The following assignment focuses on international relations. The assignment is divided into two parts. The first part deals with defining international relations and the impact of globalisation. The second part of the assignment elaborates on the theories of international relations.
BODY
PART 1
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
There are countless definitions of the term international relations subject to the context one would be referring to. We could say, according to Patrick McGowan , that international relations is the study of how authority and or power is used to organise and manage trans-border relations between actors, and how this contributes to the establishment, maintenance and transformation of order in the world system. (2006:13) we could
…show more content…
This affects me because I might be at a disadvantage with regards to perhaps my specific qualifications. I will not be paid my worth.
PART 2
THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Theories of International Relations are the formal academic results of the activity of thinking systematically about our assumptions concerning the cross- border interaction between actors, and the broader public-policy implications of these interactions. (Mc Gowan, 2006:27)
The theories are divided into three categories, namely, (1) Realism, (2) Idealism and (3) Marxism. These shall be discussed with relation to the following subcategories of the assumptions; (a) Anarchy, (b) Power, (c) Morality, (d) Role of States and (e) Continuity.
REALISM (Mc Gowan, 2006: 29-31)
Realists are also termed as the sceptics. They believe that the state 's main objective is to attain power and to maintain it.
ANARCHY
In terms of anarchy, the realists believe that states are selfish actors who seek to maximize their own interests at the expense of the other states. Realists believe that it is perfectly rational for states to look out for their own interests exclusively. They believe in the decentralisation of
Interestingly, Captain Kirk displayed examples of liberalism and realism simultaneously. It is these actions of the two warring enemies in which the conflict begins and appropriately ends. To move on, the theories of realism and liberalism must be expounded upon. Realism, as a theory, deals with how the world is perceived, and it predominantly focuses on the true nature of man. The state of the world is anarchy according to this theory.
Looking back over the development of the Security Studies field, there can be no doubt that the realist tradition has exercised enormous influence. Even the harshest of critics can acknowledge that with their focus on power, fear, and anarchy, realist theories have provided centrally important explanations for conflict and war (Williams, 2013). One interpretation of realism that is unbroken amongst most commentators of the theory is that realists are individuals that believe the State is the principle actor in international politics and that they are very concerned with the balance of power (Marsalis, 2013). They argue that all the State’s actions and choices are a reflection of the collective will of the people, which is also an argument
The theory unleashes such dynamic forces that from the time of its inception up till now it has governed the international system of the world however things one day itself fall apart. The Realists mark the State as the locus of different international circles and these sovereign states have vested interests which are always selfish. Realism is a heartless theory, man is not supposed to be selfish in the way exaggerated by the Realist thinker however [he] is a seeker of knowledge and what so ever he stumbles upon, he keeps
Worldview Analysis The primary tenets of education Colonial America, were first and foremost, to know God through reading His Word, followed by writing and arithmetic. The importance of the Christian Biblical Worldview were publicized through the establishment of the Massachusetts Law of 1642, which required that parents or guardians educate their children in principles of religion and the capital laws of the commonwealth. The shift in America education occurred during the social and intellectual movement of the 18th Century Enlightenment Period.
national politics Adam Watson’s Evolution of International Society gave a new dimension in the understanding of international relations (IR). He deeply studied comparatively the formation of international society and political community of the past which has evolved into the modern world system in his ‘Evolution of International Society’. Unlike Kenneth Waltz views of anarchy as the only system in IR, Watson says there are two systems viz. anarchy and hierarchy. In between these systems is the hegemony which defines the contemporary IR.
Idealists see realism as a set of assumptions about how and why states behave like they do, rather than a theory of foreign relations. They strongly criticise the realist thesis that the struggle for power and security is natural. They reject such a fatalistic orientation claiming that power is not natural, and simply a temporary phase of human history. They believe that by adhering completely and consciously to moral values moral values in behaviour, power struggle and war can be eliminated.
