I'll talk about the article after you answer one question:  How much of this did you actually write?

I'll talk about the article after you answer one question:  How much of this did you actually write?

I'll talk about the article after you answer one question: How much of this did you actually write?

Huh? Umm, all of it, unless it's in quotes... I am in a master's program in diplomacy and international relations at Norwich University, so this actually is a scholarly paper. Therefore I'd better have written it all myself.

I can't testify as to the quality of the writing, but as for its originality, I am supremely confident.

I'm not sure about your idea that liberals value "collective security" not "independent security." You are using "collective" to mean all the nation-states of the world, whereas many liberals might view "collective security" to mean the people within a nation state. For example: "collective security," when it comes to a government tapping the phone lines of its citizens might be considered "individual security," in that it, on the surface, applies to individual citizens; however, I would say that it is, in fact, the security of the "collective" that is in question, because that which can be done to one citizen can be done to all.

Indeed, this concept can be applied to nation-states. What can be done to each nation -- in the name of the "individual security" of the powerful -- can be done to any, and therefore the protection of the individual is the protection of the collective. To look at it this way means that the liberal is concerned COMPLETELY with the individual, because the liberal can see that anything done to an individual can be done to the collective.

Indeed, the liberal looks at what the United States, in its current position as #1 power, is doing and forsees a time in which there are other states more powerful than the USA. Not wanting a future, more powerful, state to use bully-tactics or misleading treaties on the USA, the liberal urges a kinder, more understanding tactic -- the king of the hill never remains so, after all.

Indeed, I would say that individual security is the foundation upon which liberal thought is built, whether that be the security of a person or of a nation. You've mistaken imperialism and expansion for "security," and therein lies the flaw of your argument.

Forgive my first question, your citing punctuation led me to believe that the majority of the article was quoted from somewhere else, and I see that wasn't the case.

Cheers.

Collective security as defined by the liberal thinkers is an absolutely untenable position, since, by its rational, state-centric nature, each state is looking out for number one.

I think you're confusing popular perceptions of liberalism with the academic definition here. Liberals choose to engage in collective security pacts because they don't accept that world politics is necessarily a zero-sum game. Basically a liberal would accept a pact where they benefit, but someone else benefits more, despite the problem of comparative gain. A realist would reject it because the disparity in comparative power post-pact would harm the state's longterm interests.

The differences between a modern liberal and a modern realist are much less significant than a study of actors like Wilson would suggest. By suggesting a 1920s liberal as representative of liberal thought I think you're doing liberalism something of an injustice. The ideas have changed a fair amount since then.

If you have access to it I would reccomend you read Nye's original treatise; any collection of contemporary IR thought should contain it. Chapters 7,8 and 9 in John Baylis and Steve Smith's "The Globalization of World Politics" present the main thrusts of realism (ch.7), liberalism (ch.8) and a comparison of the two (ch.9), and I highly recommend that book in general - it is probably the clearest I've had to read.

EDIT: What Myrrander said as well.

I think Cacto and Myrr are confusing your use of the term Liberal. Or I am.  I read the term liberal as a dictionary definition, not a political one.  IN that, the liberal is the more idealist of the 2 (since realist cannot be confused with a political term).  But the world we live in is reality, and I tend to gravitate to the realist point of view, with reservations.  I dont think that a WIN-win has to be rejected by a nation, just because they get the win part.  Indeed, the analogy of oil you give shows that most of the non-OPEC world believe that a WIN-win scenario is acceptable.

But my beliefs are that there are no permanent allies in the world, just nation-states that have a commonality of purpose, and so ban together in the short term to achieve a win-win situation.

Well, the article actually tries to rescue itself from its title, which makes the false dichotomy liberal = opposite of reality.  Of course, the term "liberal" is suspect anyway, because even your dictionary definition isn't complete, Dr. Guy.  "Liberal" in an economic sense is a far cry from the economic philosophy of many US "liberals," and "Liberals" in Canada, the UK, and Europe are quite different from "liberals" in the US. 

Show this to somebody in your English department wherever it is you are in Grad School, they'll help you with the specificity issues here.  Basically, you need to define better the term "liberal."  I spoke from appying the term "liberal" to myself, although it's true that I don't fit in all that well with many US liberals -- I'm too much of a Socialist. 

Anyway, cheers.

I read the term liberal as a dictionary definition, not a political one.

Well, the article actually tries to rescue itself from its title, which makes the false dichotomy liberal = opposite of reality

Liberal is not the tree-hugging hippies and Michael Dukakises of the world. From Wikipedia, "Liberal" is "an ideology, philosophy, and political tradition which holds liberty as the primary political value. Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed. In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy in the form of either a republic or a constitutional monarchy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed."

Realist supposes that the state acts for its own benefit on an anarchic world stage. It shuns alliances because compromising your state's principles and guiding motivations (warlike or imperialistic to maintain the perpetuation of the state) is seen as an undermining of your own interests. It is a very self-absorbed school of IR thought, as opposed to liberalism, which embraces other nations' ideas and goals for mutual gain.
Again, from Wikipedia, "Primarily, it assumes that mankind is not inherently benevolent and kind but self centered and competitive, in contrast to other theories of international relations such as liberalism. It also fundamentally assumes that the international system is anarchic, in the sense that there is no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity (that is, no true authoritative world government exists). It also assumes that sovereign states, rather than international institutions, non-governmental organizations, or multinational corporations, are the primary actors in international affairs. According to realism, each state is a rational actor that always acts towards its own self-interest, and the primary goal of each state is to ensure its own security. Realism holds that in pursuit of that security, states will attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are determined by their relative level of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state's capabilities, both military and economic.

Moreover, Realists believe that states are inherently aggressive (offensive realism), and that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma where increasing one's own security can bring along greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms. Thus, security is a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made."

Sorry that was so wordy, but you can see why the dichotomy is there. Realism and liberalism are mutually exclusive. Liberals are not detached from reality, they simply define the international system as being more open than does the realist.

"Liberal" in an economic sense is a far cry from the economic philosophy of many US "liberals," and "Liberals" in Canada, the UK, and Europe are quite different from "liberals" in the US.

I don't fit in all that well with many US liberals -- I'm too much of a Socialist.

I'm glad that you make that distinction, Myrr. I am currently working on a paper discussing Marxism and I would be glad to hear your take. Does your understanding of dependency theory back up or rewrite Marx?