留学生外交专业课程作业-现实主义和自由主义国际关系理论是相互排斥的吗？本文是一篇留学生课程作业写作范文，主要内容是为了回答本文的问题，作者将介绍著名现实主义思想家的观点，以及他们对国家在国际舞台上如何相互关系的分析和预测。随后，介绍自由主义观点及其对国际关系的有限影响。课程作业有助于解释为什么这两个学派之间确实存在紧张关系。这种紧张关系既是历史的，也是当代的，但作者将得出结论，这并不意味着这些国际关系理论必然相互排斥，尽管这些观点在对人性和政治行为和预期的描述中常常存在着深刻的分歧。现实主义的观点很可能继续是对实际国家行为的恰当和准确的描述，但自由主义在国际上所取得的进展既不能忽视，也不重要。下面就一起欣赏这篇留学生外交专业课程作业范文。
To attempt to answer the question of this essay I will give an account of the perspectives of prominent realist thinkers and of their analyses and predictions of how states relate to each other in the international arena. Subsequently, I will provide an account of the liberal perspective and its arguably idealist and to an extent limited impact on international relations. This will help explain why there is indeed a tension between these two schools of thought. This tension is both historical and contemporary, but I will conclude that it does not render these IR theories necessarily mutually exclusive, even though these perspectives have often been divided by a deep gulf in their accounts of human nature and that of political conduct and expectation. The realist perspective may well continue to be an apt and accurate account of actual state conduct, yet the inroads made by liberalism internationally can neither be ignored and are significant.
Before setting out to answer the outlining question related to international relations (IR) theory, a brief and superficial remark on the general meaning of the term ‘realism’ may shed light. For the philosopher the term ‘realism’ implies on the whole an ontological opposition to nominalism and idealism. Even in common culture, such as for example in cinema and literature, we contrast realism with purely and overly escapist, fantastic or romantic treatment. This general definition and, admittedly simple account and understanding of realism brings us closer to providing an answer to the outlining question and will help to attempt to provide a meaningful and, hopefully, insightful answer. This is because in international relations theory, the theory of realism argues that the politics between nations are invariably determined by search for power for the sake of national interest. Given this brief definition of political realism, we have an initial foundation to contrast this outlook with that of ‘liberalism’. The term, as generally understood, is best defined by its Enlightenment meaning. It is a school of thought and ideology that believes that government should be limited and accountable for the sake of individual political and constitutional freedom and equality, self-determination, human rights and the beneficial nature of free market capitalism for societies. Arguably, these goals do not necessarily appear as unrealistic or idealist. Indeed, they appear to have become commonplace and are put forward by most governments in their official rhetoric. Hence, why should these two IR theories be potentially mutually exclusive? Perhaps because IR realists allege that liberals who aim to promote universal human rights, governmental accountability, international economic and cultural cooperation and perpetual peace merely engage in ‘wish-dreams’ and an ‘exuberance of utopianism’ that belies the actual state of world affairs. (Carr 2001: 14). Yet, the situation is more complex than a mere dichotomy of terms and theory and humanity has progressed in spite of its bellicosity.
在开始回答与国际关系（IR）理论有关的概述问题之前，对“现实主义”一词的一般含义进行简要和肤浅的评论可能会有所帮助。对哲学家来说，“现实主义”一词总体上意味着对唯名论和唯心主义的本体论对立。即使在普通文化中，例如在电影和文学中，我们也将现实主义与纯粹的、过度逃避现实的、荒诞的或浪漫的处理方式进行对比。这一一般性定义，以及对现实主义的简单描述和理解，使我们更接近于为概述问题提供答案，并将有助于尝试提供一个有意义的、希望有深刻见解的答案。这是因为在国际关系理论中，现实主义理论认为，国家之间的政治总是由为了国家利益而寻求权力所决定。鉴于政治现实主义的这一简短定义，我们有了一个初步的基础来将这一观点与“自由主义”进行对比。正如一般所理解的，这个术语的最佳定义是其启蒙意义。这是一个思想和意识形态学派，认为为了个人的政治和宪法自由以及平等、自决、人权和自由市场资本主义对社会的有益性质，政府应该受到限制和问责。可以说，这些目标并不一定看起来不切实际或理想主义。事实上，它们似乎已经变得司空见惯，并由大多数政府在官方言论中提出。因此，为什么这两种IR理论可能相互排斥？也许是因为现实主义者声称，旨在促进普遍人权、政府问责、国际经济和文化合作以及永久和平的自由主义者只是在从事“愿望梦想”和“乌托邦主义的繁荣”，这掩盖了世界事务的实际状况。。然而，情况比单纯的术语和理论二分法更复杂，尽管人类好战，但人类还是取得了进步。
The realist position’s understanding of human nature can be expressed very well by Machiavelli’s saying that ‘all men are wicked and that they will always give vent to the malignity that is in their minds when opportunity offers’ (Machiavelli; Wootton 1995: 9). Similarly, Hobbes argued that we are in a continued posture of war of every man against every man and that life is solitary, nasty, brutish and short. (Hobbes 1994: XI-XIII) For Machiavelli the conclusion was that politics should be viewed not from the perspective of idealism and religious belief, but rather that a successful politics involves a sober and realistic assessment of the political status quo and the rallying of the population behind a powerful ruler and state. (Machiavelli; Wootton 1995: XIV-XV) For Hobbes, the conclusion was that the state of nature was a state of war and that only surrender to an absolute authority that creates law could provide peace. (Tuck 1989: 5-7) To explain the realist position, it is important to emphasize that both thinkers emphasized that, given the bellicose nature of human beings, self-interest underlies all rational and effective action.