In practice, that is to say, this essay will first and foremost explain what is meant by Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism. It will then hone in on a similarity of crucial importance, namely that both are in agreement that the international system is structured anarchically. The rationale behind this is twofold: firstly, anarchy lays the foundations upon which both theories are built and, secondly, it is from this similarity that fundamental points of contention come to light. For example, although there is consensus that the international system is structured anarchically, neo-realists and neoliberals hold differing views on the nature of anarchy: the former argues that anarchy is all-encompassing whereas the latter contends that
The current work is meant to explain the differences and similarities between the most dominant theories in international relations, Realism and Liberalism, both theories have some similarities and differences but much more important and interesting is to discuss and explain what differs and makes similar both theories. Conflicts and wars, Similarities and differences between Realism and Liberalism: Both Liberalism and Realism believes that there is no world government that can prevent countries to go to war on one another. For both theories military power is important and both Realism and Liberalism can understand that countries can use military power to get what they need or want. Also, both theories are conscious that without military
Constructivists reject such a one-sided material focus. They argue that the most important aspect of international relations is social, not material. Constructivists have demonstrated that ‘ideas matter’ in international relations. They have shown that culture and identity help define the interests and constitute the actors in IR. All students of IR should be familiar with the important debates raised by constructivists, about basic social theory and about the different ways in which ideas can matter in international relations.
The factors that I will look at are: the state of anarchy, an overarching regulatory body, their main objective, ranking and sovereignty. This is by no means an exhaustive list. By the end, I will strive to determine whether this analogy is accurate and, if it is, to what extent. Kenneth Waltz is the father of neorealism. His book, Theory of International Politics, departs from the classical and neoclassical realism theories.
Therefore, it provides differences between the status quo power and progressive states, while maintaining and emphasizing the importance of government at the same time. In contrary, Structural Realism is more concerned on ensuring their survival, by seeking and maintaining that power. Structural Realism would treat states as they are black boxes: they are assumed to be alike (Mearsheimer). Furthermore, Classical Realism and Structural Realism differ in their views of interconnection in international politics, fundamentally what causes the observed outcomes in relations among states. Classical Realists believe that the international world is one of interacting states, and causes run in one direction.
(Slaughter, 2011) This means that all states do not have the same goals based on selfish interests but that a state will relate with another state based on its internal norms and culture. Basically, idealists believe that the human nature is not inherently bad and that states are capable of cooperating to the extent of forgoing their personal interests in order to
Actors have interests; while realists such as Machiavelli insist the state is the only unit of analysis necessary in international politics, idealists argue that just as states have interests, people in government have interests as well. Therefore, Realism and Idealism begin their assessment of actors from two different perspectives, however, both schools of thought go on to identify many characteristics of actors which are largely similar. For both realists and idealists, actors are autonomous; they exist independently and retain sovereign rights over material and non-material resources. In both Realism and Idealism actors are said to possess prioritized interests and preferences.
(1959) argued that, the study of international relations in the newly founded Soviet Union and later in communist China was stultified by officially imposed Marxist ideology, in the West the field flourished as the result of a number of factors: a growing demand to find less-dangerous and more-effective means of conducting relations between peoples, societies, governments, and economies; a surge of writing and research inspired by the belief that systematic observation and inquiry could dispel ignorance and serve human betterment; and the popularization of political affairs, including foreign affairs. Edward H. (1939) argued that, the international relations among other roles also it promotes the improvement of global economic governance and cooperation among emerging markets. The countries raise the voice and representativeness of developing countries in global economic
He identifies issues as to why there is a lack of coherency and understanding in the history of the field and provide answers to his opposing questions. Schmidt perceives there to be too much emphasis of the present times of the discipline and as a result, the fields history is becoming distorted by those who only seek out particular points in history to support their theory. He finally not only was able to address and effectively restate the events of the Great Debates, but makes light of the complications that quietly surround these debates. In all, Schmidt’s chapter raises the complex and hard to grasp issues of the field, but provides answers and different opinions in order to expand further thinking of the field of International