left acting on realist principles.

In contrast, the ideology that the liberal, Kantian approach is rooted is one of universality of morality and so is heavily weighted towards creating a moral world. This is what gives the approach its prescriptive slant. It is perhaps a hope that in the future such a world will exist and as will be eluded to, attempts to suggests points in history as showing the advent of a liberal era seem exaggerations.

Flowing between these two is the approach of the international society. This is based largely in the practical evidence of looking at international affairs, yet there is an added aspiration towards some kind of moral objective. This might eventually move to some of the visions of the liberals. This gives this approach the advantage of flexibility, so being able to be interpreted in different ways.

It is also worth briefly looking at what current trends and cases from the history of the century those supporting the various approaches to world order would highlight as supporting their views. This can be nothing but superficial as there are three separate essays that could be written on this alone, but some key points should be made. Realists can point to two world wars and the balance of power in the cold war as supporting their claims. Further than this, they can show the failure of various international institutions, such as the League of Nations and more importantly the willingness of powers to ignore such institutions whenever they seem to go against their own interests. While the realists might acknowledge the institutions have some scope, they would suggest that the states use them simply as tools for their own survival and pay them 'lip-service', rather than truly support them. Vietnam showed the limits of the realist view of the dominance of strong military nations, the US was unable to exert the power that realists might expect.

Those advancing ideas of the international society will show how such institutions can act in order to show genuine strength. The divisions of the UN relating to welfare as well as the institutions of the European Union appear to show genuine co-operation. The measures to penalise and the limits of this co-operation are still questionable. There is also some morality based in decision making, although it is questionable as to whether this is in fact simply rooted in self-interest. An example of this would be the reaction to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, and the current crisis of whether to intervene with an nationalist uprising in Kosovo. Intervention could be due to both liberal principles of morality or respect for an international society in which there are shared interests and ideals, so aiding an oppressed nation in this society is acceptable.

Further to this, liberals will also point to increased breaking down of states by economic globalisation, as well as the rise of cleavages, such as ideology and class which cross national boundaries. Advances in technology have added to this. They would also point to the past fifty years, showing that few of the Western, democratised states have been to war with one another. This suggests, that in these democracies, where the individuals have opportunity to shape policy, there is a trend towards recognition of validity of other individuals and an opposition against the kind of conflict brought about through the realist ideals.

In all, the realist and liberal approaches contrast most strongly with one another, with the international society approach seeming to advance the descriptive analysis of much of what is highlighted by the realists, yet aspiring to an advancement from this through institutionalisation. It draws on some of the liberal views as the source of the drive behind this advancement towards a moral ordering. It is therefore the most adaptable of the three approaches and is closest to the modern reality of states acting within institutions with constitutions and obligations, with an additional, sub-state level of activity including in spheres of economics, religion and ideology.