现实主义立场对人性的理解可以很好地表达在马基雅维利的一句话中：“所有人都是邪恶的，当机会来临时，他们总是会发泄心中的恶意”。类似地，霍布斯认为，我们处于一种持续的战争态势，每个人都在与每个人作战，生活是孤独、肮脏、野蛮和短暂的。对于马基雅维利来说，结论是不应该从理想主义和宗教信仰的角度来看待政治，而应该是一个成功的政治涉及对政治现状的冷静和现实的评估，以及将人民团结在一个强大的统治者和国家后面。霍布斯认为，自然状态是战争状态，只有向创造法律的绝对权威投降才能提供和平。为了解释现实主义立场，重要的是要强调，两位思想家都强调，鉴于人类的好战性质，自我利益是所有理性和有效行动的基础。
These considerations of inherent human egoism can be considered to apply only to the relations between individuals or smaller groups of individuals. Yet, as mentioned, this position which transfers ideas about our inherent human nature onto the international realm was essentially adopted generally by all subsequent realist theorists in IR. The reason is that the majority or realist thinkers in IR did not necessarily consider this pessimism about human nature as a universal and general theory of all politics, but specifically as a theory of IR. In essence, realism argues that we can draw conclusions and parallels between human nature and the political structure of international politics and that these prove to be uncannily accurate. (Morgenthau 1985; Waltz 1979)
这些对人类固有利己主义的考虑可以被认为只适用于个人或较小群体之间的关系。然而，如前所述，这种将关于我们固有人性的观点转移到国际领域的立场基本上被国际关系中所有后来的现实主义理论家普遍采用。原因是，国际关系中的大多数或现实主义思想家不一定将这种对人性的悲观主义视为所有政治的普遍和一般理论，而是特别视为国际关系理论。从本质上讲，现实主义认为我们可以在人性和国际政治的政治结构之间得出结论和相似之处，这些结论和相似性被证明是惊人的准确。
This shift of attention between human nature and the actuality of global politics lies at the heart of realist IR theory (Butterfield 1949: 31) It follows from this perspective that a coherent and accurate account of international politics must pay tribute to ‘the primacy in all political life of power and security’ (Gilpin 1986: 305). It also follows that given the natural rational egoism of human beings in the absence of an international government states must pursue a state-centrist course. In the international arena the type of absolute authority that Hobbes envisioned could bring peace simply does not exist. Hence, in an international arena that can be characterised as an international anarchy, states can be considered as rationally acting ‘units’ (Waltz 1979: 11) or even as ‘conflict groups’ (Gilpin 1996: 7) which will invariably pursue their national interest. As a matter of fact, small kinship groups or even states may impose restrictions on political rule, whereas in the international arena, under raison d’état, we have witnessed abhorrent actions. States have engaged in systematic and widespread atrocities which may well be considered unthinkable within the setting of smaller communities. The realist position defines the actual reality of international political conduct by ‘the limitations which the sordid and selfish aspects of human nature place on the conduct of diplomacy’ (Thompson 1985: 20) As Morgenthau says: ‘Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states’ (Morgenthau 1985: 9).
人类本性与全球政治现实之间的这种注意力转移是现实主义国际关系理论的核心。从这个角度来看，对国际政治的连贯和准确的描述必须赞扬“权力和安全在所有政治生活中的首要地位”。因此，考虑到在没有国际政府的情况下人类的自然理性利己主义，国家必须走国家中心主义道路。在国际舞台上，霍布斯所设想的那种能够带来和平的绝对权威根本不存在。因此，在一个可以被描述为国际无政府状态的国际舞台上，国家可以被视为理性行动的“单位”，甚至是“冲突集团”，它们总是追求自己的国家利益。事实上，小的亲属群体甚至国家可能对政治统治施加限制，而在国际舞台上，根据存在的理由，我们目睹了令人发指的行动。国家犯下了系统和广泛的暴行，在较小社区的环境中，这些暴行很可能被认为是不可想象的。现实主义立场通过“人性的肮脏和自私方面对外交行为的限制”来定义国际政治行为的实际现实，正如摩根索所说：“现实主义认为，普遍道德原则不能适用于国家行为”。
One important reason for this apparent amorality or immorality of state conduct from a realist perspective is the absence of an international government which could impose universal morals or ethics. Structural realists in particular have given emphasis to this aspect and see international relations as a pure prisoner’s dilemma or zero-sum game. (Butterfield 1949: 89-90; Waltz 1979: 62–3) Thus, an amoral tendency towards self-help, self-interest and the search for increasing power would exist for the structural realist ‘even in the absence of aggressivity or similar factors’ (Herz 1976: 10). In an anarchical and intrinsically competitive system, actors behave under conditions of uncertainty with mutual suspicion. Each actor fears the other and hence increases their ability to protect themselves and each such step in turn is seen by the other actors as a confirmation of their suspicion resulting ‘in a spiral of illusory fears and “unnecessary” defenses’ (Snyder 1997: 17)
从现实主义的角度来看，国家行为明显不道德或不道德的一个重要原因是缺乏一个能够强加普遍道德或伦理的国际政府。结构现实主义者特别强调这一方面，并将国际关系视为纯粹的囚徒困境或零和博弈。因此，对于结构现实主义者来说，即使在没有攻击性或类似因素的情况下，也会存在一种自救、自利和寻求增加权力的非道德倾向。在一个无政府和内在竞争的系统中，行为体在不确定性条件下相互猜疑。每个参与者都害怕对方，因此提高了他们保护自己的能力，而每一个这样的步骤又被其他参与者视为对他们怀疑的确认，导致“幻觉恐惧和“不必要”防御的螺旋”
Thus, having given a brief overview of realist theory, I will move on to provide a summary account of liberalism before providing an analysis of the compatibility and mutual exclusivity of both schools of thought. Locke said man is “free…absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest and subject to nobody”, and any legitimate government must from this perspective guarantee “the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.” (Locke ‘Second Treatise of Civil Government’, IX, 123) Locke believed that each individual is a property of him or herself only. Hobbes too was an individualist. He believed that we are like ‘atoms’, not to be understood in the modern scientific sense, which are in constant collision. (Tuck 1989: 89). Yet his conclusion was unlike Locke’s. For Hobbes only absolute surrender to an absolute authority could guarantee peace between these constantly warring human atoms. For Locke, on the other hand, all political authority had to gain and earn legitimacy given his view of human beings. Although Locke’s position was not intended as a political rallying cry, but rather a philosophical position, it can be seen as a foundation for those demands for fundamental natural rights that would lead to the great revolutions of the Enlightenment. The historical impact of liberal ideology cannot be underestimated. The American Declaration of Independence of 1776 and the American Constitution of 1787 stated: ‘we take these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that amongst these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’. Yet, whereas for the American Declaration the rights of individuals were only a consequence of citizenship, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 asserted that ‘all men are born free and equal in their rights’. From now on, ‘man had rights and not merely as a citizen’ (Brownlie 1972:437)
因此，在简要概述了现实主义理论之后，我将继续对自由主义进行概述，然后分析两种思想流派的兼容性和相互排斥性。洛克说，人是“自由的……他自己的人和财产的绝对主人，与最伟大的人平等，不受任何人支配”，任何合法政府都必须从这个角度保证“相互保护他们的生命、自由和财产，我称之为财产”。“洛克认为每个人都是他或她自己的财产。霍布斯也是一个个人主义者。他认为，我们就像“原子”，在现代科学意义上无法理解，它们不断碰撞。。但他的结论与洛克不同。对霍布斯来说，只有绝对服从绝对权威才能保证这些不断交战的人类原子之间的和平。另一方面，对于洛克来说，鉴于他对人类的看法，所有政治权威都必须获得和赢得合法性。尽管洛克的立场并非是一个政治口号，而是一个哲学立场，但它可以被视为基本自然权利要求的基础，这些要求将导致启蒙运动的伟大革命。自由主义意识形态的历史影响不容低估。1776年《美国独立宣言》和1787年《美国宪法》指出：“我们认为这些真理不言而喻，人人生而平等，造物主赋予他们某些不可剥夺的权利，其中包括生命、自由和追求幸福。”。然而，对于《美国宣言》而言，个人权利只是公民身份的结果，而1789年的《法国人权和公民权利宣言》宣称“所有人生而自由，权利平等”。从现在起，“人有权利，而不仅仅是公民”
To explain the nature of liberalism it is fundamental to understand its view of human nature and its emphasis on the individual. Classical realists did acknowledge that the actions of individual politicians in the name of their state could explain certain aspects of international conduct. For structural realists states became the sole actors in the international arena. Yet for liberals individuals became the primary actors and all political conduct must take account of their importance. Tesón explains that for liberalism the ‘primary normative unit is the individual, not the state. The end of states and governments is to benefit, serve, and protect their components, human beings; and the end of international law must also be to benefit, serve, and protect human beings, and not its components, states and governments’ (Teson 1992: 54). From this liberal perspective, it is the respect of individuals that creates domestic and international legitimacy of states. This liberal outlook had a fundamental impact on the external as well as internal relations of states. (Gardner 1990: 23–39; Zacher and Matthew 1995: 107–50). Once the belligerence of unitary state actors or conflict groups within international anarchy becomes limited in its excesses, we arguably enter a new era. (Bull 1977: 13) .” After the Enlightenment, government across Europe “became increasingly based on legal means and deliberative processes, and less on royal whims, prejudices, and status considerations” (Holsti 2004: 45)
