The Inefficacy of Political Realism and Economic Liberalism in Resolving International Crises: A Re-examination of the Opposition and Synergy of the Two Schools

Subject Areas : Iranian Political Research

Damoon ZadehKazerooni ¹ , Mehdi Khoshkhati ^{2 *} , Farshid Jafari ³

1 - PhD Student, International Relations, Za.C., Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran.
2 - Department of International Relations, Za.C., Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran
3 - Department of International Relations, Za.C., Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran.

Received: 2025-05-25 Accepted : 2025-08-04 Published : 2025-10-02

Keywords: Political realism, Economic liberalism, Offensive realism, Foreign policy, West Asia, International crises.,

Abstract :

The present research addresses the issue that the two dominant schools of thought in international relations, namely political realism and economic liberalism, which are often considered in opposition to one another, are in fact complementary, and both are ineffective in resolving international crises, while numerous ontological debates between the thinkers of these two approaches consistently highlight the oppositional aspects of these schools. Realism and its other branches seek to unravel foreign policy knots by using hard power or the "military option" to secure their interests thereby; on the other hand, liberalism, by emphasizing cooperation and highlighting the economic matter, seeks to secure the national interests of countries. Using an analytical-comparative method, this research seeks to answer this central and fundamental question: "Why have political realism and economic liberalism, as two dominant discourses in the international system, been ineffective in responding to the complex challenges of the contemporary world?". The results indicate that neither of these schools alone has been able to explain the complexities of multi-level governance in the occurrence of emerging crises such as cyber security, and sustainable patterns of cooperation can only be achieved by moving beyond the "security versus welfare" dichotomy and through a fundamental revision of the theoretical foundations of economics or the development of new interdisciplinary approaches that incorporate social, cultural, and psychological factors into economic analyses.

References:

استیگلیتز، جوزف (1395). بهای نابرابری: جامعه دوقطبی و نابرابر چگونه آینده ما را به خطر می‌افکند. مترجم: محمدرضا فرزین. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
دوئرتی، جیمز؛ فالتزگراف، رابرت (۱۳۸۴). نظریه‌های متعارض در روابط بین‌الملل. مترجم: وحید بزرگی و علی‌رضا طیب. نشر قومس.
ریکاردو، دیوید (1374). اصول اقتصاد سیاسی و مالیات‌‌ستانی. مترجم: حبیب‌الله تیموری. تهران: نشر نی.
سلیمی، حسین (1384). دولت مجازی یا واقع‌گرایی تهاجمی؛ بررسی مقایسه‌ای نظریه ریچارد روزکرنس و جان میرشایمر. پژوهش حقوق و سیاست، شماره 17.
مشیرزاده، حمیرا (1386). تحول در نظریه‌های روابط بین‌الملل. تهران: سمت.
مورگنتا، هانس.جی. (۱۳۸۴). سیاست میان ملت‌ها. مترجم: حمیرا مشیرزاده. دفتر مطالعات سیاسی و بین‌المللی.

Akerlof, G.A. & Shiller, R.J. (2009). Animal Spirits. How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, And Why It Matters for Global Capitalism. Priceton University press.
Arrighi, G. (1994). The long twentieth century: money, power, and the origins of our times. United Kingdom: Verso.
Buzan, B. & Little, R. (2000). International Systems in World History. Oxford University Press.
Cox, R.W. (1986). Social Forces, States and World Orders. Journal of International Studies, 10(2).
Escobar, A. (2011). Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University press.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. University of California Press.
Gilpin, R. (2001). Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Haldane, A. (2009). Why Banks Filed the Stress Test (pp. 1-23). Bank of England, Vol. Speeches a, February.
Jervis, R. (1997). System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton University Press.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Keohane, R.O. & Nye, J.S. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Keohane, R.O. (1984). The Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International Economic Regimes, 1967-1977. International Organization, 38(1), p. 31-51.
Kirshner, J. (2010). The tragedy of offensive realism: Classical realism and the rise of China. European Journal of International Relations, 18(1).
Krasner, S.D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.
Lebow, R.N. (1994). The Long Peace and the End of the Cold War. International Organization.
Mearsheimer, J.J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Morgenthau, H.J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Ruggie, J.G. (1982). International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order. International Organization, 36(2), p. 379-415.
Schweller, R.L. (2018). Maxwell’s Demon and the Golden Apple: Global Discord in the New Millennium. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stiglitz, J. (2024). Neoliberalism and the Crisis of Inequality. Global Political Economy Journal, 12(3), p. 112–135.
Strange, S. (1988). States and Markets: An Introduction to International Political Economy. London: Pinter Publishers.
Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.