This paper will analyze the role that NATO played in ending the Cold War according to the different international relation perspectives and the effect that the Cold War had on the different theoretical perspectives. Realism, one of the oldest and most fundamental perspectives of international relations focuses on a states material power in regards to the rest of the international system. According to realists, one of the main ways that a state is able to retain and protect its material power is through balancing. Steven Walt, a realist scholar claims that the balance of threat insinuates that states form alliances in order to protect themselves from other states that not only have greater power but also have a higher level of perceived threat due to various factors (Walt, 1985). Realists view NATO as a military alliance that was established out of the need for the
Based on realists argument, we can assume that the cause of The Cold War were security dilemma, arms race and balance of power. Security dilemma, arms race and balance of power are three different things but they have a connection one to another. These three things happen in a same path. These three things happen continuously and connectively. They happen because of a reason based on the issue that comes up in the international system, and most of the reason is because of the power of the states.
Even defensively motivated efforts by states to provide for their own security through armaments, alliances, and deterrent threats are often perceived as threatening and lead to counter-actions and conflict spirals that are difficult to reverse.” This is exactly what happened in WWI. Even the defensive actions of Britain and France to maintain the status quo were misinterpreted as offensive actions, which reinforced the security dilemma. At its core, the realist theory argues that the distribution of power within a system, and the actions taken to balance this power, is the primary factor in shaping international
So United States had to change their policy in to Mutual Deterrence. This variation is representable one, because this one is a main policy during the rest of Cold War. This variation as known as ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’. This variation appeared with incensement of Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons. This variation’s definition is ‘Military theory of nuclear deterrence holding that neither side will attack the other if both sides are guaranteed to be totally destroyed in the conflict’.
Due to constant balancing of the powers, smaller states or states coalitions would not allow any more powerful state to grab the power and become hegemonic. States exist in fear and insecurity, in fear of war, intervention or collapse, and thus they are dependent on other states. Stability is maintained through the anarchic organization of the interantional system and the constant number of countries who determine the fate of the world. First, in bipolar world the achieved balance can be shaken only by internal political problems, but not by a third state. Even if it tries to play a more significant role, the two great powers can easily return the world to bipolarity.
It is important to first define realism the context of the argument, as the theory that seeks to explain or account for conflict. Schroeder’s assertion that realism is a good theory for explaining war, but not peace, can certainly be applied in the context of this question. John Mearsheimer’s “offensive realism” describes an international system that offers Great Powers little choice other than to seek the subversion of other powers (even those which pose no direct threat) “if they want to maximise their own odds of survival”. He argues that the construction of the international system forces powers to act offensively towards other states from a position of fear. With that said, traditional realists, such as Cold War American policy advisor
To examine the Cold War consensus, one must discuss the Cold War. The Cold war was the tension between the United States, standing for capitalism, and the USSR, standing for totalitarianism and socialism, following World War II. Although it was not a physical war between the two superpowers, many proxy wars had came out of it as way to spread or combat communism throughout the Free World. The Free World, as the U.S. came to define it, did not necessarily mean free as countries were being ruled by military regimes and dictatorships, but free from communism(70). During the Cold War, the spread of communism frighted the American People.
201311475 International Law Ms. Pauline Brillantes AB Political Science TTH: 3:30-5:00 Prelim Thesis Statement: International Law has been the key for the states to maintain peace and order. This has been also used as an essential aspect of international relations. However, the aggressive war between different states and nations has an effect on the imposition of international law. The United Nation has a role in addressing issues on international law about global, economic and social issues. 1.
Furthermore, we have tried to briefly show how it is possible to compare the two wars to each other without declaring that one is more total than the other, but rather using the concept of ‘total war’ to define similarities and differences between the two wars for historical background. Also, this essay has been attempting to bring in interpretations from the interwar period and after to indicate the way the term have varied trough the 20th century, this to show how the concept can be used quite widely. It is evident that the concept of ‘total war’ is a large one where different interpretations make it intricate to use as an analytic tool. The Conclusion would be that the concept of ‘total war’ is a wide and open term, which can if seen as nothing more than an ideal, be used to get an understanding of the history of the two wars, however, it also argues that the ideology of ‘total war’ can be widely different depending on the Historian using the term, that it may cause more confusion than presenting us with a helpful tool to comprehend the background of the two
Many subsequent authors have argued that as a result of the Cold War (the period of hostile relations between the US and the USSR in 1950-60-ies, which led to the arms build-up by both parties) reached a particular span the United States and the Soviet Union's military-industrial complex. How this view justified is? Unfortunately, the very idea of the military-industrial complex is often not clear enough, and when it is said about the extent of its influence on political decisions, it is limited to more hints than a full analysis. . However, for