Realism theorists emphasize that the anarchical international system command states to position security as their main interest because other states have a tendency to look opportunities to take benefit of each other by any means such as getting advantage from military force. This notion derived from the philosophy of necessity which views states actions as a result of predictable condition. In addition, realism view states violence as a result of the prevalent power struggle in international system. As Morgenthou said, “International politics is struggle for power”. Within this conditions the daily life in international system is always characterize by struggle among states with the possibility of war in the background.
This forces the acquirer company to raise its bid in order to stay competitive with the target’s offer and also increase the use of leverage in the target’s capital structure, which can make the target less attractive takeover candidate. d) Leverage Capitalization As part of this strategy, the target assumes a large amount of debt that is used to finance share repurchases. Like the share repurchases, the effect here is to create a significant change in the capital structure that makes the target less attractive while delivering value to the shareholders. e) Crown Jewel Defense After a hostile takeover, the target may decide to sell a subsidiary or major asset to a neutral third party. If the hostile acquirer view this asset as a essential to the deal, then it may decide to give up the takeover attempt.
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
History indicates that war was mainly conducted by undemocratic countries. Furthermore, democracies always justify themselves for going to war and liberally for the reason to defend the freedom state and society. Secondly, Kant liberal republicanism must be spread universally in order to achieve perpetual peace among states. This will result in states having similar attributes hence decrease the possibility of war between democracies. Finally, in international arena, perception of others is important and will influence decision making of a state.
Realists are attuned to the idea that the international system is anarchic and that serious threats emerge all the time, requiring states to secure resources for survival. This involves periodic use of force; security represents the unique and main goal of foreign policy. Idealism, on the other side values morality as the basis of all relations among nations. It rejects the separation between the mind and the soul in politics. Idealists see the role of power as an undesirable factor to be eliminated.
With more than two states having equal distribution of power and influence, multipolar systems are lined with unpredictability and ambiguity because states will miscalculate others’ intentions and misidentify threats (Goddard 2008 - 2009, p. 118 – 119). When one state’s power increases, other states may under-calculate and wait too long before balancing it, or accept its legitimation strategies and not balance against it. Unwilling to utilize resources that may be wasted in balancing, states have the incentive to buck-pass an emerging power (Goddard 2008 – 2009, p. 118). Working on the foundational assumption, to survive, states must engage in self-help that is usually external in a multipolar system. External self-help through alliances involve high interdependence among members, requiring states to go to war for their allies in a process called chain-ganging to prove their reliability.
Economic dependence reflects a state’s vulnerability to interruption of trade by its trading partner. For a small power, this can be a decisive element in its alignment policy. Hirschman observed that “the power to interrupt commercial or financial relations...is the root cause of the...power position which a country acquires in countries, just as it is the root cause of dependence.” China’s growing international economic presence translates into political influence over its economic partners. The conventional wisdom among policymakers, economic actors, and scholars holds that the translation of economic power into political influence is virtually automatic: higher levels of bilateral economic relations should yield greater influence. Economic power can be measured in terms of bilateral economic relations (e.g.
Individuals form a Commonwealth to escape the state of nature so that “one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defense” (112). This leads to the question: to what extent does Hobbes’ theory of self-interest contradict an individual’s supposed obedience to his sovereign? According to Hobbes, the sovereign assures security to an individual through his absolute power, but obedience to the sovereign does not always correlate with an individual’s self-preservation. Due to the state of nature being violent, it is optimal for individuals to relinquish their rights to an absolute sovereign. If one agrees with Hobbes’ theory about life in a state of nature being “nasty, brutish, and short” (82), then
Another reason was the Japan wanted more power and the only way to receive that, would be to overcome more land. This explains how conflict theory was the cause of the war. Since, there were unequal amount of resources, which resulted in the lack of power. Consequently, the Japanese then decided to attack China to gain more resources through war. If the Japanese had succeeded, not only would they have more resources, but also, they would have more
Liberalism, along with realism, is one of the main schools of thought in international relations.According to liberals, international relations is not only controlled by the relationship between states but also includes and emphasises the role of other actors. During WWI and
His predictions proved to be incorrect. As U.N. Forces advanced north of the 38th parallel, they found themselves facing Chinese forces. MacArthur wanted to start the war with China, Truman was against this. Douglas MacArthur stated, “It seems strangely difficult for some to realize that here in Asia is where the communist conspirators have elected to make their play for global conquest, and that we have joined the issue thus raised on the battlefield; that here we fight Europe 's war with arms while the diplomats there still fight it with words; that if we lose the war to communism in Asia the fall of Europe is inevitable, win it and Europe most probably would avoid war and yet preserve freedom.
This type of War Doctrine attempts to prevent a future attack by attacking ones opponent first. Pre-emption is commonly viewed as equivalent to self-defense. Pre-emption must be permitted by the United Nations; otherwise it goes against international law, it is considered legitimate because it can be classified under self-defense. The intention when using a Pre-emptive strike is to gain and advantage over the opposing actor. Pre-emption has been used, and has both a success and fail rate.
China’s system focus on the government wealth so they can compete with other great powers by putting the capital in armies and navies. Americans certainly like to believe that their desired order survives because it is right and just—not only for Americans but for everyone (Kagan, 2012). America believe that the accomplishment of democracy is a better idea and the triumph of market capitalism is the victory of a better system, and that both are permanent. If and when AMERICA 3 American supremacy falloffs, then the countries America has supported will fall off. Or they might collapse altogether and transition to another kind of