INTRODUCTION:

International relations is a branch of study that seeks to understand how countries interact with
one another. There are two major approaches in this field: idealism and realism. Idealism values
cooperation, diplomacy, and morality, whereas realism values power, national interests, and
power balance. The purpose of this essay is to provide a comparison of idealism and realism in
international relations.

IDEALISM:
Idealism is a theory that emphasizes international cooperation, diplomacy, and peaceful conflict
resolution. It is also known as liberal internationalism. Idealists believe that countries should
conduct moral and ethical foreign policy. Idealists believe that international law should serve as
the foundation for international relations, and that international organizations like the United
Nations should play an important role in promoting peace and stability.

Idealists also emphasize the importance of morality and ethics in international relations. They
believe that countries should follow laws and rules, and be fair and good to each other. Idealists
argue that international law should be respected by all countries, and that violations of
international law should be punished. In this view, countries that act morally and ethically are
more likely to be respected and trusted by other countries.
Another important aspect of idealism is the belief that international organizations can promote
peace and stability. Idealists argue that international organizations such as the United Nations
can provide a forum for countries to work together to resolve disputes and promote peace.
They believe that the United Nations can help to prevent conflicts by mediating disputes and
providing humanitarian assistance to countries in need.
Realism, on the other hand, is a theory of international relations that emphasizes power,
national interests, and the balance of power. Realists believe that countries are the primary
actors in international relations, with the primary goal of ensuring their survival and security.
Realists believe that countries frequently disregard international law in pursuit of their national
interests, and that cooperation is not always possible. According to realists, the international
system is inherently anarchic, and conflicts and wars are unavoidable. As a result, countries
must be ready to use military force to safeguard their interests and ensure their survival.
In international relations, realists emphasize the importance of power and national interests.
They believe that in order to protect themselves and their citizens, countries must be strong
and powerful.

Another important aspect of realism is the concept of balance of power. Realists argue that
countries will always compete for power and resources, and that conflicts and wars are
inevitable. Therefore, countries must be prepared to balance the power of other countries in
order to ensure their own security. Realists believe that a balance of power is necessary to
prevent any one country from becoming too powerful and dominating the international system.

COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS:
Idealism and realism are opposing perspectives on international relations theory. In
international relations, idealists emphasize the importance of cooperation, diplomacy, and
morality. Realists, on the other hand, place a premium on power, national interests, and power
balance.

One of the most significant distinctions between idealism and realism is their approach to
conflict and war. Idealists believe that conflicts can be resolved peacefully through diplomacy.
They argue that rather than resorting to military force, countries should try to resolve their
differences through negotiations. War, in this opinion, is unnecessary and can be avoided
through cooperation and dialogue.

Realists, on the other hand, believe that conflicts and wars in international relations are
unavoidable. They argue that countries are motivated by their own interests and will use
military force to protect those interests if necessary. Warfare is a natural part of the
international system, according to this viewpoint, and countries must be prepared to use
military force to protect themselves and their interests.

Another distinction between idealism and realism is how they view international law and
organizations. Idealists believe that international law should be the foundation of international
relations, and that countries should respect and adhere to it. They also believe that
international organizations like the United Nations can play an important role in promoting
global peace and stability.
Realists, on the other hand, are more skeptical of international law and organizations. They
argue that countries will often disregard international law if it does not serve their interests.
They also believe that international organizations are often ineffective, and cannot be relied
upon to maintain peace and stability in the world. In this view, countries must rely on their own
power and strength to protect themselves.

Another important difference between idealism and realism is their approach to morality and
ethics in international relations. Idealists believe that countries should act morally and ethically
in their foreign policies. They argue that countries should follow laws and rules, and be fair and
just to each other. In this view, countries that act morally and ethically are more likely to be
respected and trusted by other countries.

Realists, on the other hand, are more concerned with national interests than morality and
ethics. They believe that countries should act in their own self-interest, even if it means
disregarding moral and ethical considerations. Realists argue that the international system is
inherently competitive, and that countries must be prepared to do whatever it takes to protect
themselves and their interests.

Finally, idealism and realism are two distinct approaches to international relations theory.
While idealism values cooperation, diplomacy, and morality, realism values power, national
interests, and power balance. The distinctions between these two approaches have far-
reaching consequences for how countries interact with one another and how conflicts and wars
are resolved. Finally, the debate between idealism and realism in international relations
remains a hot topic among academics and policymakers alike.