Alasdair Brown PI2007
Realism and Liberalism are two opposing theories within international relations both of which are very different to each other but with regards to international regimes and regime theory hold the same opinion. International regime and regimes theory have been prominent in the international system for some time now and even more so within the last century. Specific moments in history have led to regimes becoming more and more important to the safe running of the international system. A perfect example of a regime being a necessary component to an efficient international system would be the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (START) or also known as the Moscow Treaty signed in 2002 by Vladimir Putin and George Bush. This treaty claimed that both the U.S and Russia had to reduce their nuclear weapons down to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012. This regime was to stop the arms race getting out of hand (Woolf, 1:2011). A treaty such as START proves why regimes can be so valuable and important to the international system because without this treaty perhaps the arms race would have become unrealistic and dangerous. This is one of the many arguments why liberalists and realists accept regime and regime theory and this essay will be discussing why this is so. An area in which liberals and realists can agree is on the role of the state actors within an international system, rationality. Both theories argue that all state actors are rational, resulting in both accepting an international regime. Liberalists believe that cooperation is something that is important in order to achieve state goals. The realist view is slightly different in the respect that realists look more strongly on the side of fulfilling state goals. States interests can overlap and as long as a state’s power or resources isn’t infringed or...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document