The Warfare”, Retrieved from: ). In

complexity of the world politics is increased in recent years accordingly with
the political globalization. New actors, new ideas, new necessities and new
policies have become involved in international politics. This increased
complexity has significant negative impacts on both international area and
domestic political atmospheres of the states. The rise of security threats is
one of the central issues that the world has to deal. These security threats
might be practiced by different state and non-state actors. The terms
symmetrical and asymmetrical threats are mainly rooted in this distinction. This
essay will try to define these two terms and interpret the rise of asymmetrical
threats with liberal and realist perspectives.

       Security threats might be characterized
as symmetrical or asymmetrical by a number of functional differences between
threatened and threatening parties. Symmetrical threat refers to a form of the
threat comes from a counter-party with equal resources. Both parties must have
equal powers, political positions and military capabilities. It can be
simplified as “state against state” or “military against military”. Many
examples of symmetrical conflict have occurred in history. For instance; when
the Allies fought with the Axis, both national armies had basically the same
capabilities. It is a proper example in this case. (“Asymmetric Warfare”, Retrieved
from: ). In short, functional equality is the key term of
symmetrical threats.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

it comes to the characteristics of asymmetrical threats, there are no equal
capabilities and resources between parties. Unlike the symmetrical conflicts,
one side is superior to the other. Terrorism and Guerilla movements are the
most common versions of asymmetrical threats. As mentioned above, there is an
extreme increase in terrorist movements around the world. The broadest meaning
of terrorism is the systematic use of violence to create a fear among the
society by following a political goal. It is practiced by political
organizations, nationalistic or religious groups like ISIS and sometimes state
institutions such as armies or police forces. (Jenkins, 2017, Retrieved from: ). There are a number of reasons behind the
inclusion of terrorism in asymmetrical threats:



are smaller groups attacking to stronger structures, they attack the civilians
spontaneously by using unpredictable tactics like suicide attacks and they
usually use very cheap methods. However; despite this inexpensiveness and
simplicity, their tactics are terrifyingly effective in creating a reign of
fear among the society.

       Realism and liberalism are two of the
main theories of international relations. Their approaches to rising
asymmetrical threats can be seen by observing their characteristics and determining
the similarities and differences. The major distinction is that realism focuses
on the state power and thinks that power is the only way to deal with problems
while liberalism argues that states are not always looking for power. Realism
defends the opinion that states always follow their own interest and security. Therefore,
all of their actions are rooted in this desire. The superiority of a state is
only depending on its military capability. Liberals have more optimistic view
compared to realists. They believe that peace is possible if the international
system can be manipulated properly. The interaction and integration between
countries can be helpful in solving worldwide issues. For example, the
institutions like United Nations or European Union are very functional
according to liberalism. On the other hand, realism argues that there is anarchy
in international system and it is not possible to provide peace with these kinds
of institutions. In brief, conflicts will always continue to exist in the
consequence of power hunger and state is the only matter under all
circumstances according to realism.

       In the case of asymmetrical threats,
especially terrorism, realist view would take a tougher line compared to liberalism.
Realists would believe that states have to fight against terrorist
organizations by using force. Diplomacy or negotiation will not work in this
case because a peaceful respond won’t stop terrorist actions. States should not
abstain from exercising military force to prevent the security threats. Realism
thinks that it is more permanent solution to resolve these problems. Conversely,
potential liberalist movement towards the asymmetrical threats is to be more
constructive by attempting to an agreement with threatening organization.
Diplomacy should play the main role instead of using force because peace is
only possible in this way.




       The question of which theory would be
more preferable to practice is quite hard to answer when the current world
politics is considered. However; in order to build a permanent peace, states
should act constructively towards the security issues. The problems that prompt
different organizations to create terrorism must be determined for possible
solutions. After this determination, qualified individuals have to come
together and analyze the situation. Although the realist point of view seems more
effective in the short period, the solutions that focused on the root of
conflict will work better in the long run. Using harsh forces directly without
considering any other option is risky because it may create the possibility of
increased anger in the counter-part.

Go Top

I'm Eleanor!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out