International Relations: Realism vs Liberalism on Human Rights

Study Notes

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

Description

This quiz covers the different perspectives of Realism and Liberalism on human rights in International Relations. It explores how realists and liberals view the role of human rights in international politics.