REALISM,

INTERNATIONALISM,
UNIVERSALISM
Subtitle

Learning Outcomes:
At the conclusion of discussions, students are expected to:
1. Learn the three traditions of thought in understanding international
relations/politics
2. Distinguish the differences between the three traditions of thought in
International relations
3. Analyze the degree of sovereignty of states in relations to the three
traditions of thought in IR

Understanding World Politics

Hedley Bull
Bull, speaks of three traditions of thought in
understanding the problem of international order.
These are the Realist tradition, Internationalist
tradition, and Universalist tradition.

What are the Differences?

The Realist tradition
It sees the State in a tradition of anarchy, with little to constrain them
except the power of other states.

The Internationalist tradition

It sees the international relations as taking place within a society of states:
states are the primary actors but they are bound by this societys rules of
behavior.

The Universalist tradition

It represents people directly as individuals rather than through states.

REALISM
Realists believe that the ultimate arbiter of outcomes in International
relations is Power.

They view states as the most powerful in international settings, because

states control most of the planets military power, have an ability to tax
that is not shared by any other institution, and are the issuers of worlds
currencies.
While International Organizations share none of the features. IOs militarily
dependent on states to enforce their rules. Having no ability to tax, they
depend on states to fund them. Having no territory, they depend on states
to host them. As such, IOs can only really succeed when backed by
powerful states.

REALISM
Realists believe that it makes little sense to focus attention on IOs, because
IOs reflect the existing balance of power and the interests of powerful
states.

IOs are better understood as tools in the power struggle of states, than as
independent actors or independent effects.

Internationalist
It roots in the study of international law rather than in the study of power and politics.
It sees states in the international society as somewhat analogous to people in a domestic
society. Domestic society works because people follow most of its rules all the time.
Similarly, states in the international level follow international laws most of the time.
Following rules is observe not because of altruism, rather they observed International
laws because they all benefit in a society that is ruled-governed and are willing to
accept rules if rules binds also that of other members.
With that, IOs become expression of rules that govern the international society. IOs are
important because they regulate international relations.

Although IOs play important role in IR, states are still regarded as the primary actors in
international relations

Universalist
The Universalist traditions sees states as increasingly irrelevant in the face of
a developing global society, instead Universalists adheres to the society of
people rather than states.
Universalists and Internationalists stood in common in a light scale sense as
Internationalist look at states as actors in international relations while
universalist look at people/population in international relations.
In Universalist, IOs are more important as expressions of, and creators of,
global civil society than they are as regulators of relations among states.
Accordingly, IOs are studied as partial replacement for states rather than as
mediators for states.

Conclusions in Understanding
Realism, Internationalism, & Universalism
1. Realist reinforces that idea that the sovereign state system is continuing much the
same as always. States remain as the locus of power in international system.
External & Internal sovereignty is expected to be as strong as ever both to large
and small states.
2. Internationalists responds to globalization idea, and it undermines the sovereignty
of states. The greater the extent to which IOs makes rules that reflect global civil
society, the less autonomy states have to make rules domestically that are
incongruent to international norms.
In internationalists, we see IOs, NGOs, TNCs and other representatives of global
society begin to replace states as the legitimate representatives of the global
citizenry.
3. Universalism sees people as the source of sovereignty in the modern times, though
it is a little bit similar to internationalism, yet we can see a meager difference as
we study the political structure of EU.

Assignment
Present the political organization of EU, emphasizing its three major political bodies such as the ff:
1. European commission
2. European Parliament
3. Council of Ministers.
4. Who are the member states of EU.
5. Present a diagram representing the relationship of EC, EP, & CM.
6. Justify if EU falls under the principles of Universalism school of thought of IR.
Guide questions:
a. What is the process of selecting/appointing representatives for EC, EP, & CM?
b. How many representatives from state for the EC, EP, & CM?
To be submitted next meeting, July 1, 2015.
Encoded in a short bond. The No. 5 of the assignment is expected to be drawn in a separate bond
paper.

Title and Content Layout with Chart

6

Category 1

Category 2
Series 1

Category 3
Series 2

Series 3

Category 4

Two Content Layout with Table

First bullet point here

Group 1

Group 2

Second bullet point here

Class 1

82

95

Third bullet point here

Class 2

76

88

Class 3

84

90

Title and Content Layout with SmartArt

Step
1
Title

Task
descriptio
n

Step
2
Title

Task
descriptio
n

Task
descriptio
n

Task
descriptio
n

Task
descriptio
n

Task
descriptio
n

Task
descriptio
n

Step
3
Title

Task
descriptio
n
Task
descriptio
n

Step
4
Title

Task
descriptio
n
Task
descriptio
n

Picture with Caption Layout

Caption