Introduction
Different approaches attempt to explain the reasons of conflict and war in International Relations theory; most of them are related to power, ethnicity, self-interest, or “clash of civilizations”. Unlike power that seeks specifics of conflicts among nations; ethnicity explores the culture-based diversity between nations. The diversity between states might suggest that the states are not guided by principles but rather cultural factors. A number of international relations scholars have formulated discourse about the role of culture in conflict between states, however Samuel P. Huntington’s work on “The Clash of Civilizations?” published in Foreign Affairs of Summer 1993; is the main focus of this paper. Through his work, Huntington has made a significant contribution in shaping the theories of international relations. The aim of this article review is to critically analyze the arguments presented in Huntington’s work. Drawing from Huntington’s primary notion that the prime reason for international conflict is mainly due to
…show more content…
His work challenges the fundamental realist idea that the world politics is driven by the state’s desire for power and security. He further asserts that this need to balance the power of other powerful states is the main reason leading to warfare among states is rather invalid. Thus, the theme of his work was that the most intense international warfare in the post-cold war was mainly due cultural, religious and civilizational factors. In other words, the international conflict post cold war would not be leaded by tensions between states, but rather clash between Western civilization and other (Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and African) civilization because these civilizations as the author asserts possess a challenge to the Western values and
While claiming to bring civilization to the untamed wilds , conflict in the Americas didn’t end as the Europeans created their empires. With new and growing territories, came new and growing tensions between neighboring powers, and these tensions often ignited into international conflicts. In these conflicts the
This essay argues that states that are ethnically and culturally similar are more likely to engage in conflicts over
To some people, this article would be considered as balanced and unbiased. Hence the author was successful in presenting his points. His choice of words was neutral and peaceful, his suggestions were presented without verbally insulting civilizations. His research scope solemnly depends
For Mearsheimer, this is the very basis of realistic thinking and in turn equates international order to anarchy. 2. Great powers maintain and continue to acquire militaristic capabilities in order to eradicate the idea of weakness and establish sovereignty over lesser powers. 3. A country can never be sure of another country’s motive hence each party is left
The first great-war shattered the human mind so profound that out of its aftermaths’ emerged a fresh discipline (in 1919 at the University of Whales known to us as International Relations) proposed to prevent war. “It was deemed by the scholars that the study of International Politics shall find the root cause of the worlds political problems and put forward solutions to help politicians solve them” (Baylis 2014:03). International Relations happened to play the role of a ‘correcting-mechanism’ restoring the world order of peace and amity by efforting at its best to maintain the worlds’ status quo. However with the emergence of a second world war much more massive that the first put at stake all the values of that young discipline of IR. The
Throughout Chapter five of her book Shadows of War, Carolyn Nordstrom shares her views on war in terms of social, physical and mental goals and punishes of such violence. To begin, one of the first goals of war as defined by Nordstrom is a direct result of a threat of loss of control. She explains that it is common for one military to feel the need to destroy another when their control over a certain (land area owned or controlled by someone) is under threat (56). An interesting point that Nordstrom makes is relating to/about (community of people/all good people in the world)'s do not tell the difference between the existence of different violences. As stated by Nordstrom, most people will naturally tell/show the difference between different wars; however, very few tell/show the difference between the experience of violence throughout such wars (57).
On the political side, European countries had heavy influence amongst politicians or rulers of African and Asian countries. In most cases, Europeans ruled their colonies with the help of, and sometimes completely through, intermediaries and collaborators. Because of their small numbers relative to local populations, most European colonizers resorted to indirect rule, relying on the governments that were already there but exerting control over their leaders. Now, this isn’t to say that indigenous rulers were simply puppets; often they retained real power. This was certainly true in India, where more than a third of the territory was ruled by Indian princes.
So countries need to assess national interests, whether to cooperate or not. Constructivism also emphasizes the influence of culture in international relations. This is because the relationship is true not only taking into account the political and ideological aspects alone, but also the cultural aspects. For example, if there are cultural similarities between actors will be more likely to facilitate collaboration and no conflicts will occur. This can be seen through the relationship between Malaysia and Indonesia that have a similar culture, namely the cultural and religious expression of Islam.
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.
The world in which Carr knew and wrote this book about may have change greatly, however I think one can say the world is once again experiencing s transitional moment where answers no longer suffice, and affirming this books continued relevance. To conclude, the book shows us how Carr was convinced the realities of Global Power and not Utopians normative morality would shape a new international order. Carr’s work can be understood as a critique of Liberalism internationalism or what he referred to as
Unlike structural realism, constructivist social theory argues that “States act differently toward enemies than they do toward friends because enemies are threatening and friends are not. Anarchy and the distribution of power are insufficient to tell us which is which”(Wendt, 79). Based on Wendt’s philosophy, whether the international system is conflictual or peaceful is not due to anarchy and power but due the shared relations and social practices between states. By interacting with other states, Wendt argues that identities will form based on diplomatic gestures, which means states can be able to achieve peaceful relations. Simply put, anarchy does not control conflictual relationships between states.
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.
The notion and the meaning of conflict have evolved with time. Before Coser, conflict was seen more as a source of social change and disintegration. However, the conflict theory we are referring to here is not necessarily an infliction of violence or atrocities, but a conflict that arises due to unequal distribution of power and resources. Theorists consider power to be an important element of conflict theory. For instance, who uses power or where is power located are two of the main concerns of conflict theory.
“Conflict is a struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power, and resources, in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralize, injure, or eliminate the rivals”. (L. Coser,
Brian C. Schmidt’s (2002) chapter, “The History an Historiography of International Relations”, covers detailed aspects of the field of International Relations regarding its history and problems it has faced over its evolution. This essay will argue that Schmidt is able to effectively identify and address difficult issues posed in the International Relations field of work. This essay begins with a brief summary of Schmidt’s work and ideas. Next, the essay will discuss Schmidt’s views on the specific evolutionary issues of lack of coherency and identity behind the history of International Relations. Leading on from here, the essay will display Schmidt’s ideas on presentism and its impact on International Relations.