In general, neorealist saw state’s anarchy more important than the neoliberal. The neorealist saw the anarchy as necessary concept for state’s motivation to survive and they often claim that neoliberalist are underestimated the importance of it. Charles Lipson saw the concept of anarchy as the Rosetta stone for international relations , however Lipson suggested that the idea of anarchy is overemphasized by the realist and Miler agree with him. Second, is the concept of ‘international cooperation’. Both of the approach agree upon that international cooperation is likely to be possible but its differences in how it’s implemented.
“Sovereignty is now best conceptualized not as freedom from interference but as ‘status’, which in turn depends critically on participation in international regimes. This connection to the rest of the world and the political ability to be an actor in it are more important than any tangible benefits in explaining compliance with international regulatory agreement.” (Chayes & Chayes, 1995, p. 27) There are some states in international institutions that likely to assume more power than others. Supposing that, we still cannot remove the idea of having a Hobbesian environment in the international arena. Human nature still prevails. Since then, the international law has been developing throughout the years.
By working together in regional groups, states can help to protect markets and industries in their region, increase their competitiveness in the global economy and strengthen their hand in global economic forms such as the World trade Organisation (WTO). This translates into “economic security”. The obvious trend towards the intensification of cooperation on intra-regional levels is gaining momentum. After the establishment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) by the USA, Canada and Mexico, the exploration of possibilities for cooperation and interaction between NAFTA and the EU in the form of a Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA) has intensified. TAFTA supporters point out that the combined US-EU GDP represents 57 per cent of the total world GDP (Barfield, 1998).
Neoliberalism is a political ideology that has become one of the dominant schools of thought in many modern countries, and has therefore become intricately woven into the globalization of society. Globalization is a broad term that refers to the increasing relations between different countries that spans all aspects of life, inclusive of social, political, and economic. It is this increasing sense that these relationships stretch across borders of specific countries that helps to create more global citizens as opposed to national citizens (Steger 15). With the governments of countries becoming increasingly involved with one another, and with neoliberalism being so present in these countries political ideologies, it makes sense that neoliberalism would play a vital role in current globalization. By examining some of the main tenants of neoliberalism philosophy, and through studying concrete examples, we can see how they have been influential in shaping modern routes of globalization, while also taking into consideration that this may not be inherently good by examining pushback.
International institutions do more than just manage relations among pre-existing states with exogenously determined preferences; they help to define the identity of member states, thereby also helping to define their perceptions of self-interest (Porter and Webb, 2007). The OECD can be seen as an example of an identity-defining international organization. Its primary impact comes through efforts to develop and promote international norms for social and economic policy (Wolfe, 1993). It defines standards of appropriate behavior for states, which seek to identify themselves as modern, liberal, market-friendly, and efficient (March and Olsen, 1998: 961). This involves distinguishing member states from non-members, and defining the former as superior.
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.
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”. In short, regimes, not individual states, are fundamental to international relations, which seek to enhance their own national
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 WWII the main academic competitor to the Realist paradigm was idealism., They looked into numerous beliefs of realism and recommended possible ideologies to alter the world pursuing supremacy and conflict into a unique one in which peace and cooperation amongst states might conquer. The faith that liberals have is that substantial universal cooperation is possible and power politics can be moved at the core of the realist paradigm. (Lawrence 1913, 3-5)
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.
power and competitive advantage over others. International relations have used globalization to reach its goal: This assertion is backed by the view of Joseph (2000). They are of the views that since force, violent and threats thereof, areat core of this interplay, the struggle for power, whether, as an end or necessary means, is the distinguishing mark of politics amongst