Even defensively motivated efforts by states to provide for their own security through armaments, alliances, and deterrent threats are often perceived as threatening and lead to counter-actions and conflict spirals that are difficult to reverse.” This is exactly what happened in WWI. Even the defensive actions of Britain and France to maintain the status quo were misinterpreted as offensive actions, which reinforced the security dilemma. At its core, the realist theory argues that the distribution of power within a system, and the actions taken to balance this power, is the primary factor in shaping international
It is heavily influenced from the Groation tradition. According to this perspective, regimes are much more pervasive and exist in all areas of international relations. Contrary to the conventional structure and modified structural, this viewpoint moves away from realist thinking as it is “too limited to explain an increasingly complex, interdependent, and complex world.” This approach rejects the assumption that the international system is comprised of states and the balance of power is solely due to force. Rather, it argues that elites are the principal actors and that they have national and transnational ties. 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”.
Introduction The balance of power has helped statesmen to maneuver their national policy in such a way so as to secure the independence and national interests of their states and as such the theory of balance of power is considered to be of vital importance in international relations. International relation is, as viewed by the realist school of thought, characterized by ineluctable clashes amongst nation states seeking to maintain their sovereignty and augment their power and wealth. Most realists harbor the opinion that the states interest is to accrue as much as power as
Latham also quotes that the USA had a power and obligation that could change the course of the world, considering that “their society stood at history’s leading edge” (p. 4) and that “the United States had a unique, global mission to transform the world into its own image” (p. 182). In fact, it was intellectuals such as Rostow and Pye that postulated for a foreign policy rooted in modernization theory so as to bring the postcolonial countries in the developing world onto a level similar to that in the West. In this period, Latham states that “planning, development, and foreign assistance could become key elements in a broad strategy to steer nationalist forces toward liberal capitalism” (p. 57). The belief was that said development and planning would allow for
This core concern led to other apparent reasons such as the national security against the Soviet expansion. “the Cold War was no more than a mixture of religious crusades in favour of one ideology or the other, and of the most ruthless power politics, striking out for advantage or expansion not only in Europe but all over the world” (Larkin, P132). Therefore, if we consider the time line at that period, the great powers structure and international relations, we can conclude that the actions following to World War II such as the deviations in the global centers of power, the arms industry, the role of political authority inside and amongst states, the unstable economy, and relations between the developed and developing nations, unavoidably led to the Cold War. So, the elements for a Cold War occurred long before 1945. To condense my answer, there is not single certain cause or era of the Cold War, thus the inescapability of the Cold War shows a multifaceted argument.
In the context of developing countries, the amount of “force” exerted or exercised could be a function of the resistance put up by the developing countries, which in turn depends on the resources it possesses. It also depends on how critical the outcome required is to the interest of the wielder of the external force. If it is critical, the wielder will most likely increase the strength of the force. The “criticalness” is generally strategic in nature. This latter aspect could be economic, geopolitical, or political.
In an increasingly complex world, new actor in international relationships emerges. At the beginning of the emergence of the main actor who plays the role is the State. But the State is no longer called dominant, but still a major actor among other influential actors. Each actor has its own impact in international relations because a State is the supreme power holder (Liberalism / Idealism) that the State plays a dominant role to do good cooperation between countries and is expected to create world peace. Requirement of sovereignty of a country among which must have the people, must have the territory, have the government, and recognized the independence by other countries in the world.
Tim Dunne’s article laid out the emergence and the very core and context of the English School of international relations theory. It discusses the main proponents of this school of thought and gave an extensive discussion of international society and how this is fundamental in our understanding of contemporary world politics. The English School of international relations conceptualized the central idea of society of states at the international level. This theory does not complete reject realism and its concept that international system is characterized only by anarchy, but instead, it provides an argument that while anarchy exist, there can still be cooperation among states. Ergo, the international society of states.
State identities and interests are a major part produced by these social structures, rather than generated exogenously to the system by human nature or national politics. Social constructivism focuses principally on human awareness or consciousness and its place in the world affairs. Constructivism is in itself materialist, concentrating on the distribution of material forces, together with defining levels of power between states along with producing various explanations in the behavioral frame of the states. Constructivists have stated that the reality that encompasses us is not in itself an outcome of the objective forces but is the result of one of our shared perceptions, ideas, social values and understanding. The state and the inter-state systems are both artificial forms, that means that they are produced by people, and they can be modified and developed in different forms in extraordinary cases leading to anarchy and a huge security dilemma.
It places the greatest importance not on state actors, but on the institutions and norms that exist in the international system (Karns, p. 59). Unlike Realism, Social Constructivism suggests that interests and identities of states can in fact change and are not assumed to be fixed. For example, the institution of state sovereignty is important, but the idea of what sovereignty is has changed as the social beliefs, cultural, and norms of states change (Karns, p. 59). According to this theory, the greatest means to affect these kinds of socially constructed changes is through multilateralism. Also in contrast to Realism, Social Constructivism purposes that IGOs have actual power, and their power comes not from their need to enforce authority, but their ability to act impartially as vessels for cooperation, and as actors that can teach and create new norms (Karns, p.