MAIN IDEA OF REALISM, LIBERALISM AND CONSTRUCTIVISM Realism is the interpretation that world politics is motivated by competitive self-interest. Realists then believe that the significant dynamic among states is a struggle for power in an exertion to preserve or, if possible, expand its army security and economic benefit in competition with other states. Moreover, realists perceive this battle for power as a zero-sum game, in which an achievement for one state is certainly a loss for others. Realists are also possible to perceive humanity as integrally shared by national commitment to states or other identity for example culture or religion. In the words realists define national interest mainly in terms of whatever enhances or preserves a state 's security, influence, and its military and economic power.
Finally, the third face of power according to Shapiro (2006, p.146) in his review of Luke's piece refers to the ability of a country to "manipulate" the agenda in order to get the desired outcomes. In Baldwin's view (2013), the last face of power is closely related to Nye's definition of power or Gramci's view of "hegemony" (Luke, 2005,2007). An example of this is the ability of the United States (US) to make other states embrace the "Washington Consensus" (Baldwin, 2013, p. 276). Because the concept of power remains controversial, the debates have stimulated scholars of IR to generate new terms of power, which means the concept is developing. We could not ignore that the heated conceptual debates have led scholars to develop several types of power, such as hard power, economic power, soft power (Nye, 1990,2002,2004,2007), compulsory power, institutional power, structural power, productive power (Barnett & Duvall, 2005), normative power (Diez & Manners, 2007), discursive power (Fuchs & Kalfagianni, 2009), network power (Grewal,2010), and smart power (Nye,
Alexander Wendt's Social Theory of International Politics proposes a theory that places great importance on the role of identity, shared ideas and norms in defining state behaviour. He theorises a structural and idealist worldview which contrasts with the individualism and materialism that underpins much of the mainstream international relations theories. As I explore the gist of Wendt's book, I will attempt to summarise the key findings, contributions to International Relations and to a certain extent, the limitations of Wendt's theory. Wendt is critical to both liberal and realist approaches that emphasises materialist and individualistic motivations for state actions while discounting identity, norms and shared values. As put forth by Wendt,
H classifies power into hard and soft power. Hard power specializes on controlling its subjects through the sue of intimidation and rewards while soft power banks on the leaders ability to inspire his or her subjects. As the inventor or soft power, Nye, however, does not believe that soft power alone is enough to maintain effective leadership. The author recommends a fusion of hard and soft power to form the “smart power.” Nye suggests neo charismatic and transformational leadership paradigms for the modern democratic societies and organizations. Amidst the confusion among theorists on the extent of charismatic leadership and its leaders, Nyle explains to make the confusion in the two models (Nye, 2008).
As suggested by Donnelly, (2000) there are; structural realists, who give predominant emphasis to international anarchy; biological realists, who emphasize a fixed human nature; radical realists, ones that adopt extreme versions of the three realist premises of anarchy, egoism, and power politics; strong realists, adopt realist premises in a way that allows only modest space for politically salient non-realist concerns; and finally hedged realists, who accept the realism definition of the problem of international politics – anarchy and egoism – but show varying degrees of discomfort with the solution of power politics. However, it is stated through Donnelly’s writing that “Hedged realism gradually merges into views that are fundamentally something else. At some point, (non-realist) ‘hedges’ become as important as the (realist) ‘core’, making it misleading to label the resulting position or argument ‘realist’ ” (2000,
The current world order may be described through the perspectives of Huntington, Mearsheimer and Zakaria. These three ideologists argued how fighting for, maintaining and continuing to have power shape the world and put states in their rightful place. With the application of mainstream theories of international relations, the current world order will be illustrated throughout this paper. Samuel Huntington made a hypothesis on what the new world order may be after the Cold War. Since after the said conflict, civilizations were separated not just because of ideological differences but also because each was defined by culture.
Austria-Hungary wanted to expand into Serbian lands to counter the Slavs, as well as to secure the Mediterranean against the Russians. The British wanted the Balkans to gain advantages over the Russians. Added to the conflicting European nations, Christians were planning a rebellion to gain their freedom. The conflicting interests of the great powers escalated the tensions. When Austria-Hungary annexed with Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia grew resentful as they wanted the territory for themselves and became openly hostile to Austria-Hungary.
• One of the consequences and aftermath of September 11 terrorist attacks is by the early 21st century many have concluded that Islam and Muslims are unreceptive and hostile to Westernization through its values, perspectives, practices and institutions. Huntington’s theory about civilizations and their inevitable clash was under the spotlight again and the rhetoric about the crusades brought back to life by the two supposedly clashing civilizations. • The essay will try to refute the belief that a Clash of Civilizations is indeed an accurate description of the modern conflicts between Islam and the West. This will be achieved through examining the post-Cold War relationship between the West and the Islamic world up till now, highlighting
Linklater’s view is that knowledge can be the basis for ‘unsatisfactory social arrangements’ (Linklater in Smith, Booth, and Zalewski, 1996, p.279), so, through the assessment of this knowledge, the roles can be reversed (so to say), and intellect and insight can be used to advance society. While this idea seems to lack a clear plan of action and leaves us wondering how exactly one would go about nurturing such ideas, it is still an important conversation point in Critical Theory discourse. A final Critical Theorist examined in terms of what they contributed to the conversation on Critical Theory is Robert Cox. Cox has famously said ‘theory is always for someone and for some purpose’ (Burchill, Linklater, and Devetak, 2009, p.163). He denies that facts and values can be separated, as followers of Problem-Solving-Theory would claim.
Sean Ryer Examining the Effectiveness of Conflict and Crisis Prevention Strategies The 20th century saw the fall of great empires; The USSR, Japanese Empire, The Third Reich, all crumbled under the weight of the incoming new world. Links in this new world were no longer formed based on political or economic systems but rather in terms of their civilization and culture. The fault lines of conflict began to shift from a dichotomy between states to a dichotomy between cultures. We now see conflict between groups as the predominant influence behind global politics, however, the strategies utilised to manage these conflicts are outdated and ineffective. Modern crisis and conflict prevention strategies are useful primarily for interstate conflict,