When states interact in the international system, there are three theoretical approaches. The states can approach the international stage through realism, liberalism or constructivism. “Realism, also known as political realism, is a view of international politics that stresses its competitive side (Korab-Karpowicz, 2013).” “Liberal international relations (IR) theory is related to, but distinct from, the utopianism of the interwar period. The utopians believed that war could be eliminated either by perfecting man or by perfecting government (Cristol, Oxford Bibliographies, 2013).” “Constructivist theory emphasizes the meanings that are assigned to material objects, rather than the mere existence of the objects themselves. The theory of constructivism recent arrival on the scene makes it somewhat harder to identify (Cristol, Oxford Bibliographies, 2013).”

Now, with a better understanding of the three theoretical approaches, I would argue that realism would be best of the three to explain the way in which states should interact in the international system. For example: The Cold War. “Realism dominated in the Cold War years because it provided simple but powerful explanations for war, alliances, imperialism, obstacles to cooperation and other international phenomena, and because its emphasis on competition was consistent with the center feature of the American-Soviet rivalry (Waltz, 1998).” In the article by Waltz, scholars argued that the United States kept foreign policy that connect directly to realist principles meaning their actions could still be leaning towards protecting the United States allowing the United States to advance its own