要解释自由主义的本质，必须理解其对人性的看法及其对个人的强调。古典现实主义者确实承认，个别政治家以国家名义采取的行动可以解释国际行为的某些方面。对于结构现实主义者来说，国家成为国际舞台上的唯一行动者。然而，对于自由主义者来说，个人成为主要的行动者，所有政治行为都必须考虑到他们的重要性。特松解释说，对于自由主义来说，“主要的规范单位是个人，而不是国家。”。国家和政府的目的是造福、服务和保护其组成部分——人；国际法的目的也必须是造福、服务和保护人类，而不是其组成部分，国家和政府”。从这一自由的角度来看，正是对个人的尊重创造了国家的国内和国际合法性。这种自由主义观点对国家的外部和内部关系产生了根本性影响。。一旦单一国家行为者或冲突集团在国际无政府状态中的好战性因其过度行为而受到限制，我们就可以说进入了一个新时代。“启蒙运动后，整个欧洲的政府”越来越多地基于法律手段和审议程序，而不是皇室的奇思妙想、偏见和地位考虑”
This outlook can be well expressed by Kant’s ‘Perpetual Peace’. In his essay he argued that although warfare is a regular feature of the human situation it is not necessarily natural. He pointed out that there are two ways to achieve perpetual peace. We can stop our belligerence and warfare or we can all end up in a graveyard. The latter, ironically, also symbolized perpetual peace. Thus, whereas realists consider the search for power and recourse to war as a rational pursuit in an international anarchical arena, for Kant warfare was irrational, whether domestically or internationally. It was unconducive to economic relations and to an extent unnatural as no human being desires the horrors of warfare or their own death (Kant 1970: 100). Unlike the pessimistic perspectives of Machiavelli and Hobbes, he shared Locke’s much more optimistic outlook on human nature. He believed in our innate ability to achieve progress and that we could realize our innate potential through the practice of our reason. (Hoffmann 1995: 159–77)
康德的“永久和平”可以很好地表达这一观点。在他的文章中，他认为，尽管战争是人类处境的一个常规特征，但它不一定是自然的。他指出，实现永久和平有两种方式。我们可以停止我们的好战和战争，否则我们都会被关进坟墓。讽刺的是，后者也象征着永久和平。因此，现实主义者认为寻求权力和诉诸战争是国际无政府主义领域的理性追求，而康德认为战争无论在国内还是国际上都是非理性的。这对经济关系毫无益处，在某种程度上是不自然的，因为没有人愿意看到战争的恐怖或自己的死亡。与马基雅维利和霍布斯的悲观观点不同，他分享了洛克对人性更乐观的看法。他相信我们与生俱来的取得进步的能力，相信我们可以通过理性的实践来实现我们的内在潜力。
We should not forget that realism and liberalism are mere theoretical perspectives. Human nature and international relations with all their complexity, turmoil and contingency do not fit neatly into such theoretical and ideological straightjackets. To curb the realist enthusiasm that it is the sole school of thought with an actual grasp on actual political reality we can point to important aspects of liberal thought that have significantly transformed the world of international relations. Its idea that market capitalism is the best means to allocate resources efficiently globally and domestically. This idea has arguably transformed the world and made it ever more interconnected. Paine in his The Rights of Man argued that warfare as conceived as a rational pursuit of self-interest was ‘contrived’ to serve the interests of a small ruling class and to subdue the rights of individual citizens. Individuals merely desired peace, but they were burdened by increasing tax and bureaucratic apparatuses which served to collect revenue to further the parochial interests to the ruling elite. Hence, for liberals significant domestic and international improvements could be achieved by combining democratic government and free trade. (Howard 1978: 31-33) Once the world is considered to be constituted in a manner in which individuals take precedent over nation states then borders and barriers to trade become ever more insignificant or even irrelevant. This idea is not just an utopian wish dream but this project has been realized under the guise of the European Union. Just as Kant had predicted, ever closer economic collaboration and integration of democratic states and populations would create peace. (European Commission) This very idea formed the basis of the inception and foundation of the European Union as it was intended primarily to create closer economic and social ties between two longstanding foes, France and Germany, which had been at the centre of the two greatest wars the world had seen, arguably in history. By tying their coal and steel industries together, both of which were considered to be essential for their war apparatuses, it was thought that future warfare could be avoided. (Weigall; Stirk 1992: 11-15) Today it would be inconceivable that these two countries would consider going to war against each other. Indeed, it appears virtually inconceivable that any two members of the European Union would engage in warfare. Trade has become virtually frictionless between member states, they have all ratified a legally binding human rights agreement and borders are virtually transparent due to frictionless travel. The European Union has thus demonstrated that inroads can be made which are propelled by a liberal agenda that appears to undermine some of realisms more pessimistic claims of an intrinsic desire for perpetual human conflict.
