This difference appears due to the contrast approach of each of the systems. As neorealists try to structurise the world and seek to find any interdependence at the international system they tend to see the state slightly in a different way. That is why, as Waltz and neorealists in general have more systematic and structured approach. It is also asserted by them that the policy of any state will be constructed more or less automatically as they would be influenced by external factors. While Morgenthau argued that states are bound to conduct their foreign policy in terms of national interest (Jackson, Sørensen, 2013: 81).
Rather than focusing only on state’s selfishness and competitiveness, structural realists (neorealists) believe that states enter into alliances with other states (diplomacy) to regulate and keep a check on the power of other alliances and more powerful states. Although the school of structural realism (neorealism) is developed from the classical realist school, there are key differences between these two types of realism. According to Ferguson (2011) and the lectures and other materials of week 1-3, classical realists primarily focus on explaining the nature of man; that is, human nature is aggressive and human aggregates (states) are thus aggressive too. They argue that behaviors of states derive heavily from human nature, and self-centeredness and self-interestedness are presumed to be the fundamental principles of realism. In contrast to this, structural realists (neorealists)
Constructivist ment that ideas are those of targets, threats, fears, identities and other elements of perceived reality that affect the state and non-state objects of international relations. Constructivists believe ideological factors often have long-term goals and outcomes, and this is an advantage over the materialist theory (realism, liberalism). Therefore, the perception of the same phenomenon in international relations may vary depending on the conditions in which states are. Moreover, constructivists do not consider anarchy constant consistency in the international system, arguing extreme
In particular they are inclined to see their interest as clashing, incompatible. This supports the idea of the ‘Fixed-Pie Belief’. The negotiations results will depend on whether parties have or do not have similar interests and whether or not the issues are or are not compatible with each other. Another implication which was found as a result from the experiments shows that biased conflict perceptions are quite strongly swayed by interests which relate to oneself. It was proven also that issues can be misconstrued to be ones of too great importance and one may then overestimate the amount of conflict.
After the First World War, writers, known as idealists’ theorists, were trying to understand the cause of war and its existence in international politics. According to realists, the ideologies of idealists were flawed because they ignored the role that power has in international politics, they overestimated the rationality of Human beings, had an assumption that nation states shared a common interest, and they thought that humankind could put an end to war (Dunne and Schmidt, 2008: 92). The outbreak of the Second World War emphasized the above flaws of idealists, which resulted in idealism being replaced with realism. Realist writers then emphasized the power dynamics of states and the competitive nature which they hold in the international
However, another assumption is the complete opposite from the first assumption. As beneficial as it could be, economic interdependence could be one dangerous factor in the world function. That will be explained in detailed in this paragraph. The second assumption claimed that economic interdependence could also lead the world to instabilities and insecurities as well. First of all, economic interdependence is not always about peaceful cooperation all the time.
It is correct that in handling smaller, specific issues, questions and problems they often adapted the practice of organized hypocrisy which enabled them to tend towards action based on their material interests while covering it still with the appearance living up to the expectations. Yet if we are looking at the broader picture we can see that these starts were strongly constrained by their norms and their logics of appropriateness which resulted in them failing politically both domestically and internationally -while those who managed to adjust to Western norms and found a balance that promoted their security and economic interest . Therefore, Stephen Krasner’s statement that “in general, the logics of consequences dictated behaviour while logics of appropriateness were rhetorically embraced” is not correct, or at least just partially, in certain cases, regarding the international relations practices of the East Asian countries in the nineteenth
Realism holds that the global framework gives impetuses to development just under particular conditions. Rebellion makes circumstances whereby the instruments that one state uses to build its security diminish the safety of different countries. This security situation makes states stress over each other's future goals and relative power. Sets of states may seek after absolute security looking for methodologies, yet accidentally create spirals of natural antagonism, or struggle. States frequently seek after expansionist approaches because their pioneers erroneously trust that animosity is the best way to make their country
National interests of a superior state may prevent the attainment of peace in a developing state. The realist theory stresses the constraints on politics imposed by human selfishness and the absence of international government. The theory further emphasizes that states are sovereign and are motivated by national interests. The United States of America has acted as the world’s police interfering in other states’ matters especially if the state can benefit them. A specific example of this such
Post structuralism is an approach attitude or ethos that pursues critique in particular ways. Because it understands critique as an operation that flushes out the assumptions through which conventional and dominant understandings have come to be. Post structuralism considered critique as an inherently positive exercise that establishes the conditions of possibility for pursuing alternatives. It is in this context that post structuralism make other theories of international relations one of its objects of analysis and approaches those paradigms with meta-theoretical question designed to expose how they are structured (Campbell, 2006:225)1. Post structuralism found itself marginalized within international relations, that is large because those critical of it have misunderstood many of its central claims and have been anxious about the effect of following its meta-theoretical questioning to its logical conclusion (Campbell, 2006: