The 20th century has undoubtedly been a time of extreme international uncertainty and political turbulence. Major international conflicts including two world wars, and numerous threats of terrorism has escalated states fear of their own nation's security. Organski explained the direct correlation between war and security when he said , “war occurs because power is expected to conduce to proportional influence, wealth, and security.”. A simple definition of security dilemma is when one state’s security becomes another state’s insecurity. Vague signals along with lack of communication can cause uncertainty, which can result in unwanted fighting.
The big question is whether or not we can resolve the never ending security dilemma spiral through globalization and international institutions. Is it possible to learn from past mistakes and learn from new perspectives in order to obtain peace, I believe so. This essay will provide explanations from all of the International Relations theories, and will furthermore discuss how global order can be achieved through careful cooperation between states. To begin with liberalism is optimistic about cooperation, and believes that decision makers are rational and human nature is good. Liberalism focuses on three main concepts: international institutions, democratic peace, and economic interdependence. Liberalists view war as avoidable if government is reduced and if more international institutions are created. They hold international institutions with a lot of merit. Firstly, they consider international institutions to create peace because the institutions reduce transaction costs, make state commitments more credible, enable states to discuss issues multiple times, and encourage countries to join in

multilateral collective security mechanisms ( Textbook p. 117­118). International institutions gives states the platform to settle disputes, while maintaining trust and order. International institutions are so important not only because they create a space for cooperation and communication; but also because they are responsible for punishment and enforcement.
Institutions create a standard for each country. Alternate countries will cooperate easier after they witness liberal behavior being followed and rewarded by other states. International institutions get rid of a massive amount of uncertainty, which encourages states from spiraling into the security dilemma. Liberalists view cooperation as attractive. Liberalists believe that economic interdependence promotes peace. The theory states that if countries are dependent on each other for prosperity, than countries will have more incentives to cooperate. For example, because free trade raises the cost of war it is beneficial to solve problems through diplomacy and cooperation rather than war. Liberalists truly believe that through international institutions and democracy peace is possible, and the security dilemma can be stopped. However, it is essential not to forget that converting countries into liberal democratic states is exceptionally difficult. On the other hand realists are pessimistic about creating lasting peace. Unlike liberalists, realists view people as greedy and aggressive. Realists main priority is maximum power and security. earsheimer said it best when he explained the realist viewpoint in, The Tragedy of
M
Great Power Politics, “ the best way for a state to survive in anarchy is to take advantage of other states and gain power at their expense.” Realists find cooperation impossible because they claim that no state is trustworthy. Contrary to liberalism, realism does not put trust in agreements and rules set by international systems. Realists are more concerned with having a stable balance in

power, in order to protect their own state's security. Realism does not measure their gains relatively; and therefore tries to outperform other states, which causes unnecessary violence.
Realists constantly fear war. This uncertainty is based on the belief that without an authoritative power there is nothing to stop war. However, realists do not take into consideration that security is more than defending physical borders, but also defending the international system. Weapons has made war accessible and convenient. Realists also neglect to realize that shared values and ideologies prevent conflict and can lead to trustworthy cooperation. Realists refuse to cooperate and therefore see the security dilemma as unpreventable. Lastly, constructivist beliefs are created through international events and are socially constructed. Constructivism is based on ideas and societal norms. Although, some scholars disregard constructivism because of its basis on history, it is important to understand how they view the security dilemma. Constructivist's thoughts on security is dependent on how society views security. Constructivism preaches that people act toward objects on the basis of the meaning that the objects have for them. For example, when states act differently toward friends nation's than toward enemies nation’s. Constructivism states that the security dilemma can be avoided through cooperation and communication between states with shared ideologies.
Constructivists saw cooperation as an opportunity to create a collective identity between nations.
Through cooperation a new identity of shared values and interests could be formed smoothly.
Huntington insisted that if conflict occurred it would be between different civilizations because of fault lines (religious/cultural beliefs). . Similar to liberalism, constructivism notices that nations with similar values are more likely to honestly cooperate with each other.

I believe that liberalism offers the best explanation on the security dilemma. Realists neglect to acknowledge that war is avoidable. Liberalists understand that nations would rather cooperate and sacrifice a handful of values, than risk complete destruction. Realists fail to accept that democratic nations with shared values are capable of communication and agreement.
Although, liberalists recognize that cooperation is complicated they know it is possible through international institutions and economic interdependence. Liberalists support the notion that security is more than a measure of power. Unlike realism, liberalists view war as counter­effective. War is viewed as expensive and damaging to states economies and cultures.
The security dilemma and realists do not understand that security is not dependent only on territory. Liberalists state that power is not determined by how much territory each state holds, but depends rather on the role they play in the international system and their level of economic prosperity. The security dilemma is minimized through voluntary cooperation. Liberalists believe that states will cooperate with one another to escape conquest and the other negative impacts of war. The security dilemma causes unnecessary suspicions and mistrust, which in turn causes other states to have more insecurities. The circle of uncertainty can only be stopped with trust.
When trust is established between states cooperation can be achieved. The violence and ambiguity of the 20th century has caused a lot of distress globally. In conclusion all three theories; realism, liberalism, and constructivism, understand the security differently. Through realism, peace is achieved through military strength and power. To liberalists peace is possible through a standard set of rules, communication, trust, and

cooperation. Finally, constructivists see peace as what the state makes it to be. The security dilemma spotlights how states react to uncertainty. In order to protect their state sacrifices and knowledge must be used. It is difficult to say if lasting peace is possible, but I agree with liberalists that peace is likely especially in the recent future where new technologies and understanding is available.