The idea of international development as a means of strengthening cooperation between various countries and eliminating conflicts in the world has always stirred people’s imagination. Therefore, there are different opinions on how states interact. World War II put an end to the Idealist approach. Its gist lay in the idea that humanity learns from the grave mistakes of the past. However, no experience could prevent them from starting the most terrible war. That is why new approaches to international relations gained popularity. Among them are Realism, Constructivism, and Neoliberalism which seem to be very close to Idealism in their evaluation of the world.
Apparently, every state tends to protect its basic national interests. There can be a parallel between a state and an individual. Every person is believed to be born equal to others and deserves the same amount of resources. Meanwhile, the resources are always limited, so people have to rival. Any war between nations turns out to be the same rival but between groups of people possessing mutual interests, not individuals. Hastedt (2020) claims that neoliberalists believe states of being capable of advancing their interest peacefully without threatening others. Unfortunately, it is hardly possible because there will always be a bone of contention causing tension between them.
Nevertheless, there are two approaches that seem to be true to life. Realists and constructivists describe international relations as the result of the distribution of power and a state’s social practices. It means that intergovernmental organizations have to pay attention to such things while making certain decisions. It is the interests of less powerful countries with social tension that should be preferable and taken into account first, not first economies.
Reference
Hastedt, G. (2020). American Foreign Policy Past, Present, and Future. Rowman & Littlefield.