According to this school of thought, International Relations is an arena where different sovereign states acts as a rational unit and sets aside morals and values for their own political and economic advancement and the thought also mentioned that the only way of achieving international security is to balance the power among the powerful states within the arena, which results in states continuously enacting and creating International Laws and Policies to even the scales. The different needs and desires of man potentially brings out the rational capabilities of the state to think for itself and its own. As to my opinion on the matter I consider International Laws and Policies as a result of a cause and effect, it can be the cause as well as the effect per se. It is a cause in a sense that man continuously create and enact International Laws and Policies to succeed or improve the previous law, and an effect in a sense that it is the results of man’s desire to promote and advance his own welfare and property, Which ultimately leads to these kinds of laws and policies. The effect of international law is additive, not absolute.
2.2.1 Constructivism Social Constructivism is one of international relations approach. This approach challenged the rationalism and positivism of neorealism and neoliberalism. One of constructivism character is its emphasis on the importance of normative as well as material structures, the role of identity in shaping political action and on the mutually constitutive relationship between agents and structures (Burchill et al. 2005: 188). The term “constructivism” was first introduced by Nicholas Onuf in his book World in Our Making.
It is heavily influenced from the Groation tradition. According to this perspective, regimes are much more pervasive and exist in all areas of international relations. Contrary to the conventional structure and modified structural, this viewpoint moves away from realist thinking as it is “too limited to explain an increasingly complex, interdependent, and complex world.” This approach rejects the assumption that the international system is comprised of states and the balance of power is solely due to force. Rather, it argues that elites are the principal actors and that they have national and transnational ties. An example Krasner gives is that the “statesmen nearly always perceive themselves as constrained by principles, norms, and rules that prescribe and proscribe varieties of behavior”.
International institutions, as either formal organizations (NATO or UN), or as informal regimes (non-proliferation treaty, GATT), play a more important role in determining state relations than do hegemonic state or brute force. Moreover, neoliberalism holds that transnational contacts and interdependence in global issues due to technological advances have transformed the very definition of national interests. Under this view, states are important rational actors who cooperate to achieve absolute gains. Thus, unlike neorealists who characterize states as interested in rational gains, neoliberals characterize states as utility-maximizers, actors who will entertain cooperation so long as it promises absolute gains in their
To inquire into the state’s constitution, as postmodernism does, is partly to inquire into the ways in which global political space is partitioned. The world is not naturally divided into differentiated political spaces, and nor is there a single authority to carve up the world. The third one is a deconstruction of identity as it is defined in security and foreign policy discourses. A detailed account of the relationship between the state, violence and identity is to be found in David Campbell’s post-structuralist account of the Bosnian war, in National Deconstruction (1998a). His central argument there is that a particular norm of community has governed the intense violence of the war.
Neo-Gramscianism in Sociology of International Relations: Robert Cox Neo-Gramscianism is a critical theory based on the study of international relations and global political economy. This theory explores different ideas, institutions and material capabilities, how do these ideas form the specific contours of the state appearance. The main idea of this theory is strongly influenced by the works of Antonio Gramsci. Neo-Gramscianism analyzes the way in which the specific social forces, the state and the dominant ideological formations define and maintain world order. On this basis, neo-Gramscian approach destroys long-term stagnation and contradictions that exist between the so-called realist school of thought and liberal theory.
Then it was adopted as a pro-market model by Latin American economists in 1970s. Deoliberalism seemed to emphasize deregulation and privatization. David Harvey has defined neoliberalism as “a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade” (A Brief History of Neoliberalism, 2005). There are examples of neoliberal policies adopted by NAFTA in 1994. Three countries were involved, including the United States, Mexico and Canada.
In their examining of both these schools of thought Cordell and Wolff bring in elements of international relations theory. In their examinations of these schools of thought they make reference to the major contributors, such as Volkan and Monteville and their contributions to psychoanalytical theories of ethnic conflict, and their theories instead of making their own contributions to the
One of its main shares is frequently argued to be the government’s intervention. The latter deals with “the justifications of governments to interfere in the lives of its own civilian population- domestic interventions- and the activities of another nations- foreign intervention.” (iep.utm.edu). It might, also, alter the behavior of an individual or a society; particularly, concerning social and economic difficulties. According to the Cambridge dictionary, it is “the government actions to influence the way financial markets or particular industries
Even though the implications it vested on bringing territorially conflicting states together is crucial, economic liberalism is not sufficient to addressing the problems of territorial conflict per se. Prior to every implication the remedy it provides, which is deepening and widening economic interdependence between the conflicting states, wouldn’t resolve territorial disputes specifically and directly. Furthermore, economic ties not all the time brings states together, it can also have negative consequences, especially to those involved in a territorial dispute. Turning to the second factor of neoliberal international relation, to liberal institutionalism it puts its centerpiece of at international institutions. Means although institutions can’t eradicate anarchy they still can influence states preference and by that to their actions.