1) Realist states promote the emancipation of the state’s fundamental interests and security such that they override the concept of moral perceptions, individual/group ideologies, and social perspectives. In this sense, the state becomes the principal actor, unitary actor, pursues rational models aimed at maximizing its own national objectives, and national security issues (Cranmer, 2005).
Liberalist states essentially promote the principles of equality and liberty among members of the population. In order to achieve these fundamentals it is necessary to promote the implementation of a fundamental constitution, protection of human rights, free trade potential, and establishment of a fair electioneering framework (Krishna and Patel, 2003).
2) The achievement of realists’ fundamentals is essentially difficult on account of significant opposition to their principles from other party states. “According to Benjian (2001), “In the eyes of traditional realists, the most direct and fundamental goal of one’s foreign policy is to acquire power” (p.5). Hence, this element of power undermines the ability of a realist state to operate smoothly since power can be subject to misuse. This goes against the objectives of ‘balance of power, which prevents a country from becoming too strong and necessitates the establishment of structures to achieve this fundamental (Benjian, 2001). Moreover, liberalists are in a better position to achieve their fundamentals on account of the establishment of proper structures and a constitutional framework protecting equality fundamentals.
3) The security dilemma emerges because of the concept of ‘balance of power’ which dilutes the level of trust on account of territorial independence. Benjian observes that countries in the operating internationally under the principles of balance of power essentially make security dilemma to become a regular phenomenon in the international politics domain (Benjian, 2001). From a realist perspective, the fact that the interests of the state and security are more important puts liberalists in jeopardy. Consider an example between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China there are bound to be significant variations on account of their combined geopolitical assets in terms of wealth, influence, size and ambition (Siddall, n.d). These elements introduce significant territorial interests that may lead to the misuse of the security concept by realists to exploit one state on account of resources, which may necessitate the formation of critical alliances thus introducing security dilemma.
4) Realists’ position may fundamentally affect the achievement of significant milestone during negotiations and formation of diplomatic ties. Gismondi (2007) observes that, “The notion of rational action in response to incentives contains far too much of the metaphysical ‘presence’ and attachment to objectivity that renders realist views of human nature problematic” (p.24). Hence, realists pose a threat to the future establishment of beneficial diplomatic ties.
On the other hand liberalists are better suited in promoting formation and subsequent maintenance of diplomatic ties. The liberalists’ conception of power fundamentally explores the assumptions associated with negotiation and bargaining than realism, through expression of willingness of states to expend resources as opposed to use of capabilities (Moravcsik, 1997). This enables the formation of mutual relations among state powers leading to fruitful diplomatic potential. In as much a liberalists portray openness and optimism in understanding institutions and behavioral outcomes, they are unwilling to recognize the perspective that values are socially constructed objectives (Gismondi, 2007).