Contradictions of realism and liberalism on interstate relations: in the case of Russo-Georgian war

In addition, Georgia's attack on South Ossetia and Abkhazia imposes some bans on free trade as well as the economy. If Georgia did not initiate this conflict, Georgian ports would not be closed. Thus, this conflict not only prohibits people's right to free trade, but also affects the economy of the Caucasus States as a whole.

Moreover, ethnic minorities faced with aggressive and humiliating policy of government of the period. Beneath Saakashvili's authority new ethnic domination of Georgians started to be formed in Georgia. And also, according to liberalism, Georgian government did not behave equally with people who live in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This discrimination of the Georgian government fired protests of local resident to central authority.

Liberalism also supports basic human rights and also, the right of self-determination for ethnic minorities. According to this approach, Abkhazia and South Ossetia had right for become independent. However, the Georgian government did not allow them to be independent peacefully. This was the main cause which created major protestation and outcry, and followingly war in the large scale.

In liberal thought, communication has a big role in term of providing basic human rights. Because the Georgian government did not agree to go to negotiations with the local governments the liberalistic approach to this war condemns central government of the period. For liberalism, it means destroying private rights of local people.

Generally, liberalism condemns using hard power first. That is why this approach suppose Russia right in this case. Because according to liberalism, military intervention of Russia was the answer to the Georgian government's running military power to unarmed people who did not want to be a part of Georgian Republic.

Conclusion

As a result of the research studying comparative approaches of Realism and Liberalism to Russo- Georgian war, according to Realism, the war is a regional power demonstration of Russia, continental superpower. The exact opposite to this point of view is presented by Liberalist supporters. According to them, the main reason of 2008 Russo- Georgian war is the reaction of Russia to human rights violation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia by the Georgian government. As it seems, Realism has a more comprehensive and more balanced approach in this regard. The policy of ``divide and rule'' is always implemented by Russia in the post-soviet republics. This does not only appear in Georgia, but also in countries such as Azerbaijan and Ukraine. Like any continental state, Russia has its own strategic interests in certain regions. In the context of these interests, Russia has an intention to prevent NATO's expansion towards the East, especially to the South Caucasus. 2008 Russo-Georgian war was a phase of this strategy of national security.

Russia is trying to keep as many states as possible dependent on itself. Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan are at the forefront of these states, and when any of them intend to engage in independent foreign policy, Russia undergoes military intervention in this way or another.

To sum up, it is not difficult to say that the Realist approach on 2008 Russo-Georgian War is a more systematic and more accurate approach. This approach is the theory that best describes today's world politics and interstate relations.

References

1. 1 October. Retrieved from https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/82838.

2. Aliyeva M., (2018). Formation and development of international relations. Public administration: theory and practice, 4 (64): 203-210.

3. Aliyeva, L. 2020. Judy Asks: Is Peace Possible Between Armenia and Azerbaijan?

4. Allison, R., (2009). The Russian case for military intervention in Georgia: international law, norms and political calculation.European Security, 18(2): 173-200.

5. Antunes, S. & Camisao, I. (2018). Introducing Realism in International Relations Theory, [online] Retrieved from https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/27/introducingrealismininternationalrelations theory/.

6. Azimov, K., (2011). Machiavelli On State Thought and the Principle of Political Success. Baku State University, Faculty of Theology, Proceedings, № 15: 93-109.

7. Belova O. V, (2014). Realism, Neorealism and Postclassical Realism: Evolution of Basic Categories. Actual problems of politics, V 52: 45-59.

8. Bloed, A., (1993). The Conference on Security and Co-Operation in Europe: Analysis and Basic Documents, 19721993. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

9. Bull, H., (1962). International Theory: The Case for Traditional Approach, World Politics, 18(3): 361-377. Fukuyama, F., (2006). A Strong State: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century, Moscow: ACT.

10. Fukuyama, F., (2007). The end of history and the last person, Per. from English, Moscow: AST.

11. Galenskaya, L. A., & Malinina, C. A. (2003). Encyclopedia of International Organizations: in 3 volumes. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University.

