Theoretical Juxtaposition To Realism

…the world is entering a new era in which the very concept of security will change and change dramatically. Security will be interpreted as: security of people, not just territory. Security of individuals, not just nations. Security through development, not through arms. Security of all the people everywhere – in their homes, in their jobs, in their streets, in their communities, in their environment (Axworthy, 2001).
Security has been a longstanding item on the agenda of both individual and states as protection is a fundamental need for both, yet the twenty-first century demands a revaluation of the concept. Modern theoretical prisms have added several dimensions to the examination of the concept yet there has been little progress in making
For liberals, war is not the first option for states, when a conflict arises and states are more motivated to find solutions that are mutually beneficial for the conflicting parties. This theory contests realists’ assumptions that places states as paramount in the state system and contends that international institutions also play a decisive role in international relations. Liberals acknowledge conflict yet they believe that human beings are inclined to cooperate and place emphasis on diplomacy and cooperation, viewing realism’s emphasis on military power as excessive. Liberal proposers argue that the benefits gained by states need not be equal due to the fact that both participants will be and as such view partnerships in terms of absolute gains. Moreover, liberals contend that there is never a need for any party to lose completely as states are more than capable of coming to an agreement where both entities benefit. Liberalism’s recognition of the importance of non-state actors lends itself to their belief that international institutions have the propensity to act as intermediaries during conflict. Keohane and Nye’s concept of complex interdependence (Keohane & Nye, 1987) strengthens the liberal argument of collective gains as the wellbeing of one state is inextricably linked to the
However, these contrasting theories each have inherent conceptual flaws and often are best useful when used simultaneously. Realism fails to explain intrastate conflicts and the ability of states to create security threats for their citizens, it overlooks issues of food security and health security, and it ignores genocide, oppression and gender violence. It downplays the impact that the forces of nature, disease, and poverty can have on security. Realists also ignore the role of non-state actors such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and United Nations in global affairs while liberals recognize their importance and growing relevancy. Liberalism also proves a vital tool when seeking to examine rapid globalization and the involvement of transnational and multinational corporations as fundamental actors on the world stage. Theoretically, Liberalism is capable of providing a level of analysis for a world that is gradually forcing physical territorial borders into oblivion. Yet, liberalism is insufficient when seeking to explain prolonged interstate conflicts, it ignores the failure of international organizations to broker peace and the ability of more powerful states to use non-state actors for their own purposes. Moreover neither theory can provide explanations for poverty and the continuous degradation of different ethnic groups. These traditional paradigms