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”. In short, regimes, not individual states, are fundamental to international relations, which seek to enhance their own national
It is accurate to say that the Commonwealth Caribbean finds itself in a precarious position as it attempts to balance sovereignty and legitimacy in the global political arena. An arena where sovereignty is being blurred due to a recent stride towards internationalism termed globalisation. Such strides have significant implications for the states and their ability to implement policies and laws without intervention by foreign entities. Such intervention is further encouraged by the concept of globalization; both contested and supported it encompasses “…all those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society.” These processes are encouraged by international trade, investment and information technology and result in the integration and interaction among people, governments, cultures and economies. Such interdependence and interconnectedness creates complications for sovereign states who in their rightful capacity are entitled to act independently and autonomously on the world stage.
“Sovereignty is now best conceptualized not as freedom from interference but as ‘status’, which in turn depends critically on participation in international regimes. This connection to the rest of the world and the political ability to be an actor in it are more important than any tangible benefits in explaining compliance with international regulatory agreement.” (Chayes & Chayes, 1995, p. 27) There are some states in international institutions that likely to assume more power than others. Supposing that, we still cannot remove the idea of having a Hobbesian environment in the international arena. Human nature still prevails. Since then, the international law has been developing throughout the years.
Many international relation scholars use the three main schools of thought, realism, liberalism and constructivism, to understand and analyze states’ behaviors in the international arena. Each of the three theories uniquely explains the reasons behind a state’s behavior in times of peace or during a conflict. Realism is the school of thought that believes that the international system is anarchic and thus the states try to gain material power. On the other hand liberalism focuses on the power of institutions, which are founded on common values and goals of the state, in the international system. The last theory constructivism believes that state goals are a reflection of social norms, values and history of a state.
Introduction In today's political and social system, we have been living in the power age for countless centuries. It has been regarded as inevitable that those pursuits of power and lead the world into a power politics’ generation. Power politics is a form of international relations in which sovereign states protect their own interests by threatening one another with military, economic or political aggression (J.Morgenthau, 1946).Although it is the regrettable realities of the international politics, the fear and insecurity, the pursuit of power, the use of force, and the ever-present possibility of war are often presented as inevitable. Somehow it is also a way of understanding the world’s international relations that nations compete for
Liberals argue that international institutions like the UN allow for a seemingly convenient platform for states to communicate directly with each other and on a global scale. Hence, cooperation will be fostered as common interests among states can be found such that the antagonistic nature of state relations prevalent in realism could be replaced with a more superficial one that is conducive to establishing world peace. Also, international institutions allow for collective security, where states do not respond unilaterally to an aggressor but “automatically join together to present the aggressor with the threat of overwhelming force”, and that victim states have the confidence that the international community will come to their aid. These arguments are supported by the fact that the UN consists of 193 member states, almost all the sovereign states in the world, all with representatives housed in a single General Assembly that would in theory allow for ease of communication and mutual understanding that would lead to greater cooperation. Also, regional groupings or more loosely based coalitions like the G77 have sprouted to enhance individual states’ negotiating position vis-à-vis the greater powers in the UN.
It implies a focus on the relations between territorial states in contrast to processes going on within state territorial boundaries. Three geographical assumptions made regarding states are a) they are fixed units of sovereign space, b) domestic/foreign polarity and c) societies contained in states. The merging of the state with a clearly bounded territory is the geographical essence of the field of international relations. The intellectual taxonomy of the field of political science that emerged in the aftermath of the First World War led to the emergence of international and domestic as separate areas of specialisation. The ‘international’ (inter-state) was theorised as separate and distinct from the national/domestic, requiring a more homogeneous and uniform conception of the state as an actor from that adopted by students of ‘domestic’ political and restricted to studying relations between territorial states (Carr, 1939).
This is to say that Realist thinkers were in the bid of explaining global events according to previous trends. The major thought behind Realism is based on the fact that International politics is centred by conflict and competition. Moreover Realism is also characterised by realist theorists who attribute Realism to human nature and in turn the way this nature affects political activities. These Realists recognise how the repugnant and selfish nature of individuals have a major negative impact on achieving a diplomatic world (Thompson, 1985). A prominent Realist thinker Machiavelli points out that in the business of politics the only way to view humans is to always assume that they will allow the great malice that is in their minds in dealing with issues at every provided opportunity (1970, Book 1: Chapter
important to see its role in the society. While understanding thematic approach to international law, one should not completely link such a discipline using a commercial approach. This commercial approach is used in contemporary international law. While understanding international law, there is a need to understand the term “world order”. According to Richard Falk, “world order is a system that consists of a behavior for security and changes identified by states, the structure of authority, conflicts, violence and international mediation” This current order is based on the behavior of states and its people.
International law’s imposition is being challenged through global trends. Global trends are setting a variation of situations wherein international law needs to suit in order to still establish its power. International law, in the other hand, controls the circulation of politics, economics, and the society. How does the dispute in the West Philippine Sea affect the international relations of both Philippines and China? The rules of international law can be established in three main ways.