International Relations: Realism vs Liberalism on Human Rights

Realism and Liberalism

Human Rights

Realist Perspective:

• Human rights are secondary to national interests
• States prioritize their own interests over humanitarian concerns
• Intervention in other states' affairs is rarely justified, and only when vital national interests are at stake
• Realists argue that human rights are often used as a pretext for intervention, which can lead to instability and conflict

Liberal Perspective:

• Human rights are fundamental and universal, taking precedence over national interests
• States have a moral obligation to protect and promote human rights, both domestically and internationally
• Liberal democracies have a responsibility to promote human rights and democracy globally
• Human rights violations can justify intervention, and liberal states have a duty to protect civilians from atrocities

National Interest

Realist Perspective:

• National interest is the primary consideration in international relations
• States pursue their own interests, often at the expense of others
• National security and economic prosperity are key components of national interest
• Realists argue that moral or ethical considerations are secondary to national interest

Liberal Perspective:

• National interest is not solely defined by military power or economic gain
• Liberal democracies prioritize individual freedoms, human rights, and the rule of law
• National interest is intertwined with the promotion of liberal values and institutions
• Liberals argue that a state's national interest is advanced by promoting peace, stability, and cooperation

State Sovereignty

Realist Perspective:

• State sovereignty is absolute and inviolable
• States have the right to govern their internal affairs without external interference
• Realists argue that state sovereignty is essential for maintaining international order and stability
• Intervention in another state's internal affairs is generally considered illegitimate

Liberal Perspective:

• State sovereignty is conditional upon the protection of human rights and the rule of law
• States have a responsibility to protect their citizens and provide for their welfare
• Liberal democracies have a duty to promote democratic values and human rights globally
• State sovereignty can be conditional upon meeting certain standards of governance and human rights protection

Human Rights

• Realists believe human rights are secondary to national interests, while liberals consider them fundamental and universal, taking precedence over national interests
• Realists think states prioritize their own interests over humanitarian concerns, whereas liberals argue states have a moral obligation to protect and promote human rights
• Liberals believe human rights violations can justify intervention, and liberal states have a duty to protect civilians from atrocities, whereas realists think intervention is rarely justified

National Interest

• Realists prioritize national interest over moral or ethical considerations, focusing on national security and economic prosperity
• Liberals believe national interest is intertwined with promoting liberal values and institutions, prioritizing individual freedoms, human rights, and the rule of law
• According to liberals, a state's national interest is advanced by promoting peace, stability, and cooperation

State Sovereignty

• Realists argue state sovereignty is absolute and inviolable, essential for maintaining international order and stability
• Liberals believe state sovereignty is conditional upon protecting human rights and the rule of law, and states have a responsibility to protect their citizens and provide for their welfare
• Liberals think state sovereignty can be conditional upon meeting certain standards of governance and human rights protection