我们不应忘记现实主义和自由主义仅仅是理论观点。人性和国际关系的复杂性、动荡性和偶然性并不完全符合这种理论和意识形态的束缚。为了抑制现实主义者的热情，即它是唯一一个真正掌握实际政治现实的思想流派，我们可以指出自由主义思想的重要方面，这些方面极大地改变了国际关系的世界。它认为市场资本主义是在全球和国内有效配置资源的最佳手段。可以说，这一理念改变了世界，使世界变得更加相互关联。佩恩在《人的权利》一书中指出，战争被认为是对自身利益的理性追求，是为了服务于一小部分统治阶级的利益，并压制公民个人的权利。个人只希望和平，但他们却背负着日益增加的税收和官僚机构的重担，这些机构的目的是为了增加收入，以促进统治精英的狭隘利益。因此，对于自由主义者来说，通过将民主政府与自由贸易结合起来，可以实现国内和国际的重大改善。一旦世界被认为是以个人先于民族国家的方式构成的，那么边界和贸易壁垒就变得越来越微不足道，甚至无关紧要。这一想法不仅仅是一个乌托邦式的愿望，而是在欧盟的幌子下实现的。正如康德所预测的那样，民主国家和人民之间的经济合作和一体化将创造和平。（欧盟委员会）这一想法构成了欧洲联盟成立和成立的基础，因为其主要目的是在法国和德国这两个长期的敌人之间建立更紧密的经济和社会联系，这两个国家是世界历史上两次最伟大战争的中心。通过将他们的煤炭和钢铁工业联系在一起，这两个行业被认为是他们战争装备的关键，人们认为未来的战争可以避免。今天，这两个国家考虑彼此开战是不可想象的。事实上，欧洲联盟的任何两个成员国都会卷入战争，这几乎是不可想象的。成员国之间的贸易几乎没有摩擦，它们都批准了一项具有法律约束力的人权协定，由于无摩擦旅行，边界几乎是透明的。因此，欧洲联盟已经证明，在自由议程的推动下，可以取得进展，而自由议程似乎破坏了一些现实主义者更为悲观的主张，即对人类永久冲突的内在渴望。
Also, considerable progress has been made under the auspices of the United Nations. It has made considerable progress in the promotion and protection of international human rights and has named and shamed governments which violate them systematically. It was in the wake of the Nuremberg trials that the United Nations created an International War Crimes Tribunal and it has since prosecuted various notorious war criminals. Also, since its inception we have arguably extended what has been termed the ‘liberal zone of peace’. It is arguably correct that hitherto no two democratic nations have engaged in warfare against each other. Doyle’s argument, however, does not rule out that democratic nations engage in warfare with undemocratic nations. Nevertheless, the liberal zone of peace has increased. (Doyle 1986: 1151, 1162; Doyle 1983: 323). Furthermore, we live in an ever more technologically interconnected world in which it becomes increasingly difficult for governments to hide gross and systematic violations of human rights or preparations for conflict. (Hobsbawm 2000) Nevertheless, ‘Westphalia’, as Rousseau once said, ‘will perhaps forever remain the foundation of our international system’ (Holsti 2004: 43). Rousseau’s comment relates to the peace treaty of Westphalia under which national sovereignty was cemented. Hence realists are correct in that we are not moving closer towards a universal cosmopolis. The nation state appears to remain for the foreseeable future the fundamental unit of the international political landscape. Indeed, the very idea on which the United Nations Charter system is based excludes any idea of a world government. Schachter points out that the sovereignty of states remains a ‘”logical consequence” without which there could be no durable operative system of law’ (Schachter 1991:10-11). Realists are therefore correct to emphasize the continued importance of sovereignty and the pursuit of self-interest in our current international legal system because ‘acceptance of the system is in itself a plausible basis for the obligation to abide by the particular rules valid in that system. Therefore the idea of a liberal utopia can be ruled out in that ‘’formal sources’ do not exist in international law. As a substitute, and perhaps equivalent, there is the principle that the general consent of states creates rules of general application’ (Brownlie 1972:2).
