Protectionism is coming to us from all directions, and numerous nations are using both direct and indirect barriers to trade, as when they require to do so. What economists mostly talk about are the threats of protectionism, rather than its benefits and how protectionism isn’t a long term solution. By now we have understood that protectionism, whether we like it or not, is used in certain economic situation by every other country, but it shouldn’t be seen as a permanent solution. Protectionism is a superficially convincing concept, because we can immediately point out the number of jobs saved, lesser no of imports etc. but it slightly more difficult to see the benefits of free trade in numbers, but one country’s protectionist policies will not just hurt their trading countries exports.
It is a form of imperialism and is distinguished by settlement and economic domination. This was the period of rule when countries were colonizing although not still happening today, the effects are still being felt. Thus, there are certain ramifications that remain from the colonial era. Including the tendency of international relations to focus mainly on the opinions, view and theories of the great powers often times leaving out the views’ and accounts from other political environments. Looking at a one side view of history will leave gaps in views and understandings and one may be at risk of (1) not acquiring a practical perspective of the world and (2) knowledge may be
“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.
It is a form of imperialism and is distinguished by settlement and economic domination. This was the period of rule when countries were colonizing although not still happening today, the effects are still being felt. Thus, there are certain ramifications that remain from the colonial era. Including the tendency of international relations to focus mainly on the opinions, view and theories of the great powers often times leaving out the views’ and accounts from other political environments. Looking at a one side view of history will leave gaps in views and understandings and one may be at risk of (1) not acquiring a practical perspective of the world and (2) knowledge may be limited.
It is my personal opinion that even though, through international cooperation these problems would be much easier addressed, the objectives of international cooperation either multilaterally or through institutionalization is rather difficult. What I mean is that cooperation and specifically effective cooperation is something hard to achieve among states especially when interests are at stake. If indeed the answer to these problems lies in global governance is something yet to be seen in a concrete way. Many attempts have happened until now for both the climate change issues and the migration issues but in climate change at least so far there has been no substantial positive outcome in the international cooperation. Enhancement of the current international organizations in migration or discussions for the creation of a new world migration organization in the form of the WTO should be next in the agenda for migration and as for climate change, the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris will shed light on the future of the problem with the new much wanted and needed agreement for the following years on gas emission
Neoliberalist and neorealist both recognized that international regimes and institutions are overabundance. Neorealist wanted to lessen the roles of institutional and international regimes. For neoliberal, international regimes and institutions are significant to world politics, however neorealist believed that neoliberal exaggerate the extent of
The Marshall Plan, according to many researchers, is a practical embodiment of the Truman Doctrine. Due to limited resources, interference in other regions, even if covered by the Truman Doctrine, was considered undesirable because China and Palestine were less important than the restoration of Europe. In addition, at this time, the Truman Administration is moving away from the doctrine of containing communism and moving on to a strategy of containing the Soviet Union. This was also part of the strategy in
The next chapter presents the main empirical findings pertaining to the three indicators mentioned above in order to find out the answer to the research question. The paper ends with a conclusion which summarizes the main points discussed,
Some of the prominent ones are Traditionalism vs. Science, Traditional vs. Critical theory, domestic vs. international, east vs. west, Orient vs. Occident, First World vs. Third World, developed vs. developing, core vs. periphery, North vs. South and others. While there have been numerous studies on dichotomies (Gusfield 1967; Keohane 1998; Tickner 1997; Mudimbe-Boyi 2002; Newell 2005; Eckl and Weber 2007), majority of writings critique dichotomies for the negligence of the complexities of world politics which it tends to generalise in simple dualistic levels of abstractions. However, it is to be noted that despite its serious fallacies, scholars uses dichotomies, knowingly or unknowingly, in some form or the other. Study on dichotomy has not been fair to dichotomies, in the sense that none of the studies so far has come up with even one virtue of dichotomy despite its habitual use. Studies on dichotomies begin with criticism and suggest an outright rejection of its use or at least suggest de-dichotomisation.
In the study of international relations, theories have taken on anextensive range of origins.Some surface from within the discipline of international relations itself while others have been introduced from other disciplines such as economics, history, philosophy or sociology. Many international relations assumptions, theories and approachesare both externally and internally contested by scholars. Few are the scholarswho only believe in one single approach.International relations theories can be divided into two broad categories. The first as being Positivist/Rationalist theories (include Realism and Liberalism) which focus on a predominantly state-level analysis, and the second being Post-Positivist/Reflectivisttheories (include Constructivism