ctually behave. They believed that the world wanted peace, and so they disdained the balance of power theory and the use of force to secure desired objectives. Instead, they emphasized human rights and the "world court of public opinion" in coercing political elites into preserving the peace (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff, 1990, pp. 4-5). Individual elites may be corrupted by greed or ignorance, say the utopians, but once institutions such as the League of Nations are established to set acceptable norms of international behavior, enlightened public opinion can overcome national greed and pressure elites to end the conflict.
As the League of Nations failed and World War II approached, the difference between the utopian and realistic perspectives on international politics became abundantly clear. The failure of the League cast serious doubts about the global community's commitment to international harmony, and the rise of nationalistic tensions throughout Europe served as a wake-up call that greed may indeed dominate in international relations. Realists fo
...