Realism is defined by Morgenthau as a school of thought that believes that human nature produces anarchy and that one must work within the system of anarchy in order to succeed on the international scale. Anarchy is the lack of order or hierarchy in a system and results in uncertainty of the roles and intentions of other actors. Morgenthau also defines Realism as a theory based in historical precedent, as opposed to theory or postulation, that uses case studies to predict future events. Power’s role in Realism, according to Morgenthau, is merely a sort of international equalizer with which nations can understand one another’s motivations. He places the interest of the state above any moral code and justifies any action necessary to ensure the survival of the state.
Albrow and King (1990) opined that globalization “includes all those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society". Similarly, Giddens (1990) states that "Globalization can thus be defined as the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa. From the foregoing definitions, it is deduced that globalization is a process in which the large world is treated as a
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.
The relationship between PR and culture as a topic provides a wide scope for analysis. The objective of this essay is to discover how public relations practitioners’ practices change when operating in a foreign culture, focusing on the methods of cross- cultural
Since International law has been the foothold of the International Arena, many problems apropos of its essentiality have risen. The applicability of it regarding the different issues on the relationship between states is now being challenged. Consequently, the nature of a state assesses the cooperation on international relations because each of them has something that they want and it is what we call self-interest. This essay aims to discuss how international law faces the current problems and how it affects the relations between the states by scrutinizing the context and issues behind it. It will also fare about the aforementioned argument as something we should know and recognize.
This approach contrasts with the positivism and constructivism, which consider the main approaches through "rejection of the separation of subject and object ... dialectic understanding and acceptance of reality as a dynamic totality and as a unity of opposites". The basic of the theory is its special view at hegemony. View of neo-Gramscians on the hegemony different from the realistic one. Realists consider hegemony as a "dominant power of the state (group of states)". Neo-Gramscians look at hegemony from the perspective of class relations.
To be an egoist is to put your own interests ahead of those of others. Gekko conjures the image of an egoist who is ruthless, unprincipled and inconsiderate. Some moral philosophers are praising virtues of egoism. Egoism could firstly be seen as a psychological fact and secondly an ethical ideal. Some may claim that egoism is a psychological fact and that deep down we are just selfish beings who acts to maximise our own interests.
Post structuralism is an approach attitude or ethos that pursues critique in particular ways. Because it understands critique as an operation that flushes out the assumptions through which conventional and dominant understandings have come to be. Post structuralism considered critique as an inherently positive exercise that establishes the conditions of possibility for pursuing alternatives. It is in this context that post structuralism make other theories of international relations one of its objects of analysis and approaches those paradigms with meta-theoretical question designed to expose how they are structured (Campbell, 2006:225)1. Post structuralism found itself marginalized within international relations, that is large because those critical of it have misunderstood many of its central claims and have been anxious about the effect of following its meta-theoretical questioning to its logical conclusion (Campbell, 2006:
Literatures on the study of dichotomy in International Relations critiques dichotomies for its simple dualistic abstraction of complex world politics. However, despite its serious fallacies, scholars and even critiques uses dichotomies, knowingly or unknowingly, in some form or the other. This research attempts to study the use of dichotomy in International Relations. In doing so, the study will apply Marcelo Dascal’s notion of “strategic argument” on dichotomy which sees dichotomy as a strategy used by contenders in a debate to resolve it in their favour. Here dichotomy becomes a constructed and contextual phenomenon rather than a semantic, realistic category.