The current work is meant to explain the differences and similarities between the most dominant theories in international relations, Realism and Liberalism, both theories have some similarities and differences but much more important and interesting is to discuss and explain what differs and makes similar both theories.
More than 50 years of a diplomatic isolation, a closed door and a completely black out scenario initiated by the United States former president Dwight D. Eisenhower as he ordered for a termination of all diplomatic ties with Cuba. Clearly, the increasing closeness of Cuba with a communist state posed a threat to the United States interest thereby prompting a due response through series of unsuccessful attempts to topple Fidel Castro’s government – Bay of Pigs and Operation Mongoose amongst others. The Installation of missiles in Cuba as requested by Fidel Castro by the Soviet Union further caused more damage to an already dysfunctional relationship. This paper won’t be focused on establishing a new ideology to the issue rather, building on scholarly works. The research is aimed at examining the ties between the United States and Cuba as it relates to a typical North-South relation, how this relationship has evolved, a need for a rapprochement, and an analysis of a possibility in a transition from a North-South relationship to a partnership in regards to the unfolding of
In International Relations, various theoretical perspectives are employed to provide a clear framework for the analysis of complex international relationships. One key concept that scholars have strived to fully analyze is “anarchy” and its significance within the International System. Anarchy, as defined by many IR scholars, is the lack of an overarching authority that helps govern the international system. (Class Notes, January 29). Its importance and power to dictate actions between states is often debated and various theories have been used to describe its significance. A realist theory would suggest that states are the only relevant actors in international politics. Realists believe that since there is no central authority to govern these
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK It involves using theories to explain the existing problem in various situations. Realism theory and the dependency theory will be used to explain the existing conflict between Israel and Palestine. It will also be able to justify the use of force by the Israeli government when dealing with Palestinian Hamas. Realism theory in the Israeli and Palestine conflict Realism theory explains how states are selfish, struggle to gain power and succeed in acquiring its national interests in the international system. Realists identify world politics as a trans-historical and trans-geographical struggle for power, and that in this context Thucydides’ dictum that, “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept” (where strength and weakness are calculated by military capabilities) is the stark and universal truth (Schmidt, 2007; Thucydides, 1972, p. 402).
Classical realism and structural realism are both theories of International Relations, therefore huge differences are noticed in between those two. The main difference lies in the motivation to power, which is seen differently by both theories. Classical realism is concentrated in the desire of power- influence, control and dominance as basic to human nature. Whereas, structural realism is focused on the international system anarchic structure and how the great powers behave. Classical realists believe that power is related to human nature, thus their analysis of individuals and states is similar.
Even though, seventy years have passed, the background of the World War 2 gives a concern about the possibility of another World War might arise. So the anniversary of the World War 2 can’t be commemorated having the meaning of ‘the end’ of the war, but with a meaning of a ‘pause.’ To make this World War 2 as the last Great War, UN should keep watch on countries’ relationships with another to avoid them crashing against each other. Also, the country should develop its national power, so that they can manipulate other countries that are planning to start a
Assess the claim that Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism have far more similarities than differences. Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism, two of the most influential contemporary approaches to international relations, although similar in some respects, differ multitudinously. Thus, this essay will argue it is inaccurate to claim that Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism have far more similarities than differences. On the contrary, it will contend that there are, in an actual fact, more of the latter than there are of the former on, for example, the nature and consequences of anarchy, the achievement of international cooperation, and the role of international institutions. Moreover, it will be structured in such a way so as to corroborate this line of argument.
Firstly, Cuba and the Soviets already had a very bad relationship with the United States. Research shows that, “Another key factor in the Soviet missile scheme was the hostile relationship between the United States and Cuba.” (“Cuban Missile Crisis”) The quote makes the statement in the second sentence true. The United States did not agree on how the government in Cuba was run and tried to overthrow it before but did not win.
This means there is no term mentioned as an International Organization but merely the State. Realism also believes the State is deciding on the future of the people. In connection with it, the state is certainly confident that whatever actions are correct and appropriate, even if it is done by means
Looking back over the development of the Security Studies field, there can be no doubt that the realist tradition has exercised enormous influence. Even the harshest of critics can acknowledge that with their focus on power, fear, and anarchy, realist theories have provided centrally important explanations for conflict and war (Williams, 2013). One interpretation of realism that is unbroken amongst most commentators of the theory is that realists are individuals that believe the State is the principle actor in international politics and that they are very concerned with the balance of power (Marsalis, 2013). They argue that all the State’s actions and choices are a reflection of the collective will of the people, which is also an argument
national politics Adam Watson’s Evolution of International Society gave a new dimension in the understanding of international relations (IR). He deeply studied comparatively the formation of international society and political community of the past which has evolved into the modern world system in his ‘Evolution of International Society’. Unlike Kenneth Waltz views of anarchy as the only system in IR, Watson says there are two systems viz. anarchy and hierarchy. In between these systems is the hegemony which defines the contemporary IR.
Through examination of current and past textbooks, and comparing how they describe what caused America’s involvement in Cuba, one can be seen how America has slowly come to terms with its imperialistic past. Shortly following the Spanish American War, Americans chose to overlook the mistakes their country had made during the war. They insistently held on to their belief that America was the heroic force of the war, freeing defenseless Cubans from the oppressive rule of Spain.
The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939: An Introduction to the study of International Relations, the book for which E.H. Carr is perhaps most remembered was written just prior to the outbreak of World War Two (WWII). This particular work of Carr’s is primarily a study of the fundamentals of International Relations, which is exemplified especially by the events of the two decades before 1939, the year the book was published. In the Twenty Years Crisis, E.H. Carr explores the interplay of the worldview between Utopians and Realists. Carr’s work examines why the League of Nations and the peace as implemented by the Treaty of Versailles failed, ultimately resulting in WWII.
When examining history, there are many “lenses” through which one can view events that have made significant impacts in the field of international relations. During an address to the Carnegie Council on his book, How War Ends, Gideon Rose makes a bold claim that although the United States has been militarily successful in most of the conflicts in the past century, poor planning and incomplete identification of political goals and agendas by political leaders have lead to “botched” efforts in these endeavors and have ultimately led to prolonged conflicts and presence in foreign countries. Although Rose mentions many examples, his focus was on the war in Iraq and the regime change that occurred there due to US military intervention. While, listening