Liberalism, as a theory in international relations, has long emphasized the power of cooperation, institutions, and economic interdependence to mitigate the inherent anarchy of the global system. Rooted in the belief that human nature and governance can progress toward peace and stability, liberalism has been a dominant framework, particularly after the Cold War. Democratic governance, free trade, and international organizations are its cornerstones, seen as pathways to a more harmonious world. However, in recent years, liberalism seems to be overshadowed by the return of realism, as states prioritize power politics and self-interest. Even institutions built to uphold liberal principles appear to function within a realist framework, prompting the question: is liberalism fading, or is it merely adapting to a realist-dominated order?
Critics argue that liberalism is in retreat and it is unable to adequately address the enduring realities of international politics. The post-Cold War optimism that heralded a “liberal world order” has faced setbacks as states revert to prioritizing national interests over global cooperation. For instance, international institutions such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization which are conceived as arbiters of liberal values, often appear to serve the interests of the most powerful states. Realists contend that these institutions reflect power hierarchies rather than fostering genuine global governance. Similarly, the promise of economic interdependence as a mechanism for peace has been challenged by examples like the US-China relationship. Despite deep economic ties, the two nations remain locked in a strategic rivalry, demonstrating how economic interdependence can coexist with competition and mistrust. The rise of authoritarian regimes and the erosion of democratic norms in several countries further undermine liberalism’s vision of global cooperation, as populism and nationalism gain traction even within established democracies.
Realist scholars have long critiqued the core assumptions of liberalism particularly its optimism about human nature and the structure of international politics. Hans Morgenthau, one of the leading voices of classical realism, dismissed liberalism’s faith in human progress, arguing instead, that the pursuit of power and security defines international relations. Morgenthau viewed liberalism as naïve for underestimating the anarchic nature of the international system which inherently perpetuates insecurity and conflict. Neorealists, including thinkers like Kenneth Waltz, focus on the issue of relative gains, contending that states are reluctant to cooperate if they perceive that other states will benefit disproportionately. This perspective challenges liberalists like Robert Keohane, who acknowledged that cooperation depends on shared interests and may falter in their absence. Realists also argue that anarchy remains a constant feature of the international system where the absence of a global governing authority ensures that insecurity prevails regardless of economic interdependence or institutional frameworks.
However, in response, liberalist scholars defend their framework by pointing to the transformative potential of cooperation and globalization. Strong liberalists emphasize the qualitative changes in international relations that differentiate the contemporary world from the past. For example, Karl Deutsch’s concept of “Security Communities” highlights regions such as Western Europe and North America, where conflict among states has become unthinkable due to shared liberal values, democratic governance, and deep economic ties. Liberalists argue that institutions, despite their flaws, play a crucial role in reducing transaction costs, fostering trust, and facilitating cooperation among states. The European Union stands out as a success story of liberal institutionalism, where member states have integrated their economies and political systems to an unprecedented degree, creating a framework for collective governance.
Furthermore, liberalists emphasize the prohibitive economic costs of war in today’s interconnected global economy. As production and consumption occur across global supply chains, conflicts that disrupt these networks are detrimental to all parties involved. liberals argue that this economic reality creates a powerful incentive for states to resolve disputes through diplomacy rather than force. Despite realist critiques, strong liberalists remain optimistic about the possibility of progress, highlighting those consolidated democracies tend to maintain peaceful relations and that globalization continues to tie economies together in ways that deter large-scale conflicts.
However, the geopolitical realities of the 21st century suggest that realism continues to dominate, even within structures that claim to uphold liberal principles. The United Nations, for instance, often reflects the power dynamics of its permanent members rather than acting as an impartial arbiter of international peace. The veto power wielded by major powers like the United States and China underscores how state sovereignty and national interests often trump collective action. In South Asia, the persistent rivalry between India and Pakistan illustrates the limitations of liberal theories. Despite efforts at economic interdependence and institutional cooperation, mutual distrust and security concerns prevent meaningful collaboration. Trade remains minimal, and regional bodies like SAARC are largely ineffective in addressing tensions, underscoring the realist perspective that power dynamics and historical grievances dictate relations between states.
Even in the United States, often seen as a champion of liberalism, foreign policy frequently blends liberal rhetoric with realist pragmatism. For example, while the US promotes democracy and human rights globally, its strategic alliances with authoritarian regimes reveal the prioritization of national interests over ideological consistency. This duality reflects the enduring influence of realism, even in the policies of states that publicly espouse liberal values.
Liberalism is not vanishing, rather, it is adapting to the pressures of a realist-dominated world. Its ideals of cooperation, interdependence, and institutional governance remain vital, but their practical application often yields to the realities of power politics and state-centric interests. The current global order is best understood as a complex interplay of liberal and realist forces, where cooperation coexists with competition, and institutions operate within a framework shaped by power dynamics.
Ultimately, the future of international relations may depend on finding a balance between these two paradigms. Liberalism provides a vision of a more cooperative and interconnected world, while realism grounds this vision in the pragmatic realities of power and security. As the world grapples with challenges like climate change, economic inequality, and geopolitical rivalry, the tension between liberal ideals and realist realities will continue to shape the global landscape. Rather than choosing one over the other, the task may be to integrate the strengths of both frameworks, crafting a pragmatic approach to international politics that acknowledges the complexities of an increasingly interconnected yet competitive world.
