캐나다 밴쿠버 UBC에서 좋은 점수를 받은 자료입니다. 이해를 돕기 위해 한국어로 요점 정리를 해 놓았습니다.
In the time of ancient Greece, Thucydides stated that "identity of interest is the surest bonds whether between states or individuals." (Morgenthau, 8) Throughout history, many theorists of International Relations (IR) attempted to define the fundamental nature of International Politics based on the mutuality of interests. This essay is intended to focus on various discussions of realism in mid-20th century along with liberal perspectives in order to determine how each school of thought answered whether there is a fundamental harmony or clash of interests in IR and what determinants brought them come to such conclusions. To this end, this essay will argue that neither harmony nor clash of interests 'fundamentally' exists in IR, but the relative nature of issues and a particular paradigm of power at that particular time influence the actors in international politics to cooperate, collide, or compromise according to their interests.
Traditional realism, in fact, was an extended arm of classic thinkers like Thucydides and Machiavelli. It appeared as a reaction against the failure of idealism in preventing the two world wars. Edward H. Carr explained very well the characteristics of 'Utopianism' in "The Twenty Year's Crisis." He pointed out Utopianisms overconfidence in human rationality, its lack of prudence in allowing statesmen to follow their own moralities, its focus on normative behavior of individuals and nations, rather than empirical ones.