此外，在联合国的主持下取得了相当大的进展。它在促进和保护国际人权方面取得了相当大的进展，并点名和羞辱有系统地侵犯人权的政府。正是在纽伦堡审判之后，联合国设立了一个国际战争罪法庭，并起诉了各种臭名昭著的战争罪犯。此外，自成立以来，我们可以说扩大了所谓的“自由和平区”。可以说，迄今为止，没有两个民主国家相互交战，这是正确的。然而，多伊尔的观点并不排除民主国家与不民主国家进行战争。然而，自由和平区有所增加。。此外，我们生活在一个在技术上更加相互关联的世界中，各国政府越来越难以掩盖严重和系统地侵犯人权或为冲突做准备。然而，正如卢梭所说，“威斯特伐利亚”可能永远是我们国际体系的基础”。卢梭的评论与威斯特伐利亚和平条约有关，根据该条约，国家主权得以巩固。因此，现实主义者是正确的，因为我们并没有朝着一个世界性的大都市迈进。在可预见的未来，民族国家似乎仍然是国际政治格局的基本单位。事实上，《联合国宪章》制度所依据的理念本身就排除了世界政府的任何理念。Schachter指出，国家主权仍然是一个“逻辑结果”，没有它就不可能有持久的法律运作体系”。因此，现实主义者强调主权和追求自身利益在当前国际法律体系中的持续重要性是正确的，因为“接受该体系本身就是遵守该体系中有效的特定规则的义务的合理基础。因此，可以排除自由乌托邦的想法，因为国际法中不存在“正式来源”。作为替代，或者可能是等同的，有一个原则，即国家的普遍同意创造了普遍适用的规则”。
The tension between realist and liberal perspectives can also be exemplified by the hopes and aspirations that arose after the demise of the Soviet Union and in the wake of the Arab Spring. After the fall of the Soviet Union Fukuyama foresaw a kind liberal triumph and that a global move towards democratic government would be unavoidable and would bring with it an international cessation of hostilities. Fukuyama was impressed by the degree to which liberal democracies had overcome their bellicosity and have increasingly relegated those norms which created a mere balance of power and merely curbed their propensity for warfare. This increase of liberal values signalled to him the arrival of a world made up of liberal democracies which ‘should have much less incentive for war, since all nations would reciprocally recognise one another’s legitimacy’ (Fukuyama 1992: XX) He also argued that ‘Liberal democracy may constitute the ‘end point of mankind’s ideological evolution’, and ‘the final form of human government’, and as such constituted the ‘end of history’’ (Fukuyama 1992: XI)
现实主义和自由主义观点之间的紧张关系也可以从苏联解体后以及阿拉伯之春后产生的希望和愿望中得到证明。在苏联解体后，福山预见到了一种自由主义的胜利，全球走向民主政府将不可避免，并将带来国际敌对行动的停止。福山印象深刻的是，自由民主国家在多大程度上克服了他们的好战性，并越来越多地降低了那些仅仅创造了权力平衡、仅仅遏制了他们的战争倾向的准则。自由价值观的增加向他发出了一个信号，即自由民主国家组成的世界的到来，“应该不会有太多的战争动机，因为所有国家都会相互承认彼此的合法性”。他还认为，“自由民主可能构成人类思想进化的终点”，和“人类政府的最终形式”，因此构成了“历史的终结”
Yet, Fukuyama’s predictions did not necessarily come to bear fruit. Arguably, we have witnessed an increase of the liberal zone of peace, but we have also seen an increase in the rise of ideological and religious fundamentalism in the wake of the Arab Spring and post-Soviet Russia has certainly not abandoned its real-politik. Many countries that had high hopes for their own Arab Spring movements and momentum have descended into chaos and the Soviet Union has annexed Crimea and has shifted its power politics into efforts of destabilizing governments and the electoral processes of liberal democracies. Hence, the tension between realist and liberal perspectives continues to exist and particularly neo-liberals would argue that liberal moral aspirations will continuously be undermined by the lack of an over-arching authority that can regulate state behaviour within states and in their relations towards each other. The anarchy of the international system does tend to create a certain degree of homogeneity in states’ behaviours and does seem to create a society of states to a certain degree, and at times this homogeneity may appear to correspond with liberal values, but such advances may be merely temporal.
