How Realism Explains the Establishment of the United Nations
The theory of realism looks at international organizations in one way; it asserts that international organizations are mainly created to cater to particular states ' interests. Therefore, the UN was established based on particular states ' interests (Mearsheimer, 1995). Furthermore, power, in the realism theory, begins with achieving the goal of state survival (defensive realism) and ends with global hegemons (offensive realism) because the world is anarchic (Mearsheimer, 2001). As a result, realists believe that states are out to maintain power (defensive realism), increase power (offensive realism), or demonstrate power (offensive realism) (Geeraerts, 1996). After World War II, …show more content…
The difference between these two ideas is that classical realism believes that states have many options to achieve their goals; therefore, the UN, or any non-state entity, does not have a large impact on states. Classical liberalism believes that there is only one way for states to achieve their goals through supporting non-state entities, which means that non-state entities have a significant impact on states and they control their achievements (Geeraerts, …show more content…
It assumes that every state works to expand its hegemony in the world. As a result, some realist scholars argue that the UN is a tool used by the great powers to expand their own powers in many ways. The first way is the establishment, which is described above, of a new multipolar world hegemony through the veto right of five countries: the U.S., the UK, China, Russia, and France (Fassbender, 1998). This veto right creates inequality between UN members and divides the world into two groups: veto countries and non-veto countries.
Classical realism focuses on expanding the individual states ' powers through any means. Therefore, the UN supports the great powers in achieving their goals with fewer costs. Before establishing the United Nations, the great powers had to foot the full costs of their wars, but now they can achieve their own interests with the support of other UN member states (Strohmer,
The theory of realism looks at international organizations in one way; it asserts that international organizations are mainly created to cater to particular states ' interests. Therefore, the UN was established based on particular states ' interests (Mearsheimer, 1995). Furthermore, power, in the realism theory, begins with achieving the goal of state survival (defensive realism) and ends with global hegemons (offensive realism) because the world is anarchic (Mearsheimer, 2001). As a result, realists believe that states are out to maintain power (defensive realism), increase power (offensive realism), or demonstrate power (offensive realism) (Geeraerts, 1996). After World War II, …show more content…
The difference between these two ideas is that classical realism believes that states have many options to achieve their goals; therefore, the UN, or any non-state entity, does not have a large impact on states. Classical liberalism believes that there is only one way for states to achieve their goals through supporting non-state entities, which means that non-state entities have a significant impact on states and they control their achievements (Geeraerts, …show more content…
It assumes that every state works to expand its hegemony in the world. As a result, some realist scholars argue that the UN is a tool used by the great powers to expand their own powers in many ways. The first way is the establishment, which is described above, of a new multipolar world hegemony through the veto right of five countries: the U.S., the UK, China, Russia, and France (Fassbender, 1998). This veto right creates inequality between UN members and divides the world into two groups: veto countries and non-veto countries.
Classical realism focuses on expanding the individual states ' powers through any means. Therefore, the UN supports the great powers in achieving their goals with fewer costs. Before establishing the United Nations, the great powers had to foot the full costs of their wars, but now they can achieve their own interests with the support of other UN member states (Strohmer,