12. Grieco, et al., (1993). The Relative Gains Problem for International Cooperation. The American Political Science Review. 87(3): 727 743

13. Gulmammadova, Sh., (2017). Theoretical and Conceptual Framework of International Security. Strategy, [online] 7 December. Retrieved from http://az.strategiya.az/news.php?id=107991.

14. Hasanov, A., (2005). Modern International Relations and Azerbaijan's Foreign Policy. Baku: "Azerbaijan" Publishing House.

15. Hobson. J. 2000. The State and International Relations. [online]. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511612442.003.

16. Jackson, R., & Sorensen, G. (2010). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, Oxford. New York: Oxford University Press.

17. James, A., (1989). The realism of Realism: The state and the study of International Relations. Review of International Studies, 15(3): 215-229.

18. Karagiannis, E., (2013). The 2008 Russian-Georgian war via the lens of Offensive Realism.European Security, 22(1): 74-93.

19. Karpowicz, K. et al., 2018. Political Realism in International Relations. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [online]. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/realismintlrelations/.

20. Lebedeva M., (2007). World Politics, Moscow: Aspect Press.

21. Light, M., (2010). The Russo-Georgian War of 2008: A Conflict Announced in Advance? Europe-Asia Studies, 62(9): 1579-1582.

22. Lock, J. 1680-1690. Of the State of Nature. LONANG Institute, [online] https://lonang.com/library/reference/locke- two-treatises-government/loc-202/.

23. M.Adigozalov, E., (2013). The Abkhazian conflict in the aftermath of the 2008 Georgian-Russian war. Scientific works of the Institute of Philosophy, Sociology and Law of ANAS, 2 (21): 112-119.

24. Marguerite, La Caze., (2007). At the Intersection: Kant, Derrida, and the Relation Between Ethics and Politics.

25. Political Theory. 35(6): 782.

26. Medyakov A. S., (2007). History of International Relations in Modern Times. Moscow: Enlightenment.

27. Meiser, Jeffrey W., 2018. Introducing Liberalism in International Relations Theory. Retrieved from https://www.e-ir. info/2018/02/18/introducing-liberalism-in-international-relations-theory/.

28. Mingst, K., (1999). Essentials of international Relations, New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

29. Minzarari, D., 2020. Russia's Stake in the Nagorno-Karabakh War: Accident or Design? 11 December. Retrieved from https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publication/russias-stake-in-the-nagorno-karabakh-war-accident-or-design/.

30. Mises, Ludwig von, & Bettina Bien Greaves. (2016). Liberalism. The Classical Tradition. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Schischkoff, G., (1991) Philosophisches Worterbuch, Stuttgart: Auflage.

31. Schuett, R., (2010). Classical Realism, Freud and Human Nature in International Relations. History of the Human Sciences 23(2): 21-46.

32. Selezneva, L., (2002). Post-Soviet Russian Foreign Policy: Between doctrine and pragmatism.European Security, 11(4): 10-28.

33. Shiraev, Eric B. (2014). International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press.

34. Stearns, J., & Pettiford, L., (2001). International Relations: Perspectives and Themes, London: Longman.

35. Sterling-Folker, J., (2006). Making Sense of International Relations Theory, Colarado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

36. The UN Security Council Report., 2003. Abkhazia: Statement by the National Security Council of Georgia (S/2003/569). Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/report/georgia/abkhazia-statement-national-security-council georgia-s2003569.

37. Toal, G. (Gearoid O Tuathail) and O'Loughlin, J., (2013). Inside South Ossetia: a survey of attitudes in a de facto state. Post-Soviet Affairs, 29(2): 136-172.

38. Traynor, I., (2008). Georgia and Russia declare ceasefire, Guardian, 16 August. Retrieved from https://www. theguardian.com/world/2008/aug/16/ georgia.russia2.

39. Tsygankov, P A., (2007). International relations: theories, conflicts, movements, organizations: textbook, Moscow: INFRA

40. Valeev R., (2000). International control in international poison law. Moscow Journal of International Law, No. 2: 182-204.

41. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Politics, Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill

Размещено на Allbest.ru