Is the National Interest conceptually useful in explaining foreign policy priorities or is it simply a cynical tool for politician’s self-serving interests?
Yes, national interest is conceptually useful in explaining foreign policy priorities even though at times there has been instances where it has been manipulated to serve the self-serving interest of politicians. The concept is valuable as it enables us a glimpse of what influences state behaviours. This information is essential as a state is motivated it to act and react in accordance to its interests. Its national interest may also be a precursor to a state’s demeanour during a negotiation and guide others on how best to engage with it in order to gain a favourable outcome.
…show more content…
It also lends itself for re-interpretation by any statesman who needs to tap on the emotions of citizens and/or as a means of legalising his actions or policies.
1.3 Importance of the concept National – creating impressions
What use is the concept of national interest then if it is easily maneuvered to fit into the aspirations of those in power? I argue that the concept of national interests still retains its significance for states as a form of precursor of behaviour during collaboration. This is because the interests of a state forms its identity and with that it is able to present itself in a coherent and predictable manner to the other party.
A state tends to react on issues its presented with in a positive or negative manner based on its claimed interests. Thus no matter how problematic the concept of national interest is, it is still a very important and relevant one. As it would able to give the various actors that the state come into contact with a form of guideline or decorum when dealing with the state. It also gives the citizens a goal or an objective that they can identify with to create a cohesive society – a national
…show more content…
However having a clear national interest is important to any state to have as a facade for interaction with other states. This is because when national interest is aligned to the collective wants of the people, the government gains the support and trust of the people. In such cases national interest becomes the best concept in explaining foreign policy priorities, as it is reflective of the wants of the people that the government is meant to serve. Hence using it, as a tool to prioritise foreign policy is a good idea as it aligns the needs of the people with policy
In my personal and (hopefully) educated opinion, I believe that the national government should look to states when considering national policy. As examined in the 1932 case New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, the United States Supreme Court found that a state may act as a testing ground for new policies as long as the citizens of that state choose to do so. The benefit of this is that new social and economic legislation can be put into place and be studied without the rest of the nation being put at risk. The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides this opportunity by stating “all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
Because of this it was decided that the national government must be strengthened in order to develop uniform economic policies and protect property owners from infringements on their rights by local majorities
Although these are the duties of the national government to the state government this relationship is not always entirely clear, of current that national government has a lot more power and authority of the states government. Also it can be interpreted that the national government is supposed to deal with issues on a grander scale while the state governments are supposed to deal with more local issues. Another reason why the obligations the national government has to the states is not always clear is because it says that the national government should protect states from internal discourse which is extremely vague as to what internal discourse or “domestic violence”, whether this means violence within the state or violence between states it is unclear, and could be interpreted multiple ways in order for the national government to gain more power. A way to make this clearer would be for a change in Article 4, Section 4 that states what “domestic violence” is so that there is a formal definition regarding states as to what the duty of the national government is regarding internal discourse. Although this Section defines the relationship that the
The national and state government both have power which the people can appoint to represent them. It imposes laws to keep corruption and illegal behavior from those that can hurt citizens. Under the constitution we have checks and balances. It distributes power onto the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative so no one is more powerful than the other. Our government has created laws to keep peace and order within its borders.
Both nationalism and sectionalism emerged after the War of 1812. Nationalism grew in the United States because of the victory at New Orleans. Americans were proud to be called Americans. America might have seemed like they were united; however, they were divided also by a growing belief of sectionalism. Sectionalism spread like a disease, affecting the minds of Americans.
The Federalist wants the obligations by obtaining new money at a more lower interest rate. The next step in the plan is to create a national bank, which was based off after the Bank of England. The national bank that Hamilton’s plan to repay our debt is by making the bank be able to collect our taxes, and also the national bank should be able to store government funds, and be able to let the government borrow money to the government, which they will have to pay back eventually. Congress is not given but should have the power to create banks because the Constitution states that the federal government authority to do anything that is necessary to carry out the constitutional functions is extremely important. Hamilton's debt program will be a remarkable success, and if this plan is
Nationalism is the pride for one’s country, the love that one has for its country and it is the want for the good of all people in the nation. This love is not conditional, it does not depend on race religion or economic standing. When a leader is chosen, when a country is coming out of great national change, this requires a particularly strong leader who only wishes for their countries greatness and success in the future. However, this can quickly turn into ultranationalism, or expose ultranationalistic motives. The two concepts of one’s love for their country have similarities, one is formed from the other, or that each can be provokers of change in either direction in the political spectrum.
The Importance of the 1st Amendment In 1787 our founding fathers assembled the constitution of the United States of America. Of this which contains the most important document to the American citizen, the Bill of rights. The first Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” These freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights are often known as freedom of expression. These rights are most important to a truly free society. The first amendment provides us with new ideas and dismisses the fear of punishment
This country was founded with the attempt to separate the federal government and the state government, known as federalism. The goal of federalism is to divide the power of state and federal governments, protect the rights of the state, and prevent tyranny of the majority. Throughout the years, federalism turned into dual federalism where the state and federal government were completely independent of each other and only shared a dependency on the Constitution. The united states suppressing now to cooperative federalism, the national government has assumed even more power, overruling the states with Supreme Court decisions and actions, and executive Orders. Furthermore, the Federal government should grant their state governments more power, due to the connection the state governments hold with their local people.
I think the purpose of government is to make and enforce laws the main purpose of government is to protect it citizen. The purpose of government is to keep strict order and to stop is citizens from hurting one another. An effective system of government protection it citizens. The purpose of government is to ensure the safety of the nation and its resident. While other concerns such as economic growth are important, governments primary duty is keep people save.
The overall goal of the government should be the well-being and stability of the state. He states that leaders
An example Krasner gives is that the “statesmen nearly always perceive themselves as constrained by principles, norms, and rules that prescribe and proscribe varieties of behavior”. In short, regimes, not individual states, are fundamental to international relations, which seek to enhance their own national
To govern oneself as one wished is an attribute of independence. A sovereign state may not be disturbed by another state unless it has given the right to intervene. When a state attaches legal consequences to conduct in another state, it exercises control over that conduct, and when such control affects essential interests in the foreign state, it may constitute an interference with the sovereign rights of that foreign
This inaction by the decisions of a country influences people to deem their self interests more important than the unity and prosperity of the human race as a whole. Neutrality is a very hard decision and can have a number of different impacts both positive and negative, which is highly controversial but neutrality should not be used as a decision for a country.
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.