然而，福山的预测并不一定会有结果。可以说，我们看到了自由和平区的扩大，但我们也看到了阿拉伯之春后意识形态和宗教原教旨主义的增加，后苏联俄罗斯当然没有放弃其真正的政治。许多对自己的阿拉伯之春运动和势头寄予厚望的国家陷入混乱，苏联吞并了克里米亚，并将其强权政治转变为破坏政府稳定和自由民主国家选举进程的努力。因此，现实主义和自由主义观点之间的紧张关系继续存在，特别是新自由主义者会认为，自由主义的道德愿望将继续受到损害，因为缺乏一个能够规范国家内部行为和相互关系的最高权威。国际体系的无政府状态确实倾向于在国家行为中产生某种程度的同质性，并似乎在某种程度上创造了一个国家社会，有时这种同质性似乎符合自由价值观，但这种进步可能只是暂时的。
In the long run realists would assert that the search for power and security in a highly contingent and competitive world will always outweigh and override liberal moral and economic aspirations. Waltz, for example, argues that the liberal assumption that democratic domestic systems will inevitably result in peaceful foreign diplomacy and policy is a type of ‘reductionism’. It fails to acknowledge that the international system is characterized by ‘systemic’ aspects and features which override the ‘inside-out’ and ‘out-side’ perspectives of liberals (Waltz 1991: 667) Arguably liberalism has made inroads, but realists would argue that liberalist theory has merely established an account of the correlation of certain behaviours in international politics, but that it has not been able to establish a theoretical ‘iron law’ and that it fails to take into account the covert behaviour of states (Maoz and Russett 1993).
从长远来看，现实主义者会断言，在一个高度偶然和竞争的世界中，对权力和安全的追求将永远超过并凌驾于自由主义的道德和经济愿望之上。例如，华尔兹认为，民主国内制度必然导致和平外交和政策的自由假设是一种“还原主义”。它没有承认国际体系的特点是“系统性”方面和特征，这些方面和特征凌驾于自由主义者的“内外”和“外部”观点之上。可以说，自由主义已经取得了进展，但现实主义者会认为，自由主义理论仅仅是建立了对国际政治中某些行为的相关性的解释，但它未能建立理论上的“铁律”，也未能考虑到国家的隐蔽行为。
Indeed, some realists would argue that the continued Hobbesian posture of war is an actually fare effective guarantor of peaceful relations. For realists the collapse of the Soviet Union signalled the coming of a period of potentially greater instability. From a realist perspective the balance of power provides a much greater stabilizing force than the expansion of the liberal zone of peace. Hence for Waltz ‘unbalanced power constitutes a danger’ in international politics. (Waltz 1991: 670) The fact that the world has witnessed continued political and military instability appears to confirm this realist incompatibility with the liberal outlook. Also, the growth of religious fundamentalism globally has proven that some states and societies do not consider liberalism as normatively superior and that they have little appetite of joining the so called liberal zone of peace. They consider it to be a parochial politics and a culturally dominating agenda that is at times incompatible with their own specific cultural perspectives and agendas. Hence, a cynical perspective could argue that one reason why many illiberal states have welcomed the growth of the liberal zone of peace and paid lip-service to it is not their desire to transform into liberal democracies but rather ‘the idea of limited power which is present within, but not entirely synonymous with, liberal democracy’ (Linklater 1993: 33-36).
