A) In the Realist school of international political theory, the premise of an all-pervasive "security dilemma" is central and dominant. In the Realists' view, states organize their interests toward the goal of maximizing their security, with the consequence that issues of peace and war become most prominent - and power the final arbiter/explanation for all (Moens 39). Realist emphasis on the security dilemma is the logical outgrowth of its exponents' pessimistic view of human nature: that human nature is essentially self-interested - and, because all humans are so self-interested, considers others in terms of threat and distrust (Waltz 2.1: 4). The Idealist/Liberal canon of international political theory, by contrast, stems from a different conception of human nature: that human nature is not inherently evil - only the societal organizations of humankind may or may not be structurally at fault (Moens 44). In so reasoning, the Idealists and Liberal theorists certainly do not altogether disagree with the Realists' observation that power and its associate manifestations creates a security dilemma central to the affairs of states. That observation acknowledged, however, Idealists and Liberals are quick to counter that it is the concept of the "state" itself that breeds hierarchical dynamics and the need to contest for power (Moens 46). In their view of the situation, it is posited that the state, by placing itself at the centre and top of all international activity, ignores the other actors in the process of global relations: ideological, commercial, religious and geographical "communities" that transcend state boundaries, to name but a few (Moens 46-47). Idealist and Liberal theory offers the proposal that there exists a "harmony of interests" that offers alternative scenarios to the Realists' state-oriented, power-motivated security dilemma (Carr 4.2: 7-11).
B) In the study of international politics, there is no avoiding the...