Clausewitz was proposing that if states perceive war as something that is a necessary step so that they can promote their own interests and power, well then they will use it as a rational political tool. Kenneth Waltz and other modern realists have further built on Clausewitz idea of what causes wars and have also furthered and added to the idea. In Kenneth Waltz’s writing in “Man, the State and War”, he sets out three interconnected images of what causes wars. The first one, which keeps in line with a classical realist thought, is war has its origins in flawed human nature. This suggest that “the evilness of men, or their improper behaviour, leads to war” (Waltz, 2001, p.39).
Even though the implications it vested on bringing territorially conflicting states together is crucial, economic liberalism is not sufficient to addressing the problems of territorial conflict per se. Prior to every implication the remedy it provides, which is deepening and widening economic interdependence between the conflicting states, wouldn’t resolve territorial disputes specifically and directly. Furthermore, economic ties not all the time brings states together, it can also have negative consequences, especially to those involved in a territorial dispute. Turning to the second factor of neoliberal international relation, to liberal institutionalism it puts its centerpiece of at international institutions. Means although institutions can’t eradicate anarchy they still can influence states preference and by that to their actions.
Critique of clash of civilization WVLS 313 17-Apr-15 N .MKIZE 23684879 The theory of clash of civilization The clash of civilization is a theory by Samuel Huntington which states that peoples cultural and religion identities are the root source of conflict in the post-cold war. Clash of civilization is a theory referencing the clash of cultures ( Choeung.slide share).according to Huntington ( 1996,p84) “the most pervasive, important, and dangerous conflicts will not be between social classes, rich, poor, or other economically defined groups, but between peoples belonging to different cultural entities” . Huntington also states that conflicts between civilizations are likely to be caused by religious means. And this is to the fact that civilizations are distinguished from other culture through history, language, culture and most important religion (Huntington, 1993, 25). Huntington states that people’s culture and religion will be the main cause of conflict from onward.
This was because each state was responsible for its own safety, security and progress which could be obtained through military might and power. I also saw liberalism as being credited, as it rejected this reality of power politics and proposed that wars occurred because of the absence of democracy in
5. CONCLUSIONS As theorised by Political Realism, all international relations is a struggle for power. States are therefore in a constant struggle to attain national security. A state’s pursuit of achieving national security results in conflict between states. However, one must understand that the struggle for national security does not always denote conflictual situation, and it can also entail cooperative situations.
Idealism and Realism are two strongly opposed views of foreign policy. At the core of this opposition is the issue of power and security in politics. Realism establishes a separation between politics and ethics in order to understand and comprehend international events. Realists don’t oppose morality to politics, nor power to law, but rather oppose the utopian peaceful society to the nature of society. Realists are attuned to the idea that the international system is anarchic and that serious threats emerge all the time, requiring states to secure resources for survival.
1. Introduction The purpose of this section of the essay is to present the theoretical framework that will be employed and unpacked in completing my field of study, which seeks to investigate bias in media representations of conflict. The ways in which the media construct the news regarding conflict and peace are important. This is the case because society often depends on the media as a major source of information about conflicts. The main focus of this section seeks to unpack the journalistic techniques used by the media when representing conflict.
Arguably one of the most significant conflicts to have ever taken place, World War 1 wreaked havoc upon nations. However, the causes of this war remain unbeknownst to many. Although there is no definite answer so as to what really lead to this conflict, factors such as imperialism have been long speculated to have played a role. When answering the question of to what extent imperialism within the great powers was a significant factor in their decision to go to war, one can argue that imperialism contributed greatly in the instigation of the war, as shown by imperialism’s creation of rivalry between nations, its impact on international relations and the way it lead to militarism. It is evident that imperialism caused rivalry when one considers
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.
Since moral aspect of the topic is touched it is important to bring the example of type of organization that radically contradicts the concept of cohesion – the terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda. The phenomena of Al Qaeda is still being studied and there is still big debate among government representatives, intelligence and academic circles over the nature of organization – whether it is monolithic international organization with strong command and control or more amorphous movement that are loosely connected by transnational constituencies? an ideology or an army? an international crime enterprise or a populist transnational movement? (Hoffman, 2003).