事实上，一些现实主义者会认为，霍布斯战争的持续姿态实际上是和平关系的有效保障。对现实主义者来说，苏联的解体预示着一个潜在更大不稳定时期的到来。从现实主义的角度来看，权力平衡比扩大自由和平区提供了更大的稳定力量。因此，对华尔兹来说，“不平衡的权力构成了国际政治中的危险”。世界目睹了持续的政治和军事不稳定，这一事实似乎证实了现实主义与自由主义观点的不相容性。此外，全球宗教原教旨主义的增长证明，一些国家和社会并不认为自由主义在规范上是优越的，它们也没有兴趣加入所谓的自由和平区。他们认为这是一种狭隘的政治和文化主导议程，有时与他们自己的特定文化观点和议程不相容。因此，一种愤世嫉俗的观点可以认为，许多非自由国家欢迎自由和平区的发展并口头上支持它的一个原因不是他们希望转变为自由民主国家，而是“有限权力的概念，它存在于自由民主中，但不完全是自由民主的同义词”。
Perhaps, as Morgenthau asserted, the pursuit of power in international relations is permanently imposed upon us as a law grounded in human nature which will forever provide the basis for the assessment of rational conduct in international relations. States and cultures are historically transient, emerge and wither away, but what remains is that the “workmanlike manipulation of the perennial forces that have shaped the past as they will the future” must be grounded in prudence and not morality. Or, if the pursuit of power “is the perennial standard by which political action must be judged”, then perhaps human rights are but the mere pursuit of particular interests disguised as noble moral aspirations (Morgenthau 1985: 12) As Carr pointed out: “these supposedly absolute and universal principles (peace, harmony of interests, collective security, free trade) were not principles at all, but the unconscious reflexions of national policy based on a particular interpretation of national interest at a particular time’ (Carr 2001: 111)
也许，正如摩根索所断言的那样，在国际关系中追求权力是作为一项根植于人性的法律永久强加给我们的，它将永远为评估国际关系中的理性行为提供基础。国家和文化在历史上是短暂的，会出现和消亡，但仍然存在的是，“对塑造过去和未来的长期力量的熟练操纵”必须以谨慎而非道德为基础。或者，如果追求权力“是判断政治行动的永恒标准”，那幺，也许人权仅仅是以高尚的道德愿望伪装的对特定利益的追求，正如卡尔所指出的：“这些被认为是绝对和普遍的原则（和平、利益和谐、集体安全、自由贸易）根本不是原则，而是基于特定时间对国家利益的特定解释的国家政策的无意识反映”
From a realist perspective liberal inroads did not change the reality of international relations. Much of human society has been preoccupied by search for power and warfare, yet it is evident that realism in IR has to acknowledge the inroads made by liberalism. Liberalism and utopianism are also a remedy against “the barrenness of realism”. (Carr 2001: 93) The apparently perpetual lack of morals in international relations can become ameliorated once we consider our nature as a protean species that is capable to revise and shape our destiny. For Bull, order between states was merely “instrumental to the goal of order in human society as whole” (Bull 1977: 22)
从现实主义的角度来看，自由主义的入侵并没有改变国际关系的现实。人类社会的大部分人都专注于寻求权力和战争，但很明显，国际关系中的现实主义必须承认自由主义的入侵。自由主义和乌托邦主义也是对“现实主义贫瘠”的一种补救。一旦我们把我们的本性视为一个千变万化的物种，有能力改变和塑造我们的命运，国际关系中显然永远缺乏道德的状况就会得到改善。对布尔来说，国家之间的秩序只是“有助于实现人类社会整体秩序的目标”
Warfare has not been abolished, but some of the greatest projects of human reconciliation and approximation have been introduced under liberal doctrine. However, an answer to the outlining question of this essay can be provided by Kant’s peculiar stance on the irrational and contradictory nature of warfare. He argued that although warfare is ultimately irrational and creates economic and social misery and division, the cessation of warfare can actually bring individuals and nations closer together. Peace can lead to reconciliation. This may appear contradictory, but if we survey the efforts of the League of Nations, which were arguably short lived, the United Nations’ enduring legacy, and the ever-closer integration of the European Union, then we can assert that a realist perspective and a liberal perspective are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
战争尚未被废除，但在自由主义理论下引入了一些最伟大的人类和解和近似项目。然而，康德对战争的非理性和矛盾性质的独特立场可以为本文的概述问题提供答案。他认为，尽管战争最终是非理性的，并造成经济和社会痛苦和分裂，但战争的停止实际上可以使个人和国家更紧密地团结在一起。和平可以导致和解。这似乎是矛盾的，但如果我们审视国际联盟的努力，可以说是短暂的，联合国的持久遗产，以及欧洲联盟日益紧密的一体化，那么我们可以断言现实主义观点和自由主义观点并不一定相互排斥。
The answer appears to be that both the realist and the liberal perspectives on human nature simply describe different aspects of the human situation and our political conduct therein. This applies to domestic as well as international politics. It is in view of this realisation that Bull argued that ‘the idea of the rights and duties of the individual person has come to have a place, albeit an insecure one and it is our responsibility to seek to extend it’ (Bull 1984: 12). To reconcile such a liberal and cosmopolitan utopia with the harshness of human nature described by realism should be the aspiration of all ‘intelligent and sensitive persons’ (Bull 1977: 289).
留学生外交专业课程作业给出的答案似乎是，现实主义和自由主义对人性的观点都只是描述了人类处境和我们在其中的政治行为的不同方面。这适用于国内和国际政治。正是基于这一认识，Bull认为“个人权利和义务的概念已经有了一席之地，尽管这是一个不安全的概念，我们有责任寻求扩展它”。调和这样一个自由和世界性的乌托邦与现实主义所描述的人性的严酷应该是所有“聪明和敏感的人”的愿望。
本站提供各国各专业留学作业代写或指导服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。