Numerous institutional cosmopolitanism theorists approach EU as an ideal institutional organization and consider its principles worth extending to the global level. Current globalization process results in merging humanity in one big community,
New cosmopolitanism Cosmopolitanism, in international relations, school of thought in which the essence of international society is defined in terms of social bonds that link people, communities, and societies. The term cosmopolitanism is derived from the Greek cosmopolis. It refers to a cluster of ideas and schools of thought that sees a natural order in the universe (the cosmos) reflected in human society, particularly in the polis, or city-state. More broadly, it presents a political-moral philosophy that posits people as citizens of the world rather than of a particular nation-state. (kleingeld,2013) World Society => focuses on individuals, non-governmental organization (NGO), and the global population as a focus of identity and setting the world community, as well as placing transcendent of the state system in the middle of International Relations Theory.
Shifting dynamics caused by globalization and interdependency has created new sets of actors and mechanisms of exercising power that are not encompassed within the traditional, mainstream theories of International Relations. To account for these deficiencies in traditional IR theories, “non-Western” approaches to International Relations possess significant potential to add additional perspectives. Neo-Gramscianism offers an excellent example to portray the shortcomings of mainstream theoretical approaches; the nature of hegemony, the centrality of the state, and development of a transnational class of elites all prove the utility of neo-Gramscianism to the field of International Relations. Despite the fact that Antonio Gramsci rarely discussed International Relations directly, his intellectual framework has inspired critical theorists in the discipline. The little that Gramsci did mention regarded his perception of International Relations as a direct subset of social relations, and so any developments in social structure would naturally impact the nature of relations amongst states.1 Neo-Gramscian theory places particular emphasis on the historical contextualization of events, in contrast to the traditional IR paradigm that modern events are capable of being analyzed in isolation from their historical elements.
Brad Conley Prof. Greg Young IAFS 1000-1004 Though the international system today shares many aspects of realism, neoliberalism, constructivism, and marxism, neoliberalism is the predominant principles under which the international system operates. With the formation of several influential international governmental organizations (IGOs), the world has become a much safer place. Though neoliberal ideas draw from realism in the fact that the international system is in anarchy, neoliberalism dictates that the world is in a form of structured anarchy, perpetuated by the IGOs that governments partake in. By strengthening webs of interdependence, countries find the ability to interact amicably, and build up reliance upon one another. As countries
The Orientalist approach to Islam From the start, Orientalists have viewed Islam in two approaches. First, because it had borrowed liberally from Abrahamic (Judaeo-Christian) traditions, Islam become considered to be a crude parody of Christianity. second, Islam become appeared upon as an alien menace which traditionally had large army and political success during the world, and therefore become a danger to Western civilization. In Orientalism, Islam first had to be positioned within the realm of Western know-how with appreciate to Christian principles in preference to seemed on its own phrases. One way of accomplishing this become to make analogies between Christian religions and Islam.
The post-world war era created an atmosphere of caution regarding individual states in an international system dominated by realist rationale. Thus, based on functionalist principles it was believed that a United Europe was a more acceptable and viable alternative. It was believed that the international system would be more functional with organizations directed at collectively addressing functional needs rather than the realist orientation of each State for itself. This, however, did not materialize until the formation of the European Union (EU) in 1958 and arose out of the functionalist school of thought. The basis of Functionalism as a body of thought in International Relations is credited to David Mitrany (1888-1975) (Griffiths, 2013).
Universalism offered a core of ‘human-nature’ which threatened to homogenise diverse African societies (Zechenter, 1997). Universalism took decision making away from cultural groups shifting the defensibility of practices from within the framework of the community (internal judgements), to using international or external judgements (Donnelly, 1984). International standards are particularly criticised for an over focus on the individual rather than the group (Charters, 2003). In defence of universalism, Zechenter (1997), showed that universalism protests the group indirectly by attending to the needs of the individual. Feminists are in favour of universal standards of human rights as pre-colonial villages, Native American tribes and traditional Islamic social systems have disproportionate power balances between men and women (Donnelly,
It also lacks coherence and the academic community itself. The school of thought also attempted to create a universal system, which in theory, is not efficient when addressing real world problems and providing real pictures. Criticism Developmentalism is a school of thought that based on “neo-colonialism” belief, which allows established economies or nations to colonize those nations that are backward or underdeveloped. This has been witnessed throughout history that such dominance over the weak is never stable and always wreaks havoc and conflict among nations. It also implies Western supremacy over underdeveloped nations, which is not morally and ethically correct as all human beings have equal rights and no nation must be claimed superior to another.
New theoretical model The new theoretical model draws its main assumptions from the liberal theory of international relations, or the new liberalism, as it was labelled by Moravcsik (Moravcsik 1997; Moravcsik 2009), which was challenged by other scholars, as described by (Hasenclever (2017, 77). Thus, it is assumed that inner state actors play the crucial role of preference creation, and that cooperation at the international level is possible. Moravcsik has identified three main assumptions of the liberal theory of international relations. The first one is that individuals and private groups are fundamental actors in international politics “in which the demands of individuals and societal groups are treated as analytically prior to politics”
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