Carl Schmitt’s claim that politics is fundamentally distinct from other spheres is persuasive on the premise that the core of politics consists on the friend/enemy theory with each side of the conflict posing a perceived existential threat of violence to one another. However, his argument is less persuasive when he uses this premise to critique liberalism because he does not provide an alternative solution to his criticism. Schmitt contends that, “the political must rest on its own ultimate distinction, [and] the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is between friend and enemy” (Schmitt 26). Schmitt defines a political or public enemy as a collective group that poses an existential threat of violence, “the real possibility of physical killing” (Schmitt 33). Therefore Schmitt contends the political cannot exist without violence, or the threat/possibility of violence.
Ammon rationalizes that the affairs of the ambassador were significant in the development of the political parties of the country. Ammon doesn’t just simply state that Genet was important in modern-day political parties, but that he was also a stepping-stone that brought organized political party ideas into the open public for debate and controversy. While this idea serves as the author’s primary thesis of his book, Ammon additionally hints at how Genet’s mission was an influence on the formation
The Vietnam War and Iraq War were profoundly different, both in the manner in which they were executed and their outcomes, yet each war can attribute its escalation to a historical analogy among other factors. Historical analogies are utilized in making foreign policy decisions because of the psychological concept of heuristics. Simply put, a heuristic is a mental shortcut that allows people, and in this case political leaders, to solve problems and make quick and efficient judgments. Yuen Foong Khong offers that historical analogies are endearing for policy makers because they help in explaining new situations in terms that one can understand and are capable of predicating what is likely to occur (Khong). In both the Vietnam and Iraq Wars,
Nationalism is a shared group feeling in the significance of a geographical and sometimes demographic region seeking independence. We wouldn’t be America if it wasn’t for Britain taxing our fore fathers to the point of revolution. In conclusion, Imperialism is still not as good as other options for foreign policy. Though the failures are numerous, Imperialism has just as many benefits. Learn from Britain’s mistakes and maybe your Imperialistic foreign policy might actually work out.
Nationalism is about having the greater love, pride for one’s state, its about loyalty and devotion to the shared cause of nation building. For the most part of early nineteenth century it played a uniting role in European politics which gave them some form of stability and common cause to fight for. So, when the fervor of nationalism crosses that invisible line then it leads to Imperialism. Imperialism is about forcing other people, foreign territory into subjugation who are different. Japanese attack on China and Korea before and during second world war was a form of Imperialism.
As the famous saying goes, “The strong do what they will while the weak do what they must," so let it be with the counties of the world and the role they play in International Politics. Eurocentrism is a concept that places Europe at the centre of the world. Assuming that it is self containing and self representing, the entire world is looked at with Europe at the centre. Eurocentrism bias leads to an illogical understanding of International Relations and makes politics and judgement to incline in the favour of the powerful. In this essay, I will critique the Eurocentric nature of International Relations theory and world politics.
In Stephen D. Krasner’s, “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables,” he defines what regimes are in relation to international politics as well as ascertaining their significance. Krasner compares and contrasts multiple scholarly viewpoints to determine if regimes have a noteworthy impact on international relations. Furthermore, he discusses the different building blocks for which regime development is built on. Krasner defines regimes as “sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations.” Principles are the foundation of a regime and are statements about how the world should work. The second, norms, are standards or guidelines of behavior.
Then, it will briefly discuss the reciprocal connection between propaganda and the history of international communication. Propaganda and politics are interrelated. Politics often require the use of propaganda to reinforce its legitimacy and achieve its purpose; similarly, propaganda may affect political situation by shifting public opinion. As an outline of how propaganda can be exploited as a political tool, one might consider the following scenario. When the government wants to achieve its ideal of certain policy, it might use messages that give positive light to this policy.
But, tension and clashes do not mean antagonism. The British indeed took advantage of the fissures that were already present in the Indian society and attempted to create antagonism. During the British colonial rule, religion was never the only reason for the communal issues in India or the tensions between Hindus and Muslims, but also, favouritism and communal elections and economic status, which were in a way or another aggravated by the British. We can say that there is indeed some truth in what Sir S.A Khan said. Hindus and Muslims could not sit on the same throne at that time but they would the least want the British to sit on the throne and rule over
This essay is an analysis of the theory of Idealism and whether or not its application in modern international politics is capable of working successfully to solve the common goods problem. The Theory of Idealism Idealism is one of the major theories in international relations. “The basic insight of this theory is that the national characteristics of individual States matter for their international relations.” (Slaughter, 2011) This means that all states do not have the same goals based on selfish interests but that a state will relate with another state based on its internal norms and culture. Basically, idealists believe that the human nature is not inherently bad and that states are capable of cooperating to the extent of forgoing their personal interests in order to