Source A

Adapted from "First Principles of Realism," Foundations of International Theory, 2020.

"The international system has no government above the state. In this condition of anarchy each state must provide for its own security, for no one else reliably will. States are the principal actors; they behave as rational units seeking to survive; and they judge one another not by intentions, which can change, but by capabilities, which endure. In such a world, morality and law are luxuries that yield to the hard logic of power and self-interest whenever survival is at stake."

Source A

Text extract (adapted): "The map of global inequality was not drawn yesterday. The borders, the trade patterns, the debts and even the categories we use to rank 'developed' and 'developing' were laid down under empire and outlived it. To treat today's poverty as a purely domestic failing is to forget who built the road that led here. The past is not past; it is structure."

Source A

Source B

Adapted from "Power and Survival: A Realist Reading of the War in Ukraine," Strategic Theory Review, 2022.

For realists, the international system is anarchic: there is no authority above states, so each must ultimately rely on its own power to survive. States are treated as rational actors that pursue security and relative advantage, and great powers are especially sensitive to shifts in the balance of power near their borders. From this perspective, Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, however unlawful, was a predictable response of a great power seeking to prevent a neighbour's drift toward a rival alliance. Realists argue that NATO's eastward expansion altered the balance of power and that Moscow acted to restore it. Ideals and international law, in this account, matter less than the enduring competition for power and security among states.

Source C

Adapted from "Institutions, Trade and the Democratic Peace: A Liberal View," Journal of International Relations Theory, 2021.

Liberals reject the claim that world politics is doomed to endless power struggle. They argue that trade, international institutions and shared democratic values create powerful incentives for cooperation and make war costly and less likely. Economically interdependent states have much to lose from conflict; institutions such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization provide forums to resolve disputes peacefully; and democracies, it is argued, very rarely fight one another. From a liberal perspective, the near-universal condemnation of Russia's invasion, the coordinated sanctions and the flow of support to Ukraine show international society defending shared rules. Progress is possible, liberals hold, because cooperation can be built and institutionalised over time.

Source D

Adapted from "Whose Security? A Feminist and Postcolonial Critique," Critical Global Studies, 2023.

Critical theorists argue that both realism and liberalism describe the world from the vantage point of the powerful and leave much unexamined. Feminist scholars point out that mainstream theories treat states as the main actors while ignoring how war and global politics are gendered: women and children are disproportionately affected by conflict, yet rarely shape the decisions that cause it. Postcolonial thinkers argue that the "rules-based order" celebrated by liberals was built by former imperial powers and often works to preserve their advantages, while the interests of the formerly colonised are marginalised. These perspectives do not claim to offer a single predictive model. Their value lies in exposing the assumptions, silences and power relations that other theories take for granted.