., 1989They promote international organizations, international laws as well as international treaties. They believe in collective security. They dont believe in a system without sovereignty, the believe in a central authority.Although idealists have been convinced till now with sovereignty, now the new breed of the idealists, the neoidealists, believe it is necessary to have some international organization intervene. This is were the classical idealists differ from the neoidealists, that is, how much intervention should there be The classical idealists believe that states can learn to cooperate from pervious experiences without giving up their independence. They believe that economic independence and cultural information exchange is the way to achieve cooperation amongst nations. Meanwhile the neoidealists believe that countries will have to give up their sovereignty to some extent to achieve greater cooperation. Also, the idealists spearheaded by the then, U.S. President Wilson Woodrow, supported the formation of the League of Nations, the United States never joined the organization. When World War II got over, it left many of the idealists shocked and disillusioned. The League of Nations had failed as an organization as democracy was taken over in Germany, Italy, Spain and other countries, also the member states did not come together in times of crises to fight their opposition. Therefore after World War II, people and states once again decided to come together. They decided on a new international peace organization, called the United Nations. This time the United States did join the organization.My personal opinion is that, unfortunately, both the systems discussed so far, are extremes of each other. So, naturally if realism failed to work as a system, to me it seems pretty obvious that idealism would also not solve the worlds problems. Idealism, after all, as the name itself suggests is a vision than can probably only work in ...
