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.
This perpetual insecurity Waltz says stems from the fact for that states try to amass more and more resources in order to raise their capabilities in attempt ot be always one step ahead of the competition- to escape this security dilemma. Waltz also describes as to how powerful states and democracies always tend to believe that their actions are just and good. And even though they might have different geographical and cultural backdrops, essentially all states perform the same basic tasks which includes governance, international interactions etc. The Structural realist theory was also a supporter of the bi-polar system of balance of power and distinguishes it from the multi-polar system that prevailed pre and post Cold War. Waltz supports the bi-polar system
Let us examine the realist and constructivist approach to anarchy. Realism focuses on the theory self preservation and that rules are created by governments to protect its people which would also help prevent conflict. However international politics can not be credited with this. (Lebow, 2007) Waltz argued that the continued lack of ‘world government’ leads to violence between states. It seems to be the common belief among realists that because there is no clear authority that governs states on a global level, thats where anarchy exists; violence is always a constant possibility as each state strives for self preservation.
This is a disagreement was a political issue that didn’t involve any economic factor, and a major piece leading to the American Revolution. Another vital political issue is the forbiddance of westward expansion. In Document 2, King George says: “And We do hereby forbid on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatsoever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved.” The colonists wanted to expand westwardly to create settlements, but the British prohibited it. Again, this had hardly anything to do with the economy. It was merely an argument between the two sides, making it a political issue.
Liberalism on the other hand is progressive and optimistic. Liberals believe change is necessary and foremost inevitable. Neither viewpoint gives us the right or wrong side as both contain truths depending on the circumstances. International politics strongly relies on all players in order to be complete. Not a single theory or example can cover all the situations.
Thomas explains how in this society without authoritative rule all those living in it are fundamentally and solely interested in providing and protecting for their interests and desires. If needs be, the projection of force against any threat in this regard is unavoidable. War means more than just of a general sense of fighting, but where there exists a continued will to contend by battle. Conflict is an inescapable feature when resources are scarce and people tried to dominate and exploit the others. Consequently, life has no morality and rights have no place, alternatively force is an important virtue for survival.
International law has no central authority and operation as an anarchic highly decentralized legal order. Nevertheless, the absence of an authoritarian figure to enforce penalties does not mean that international law should not be considered “real” law. Law is still applied, but practiced and enforced in different ways. Overall, international law is considered “real” law because system of rules, established by binding agreements, that aim to regulate the actions of its members, but with different characteristics practiced in the domestic arena, where there is legislative, judiciary, executive, and police
The quest for self-interest by each prompts a poor result for all. The opportunity for common gain from cooperation comes into play when the gains from the other 's cooperation are more noteworthy than the costs of one 's own cooperation. Popular game theory proposes that nations endeavour to amplify their benefits in every circumstance. At the same time, in democratic societies, governments and leaders need to stress over sanctions forced by the expenses of motioning, of cooperating,
And in this case stability means the probability that the system retains all of its essential characteristics: that no single nation becomes dominant; that most of its members continue to survive; and that large-scale war does not occur. For neorealists, unipolarity is the most unstable of all the other structures, because any great concentration of power threatens other states and causes them to take action to restore a balance. As a result, most analysts argue that unipolarity is an illusion, a moment that will not last long, or is already giving way to multipolarity. Therefore the unipolar system is unstable and prone to conflict since at any point right now, any slight overstep by any other country will spark a dangerous conflict. The U.S. dominance is likely to generate an opposing coalition to limit U.S. power and that a new leadership will
Foucault warns against regarding power as “a phenomenon of mass and homogeneous domination” (29). Power is not something possessed by even the mightiest, but is relational, and hence present in all political relations, including dynamics of resistance. Resistance is not conducted against power, but through power, using it to resist political oppression. As Simons puts it, “Foucault offers an ethic of permanent resistance”