Week 14 Discussion — Realism or Liberalism? — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

No world government sits above the states, yet most states keep most of their promises most of the time. Realists say power and self-interest explain that order and its limits; liberals say institutions, trade, and democracy have made lasting cooperation normal. Both camps can point to the same founding text, the U.N. Charter of 1945, and read it in opposite ways.

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: Which paradigm, realism or liberalism as an international relations theory, better explains why most states keep the U.N. Charter's rule against the threat or use of force in Article 2(4) most of the time? Take a position, apply your paradigm to Article 2(4) or to the Security Council's five permanent members, label each premise as empirical or normative, and state at full strength the strongest case for the other paradigm.

Option B: A made-up regional organization of twelve states (illustrative) is drafting its founding charter and must decide whether to give its three largest members a veto over the council's decisions. Take a position: should the charter include that veto? Use at least one paradigm's reasoning, say how your choice fits or strains the principle of sovereign equality, label each premise as empirical or normative, and state the strongest case for the other side as its defenders would put it.

There is no single right answer. Thoughtful scholars defend realism, liberalism, and constructivism, and thoughtful people disagree about whether great powers should hold special rights in an international body; your job is to argue your side well and to state the other side fairly.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• State your position in one clear sentence.
• For Option A, name your paradigm and apply it to Article 2(4) or to the Security Council's five permanent members. For Option B, say whether the made-up charter should include the veto and how your choice fits or strains sovereign equality.
• Give at least one reason, and label each premise you rely on as empirical or normative.
• State the strongest case for the other side, as its own defenders would put it, before you answer it.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (anarchy, security dilemma, realism, self-help, balance of power, liberalism as an international relations theory, interdependence, democratic peace, constructivism, collective security, sovereign equality, international law) correctly, and quote the Charter only in its pinned articles.
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: check whether a poster's paradigm is stated fairly, test whether a premise labelled empirical could be checked, ask whether anarchy has been read as chaos, or state the side the poster did not take at its strongest. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like:

I chose Option A, and I argue that liberalism as an international relations theory explains more. Article 2(4) gives every member one public rule, and a standing organization makes a break visible and costly; that the Charter contains the rule is empirical, and that visibility changes behavior is the claim I am defending. The strongest rival is realism, whose defenders point to the veto: 5 of the 15 Security Council members can block action, so the rule binds the weak more than the strong.

Notice how it takes a side, uses the Charter accurately, labels premises by kind, and states the rival fairly before answering it. That is the bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com