The essay provided an outline on each theory before going on to explain the theory’s view on what causes wars. After I evaluated and juxtaposed, it led me to the conclusion that even though there are changing and opposite explanations to answer the question of what causes wars, realism provided the most relevant answer. It seems as if the balance of threat against a potential hegemony has been the most relevant answer as to what causes wars. I can also conclude from this that because states are the primary actors in international relations they will seek to expand their power because they believe it is an essential element in an anarchical
Realism has been the dominant theory since the creation of the field of international relations in 1919, influencing both academic study and world politics alike. Realism, broadly speaking, is composed of three main elements, those being ‘statism, survival, and self-help’ (John Baylis, 2017, p. 105). This therefore means that realists place states as the most important actors in what they see as an anarchical international system where there is no real authority. A state’s primary motivation is therefore to survive in this system, a motivation driven by human nature, with the increasing of power being the best way of doing this. This forms the basis of classical realism, of which Hans Morgenthau and E. H. Carr are key proponents.
Counter-hegemony can be achieved through the examination of the existing dominant discourses, uncovering the meanings, practices and fallacies rooted in the system, and then introducing rival discourses which would embody the interests and the claims of the subordinate groups. In this context, Gramsci defines the counter hegemonic project as “the concrete birth of a need to develop more universal concepts and more refined and decisive ideological weapons” (Hunt, 1990). Gramsci theorizes for a counter-hegemonic project that involves economic, political and ideological preparations before overthrowing capitalism and before winning power (Im, 1991). That is, the subordinate class should be prepared to start the struggle for emancipation and social transformation through standing firm against the circulated and prevailing discourses. However, it is worth noting that the leading group is not likely to compromise its superior privileged position and to allow a rise in status for the subordinate
ABSTRACT This essay reviews the paradigm of neo-realism (also known as structural realism), a sub-sect of realism and one of the most influential theories in the study and analysis of international relations. Firstly, the essay will list and analyze the key elements of the neo-realist school of thought, as well as its variants. Then, the application of this paradigm will be examined in the case of the balance of power in Southeast Asia, focusing on the relationships among the key players in the area – namely China, Vietnam and the United States. KEY ELEMENTS Neo-realism is a reformulation of the classical realist school of thought, first introduced by Kenneth Waltz in “Theory of International Politics”, to fit with the new happenings of the last few decades. It – along with its counterpart neo-liberalism – is one of the most significant theories in international relations; the two theories have remained the dominant approaches for the past two decades.
Realist main focus is History. And for survival the competition is important. There are three types of Realism: 1) Classical Realism: Any action from the state in the International politics is due to the human nature. 2) Structural Realism: The International politics depends on International system i.e. states are in Anarchy.
Logical consistency and abstract reasoning are the standards to which political theory in the classic era are assessed (Ashcraft, 1980). Theoretical interpreters have seen their role as historic missions to straighten the logical muddles (Ashcraft, 1980) of ancient masters in order to relay the message they originally had. In the midst of the progression of political philosophy, political theory also went along with the flow of its own evolution. The questions raised by historicism today are considered to be the most urgent by
national politics Adam Watson’s Evolution of International Society gave a new dimension in the understanding of international relations (IR). He deeply studied comparatively the formation of international society and political community of the past which has evolved into the modern world system in his ‘Evolution of International Society’. Unlike Kenneth Waltz views of anarchy as the only system in IR, Watson says there are two systems viz. anarchy and hierarchy. In between these systems is the hegemony which defines the contemporary IR.
Thus, international law is a natural product of historical development, there is an objective and realistic, and, once having arisen at a certain stage of human society, and it will be further developed according to the laws of dialectics. Historical evolution of Public Law: This period is associated with the development of international relations of feudal states in the course of their education, to overcome the fragmentation of major feudal estate monarchy and the beginning of the formation of absolutist states. A feature of the regulation of international relations was the continuity of the feudal states of many international legal rules of the slave period. However, these rules were enriched and further developed. One of the features of the feudal international law in Western Europe was the influence on him of the Catholic Church.
By looking at pedagogy, policy and practice. The main reasons why accounting history is relevant today, and what some of the negative aspects are. 1.What is history and historical research? History, in the Oxford dictionary is defined as, the study of past events, especially in human affairs. Historical research presents a essential opportunity for challenging and worthwhile study from which we hope to increase our ability to make judgments on a vast, more informed basis (Zeff, 1982).
Power is a multifaceted concept that comes to mind whenever the security policy of a country comes into discussion. This is even more notable for the Federal Republic. Seen both as the power of Germany and Germany as a power, this concept is central to the analysis of past, current and future foreign policy decisions, and implicitly security measures. Even thought it is used in order to distill the the current foreign policy role, assumed by Germany in the late 20th century, to one single concept such as: “global economic power”, “leading European power”, “central power in Europe”, even “civilian power” or “re-emerging military power”, these mental shortcuts paint, in broad strokes, an image of the position and abilities of the German polity.