International relations

International relations renders itself divided into three main paradigms that seek to elucidate the complex nature of relations among states. The more pessimistic tone is espoused by the paradigm called realism. In line with the human propensity to engage in behavior that aligns with self-interest, the model goes on to provide a rationale for states working in their own national interest. Conflict and competition are overriding features of a world based on a model in which the struggle for power is a pervasive feature of international relations. States, more like humans, have the innate desire to become hegemonic entities, a factor that transgresses the sacrosanct principle of balance of power that this realm so vociferously endorses. By underlining that conflict is the natural condition of international relations, realism has provided an epitome of the gloom that is embedded in it.

Liberalism, in stark contrast to realism, goes about finding reasons for cooperation among nation states. It outlines how the burgeoning importance of international trade can be taken to refute the notion that war and conflict are the norm, rather than the exception in the real world. To salvage their economies, nations eschew war as an instrument of foreign policy. It is worth nothing the traces of self interest that are conspicuous even in this stratagem. This model advocates the spread of democracy as a tool to engender peace and foster harmony, given the irrefutable fact that democracies never fight with one another. It also highlights the increasingly important role of international institutions like the World Bank in a globalized world where nations can be can be encouraged to work for the common good. If nothing else, liberalism seeks ways that can support the founding of common areas of interest, culminating in an ideal world bereft of war and conflict.