It argues that the lack of an authority higher than nation-states, causes states to act only in competitive and selfish ways, and that material power determines relations between states. John Mearsheimer supports this by saying, “States are potentially dangerous to each other. Although some states have more military might than others and are therefore more dangerous”(Mearsheimer, 70). Instead of keeping identities and interests in mind when determining relations between states, realists assert that anarchy will cause states to act solely in their best interest. Kenneth Waltz attempted to explain a structural realist perspective about anarchic structure.
From a realist perspective, decisions by governments (or “states”) to go to war are the product of all states’ involuntary participation in eternal quests for power and security due to an international political environment in which each state fears the actual or potential hostility of other states. Leaders rationally calculate war’s costs and benefits in terms of their state’s power and security (Lieberfeld, 2005). Therefore, realism sees the states work in an anarchical system, meaning in the absence of higher, trans-governmental and universally recognizable authority no rules are applied in the international realm. The state exists as a full sovereign of its people and territory, and which enjoys the ultimate power of being completely self-determined. By taking into account Waltz’s structure of the international system, there are three elements that define it; its “ordering principle,” “the character of the units” that compose it, and “the distribution of capabilities” between these units.
To quote Clyde Kluckhohn, “Every culture has a concept of murder”. Apart from this, relativism makes it impossible to criticize the behavior of others, because it ultimately denies that there is such a thing as wrong - doing. Conclusion: Cultural Relativism clearly signifies the idea that every culture’s moral beliefs and rituals are no more better or worse than anything else’s. Every culture has its own beliefs and ideologies that are quite different from one another. When you call yourself an Indian, or a Muslim, or a Christian, or a European, or anything else, you are being violent and intolerant.
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.
It is important to understand and agree to the system of authority. Without it, the State may be in a system of indiscipline, crime and chaos. The approach of general will and state of nature focused by the two philosophers is the essence of the utilitarian approach. The idea of general will is based on freedom, according to Hobbes; the state of nature was of war and man was constantly fighting. Human life according to Hobbes was, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Although cynical, Hobbes suggests that the life of an ordinary citizen will be better when he will be ruled by a
Men make laws to instill order in a society and prevent chaos in any shape or form. Naturally, laws will always be somewhat unjust because it is impossible to consistently construct laws that directly and equally benefit all members of a society. There will always be a majority that makes the laws and a minority that has to obey the laws. Although laws are usually the standard of morality by which we live by, they must be disobeyed in certain situations. These situations are, but not limited to, an undemocratic formation of aforementioned laws, laws that are inherently unjust according to human law which can be synonymous with God’s law.
The two principles are principle of universalizability and the principle of humanity. By following the Principle of Universalizability, you have to universalize the maxim. The universalized maxim would be, everyone always breaks the law when doing so it allows him/her to do much more good for humanity, in order to promote the goal of maximizing public safety. However, by universalizing the maxim we are specifically violating the first violation of categorical imperatives, which refers to violation by contradiction. Torture is against the law, therefore torturing the man would break the law.
Anarchy is the absence of central authority in the international arena (Mearsheimer, 2011: 31) and because states are sovereign, there is no actor that has authority over them. Anarchy however creates the idea that the international system is then chaotic and consists of a lot of conflict but it is however an ordering principle that allows states to govern themselves internationally (Mearsheimer, 2011: 31). Structural realism assumes that great powers possess military power that gives them the ability to attack each other or other states (Mearsheimer, 2011: 32). States can be dangerous to each other, especially those that have more military capability than others. The power of a state’s military is usually measured by the particular weapons it has at its disposal (Mearsheimer, 2011: 32).
Earlier we touched on the issues of economic unrest, and the overall extremely harsh living conditions that face North Korean citizens. I see such as being incredibly insightful, when looking at the issues of Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Press, and the Freedom of Education. One way for a fascist regime to control its citizens, is to prevent against any sort of uprising. One of the most powerful ways to counter any uprising, is by creating a legal mechanism for undercutting Freedom of Expression. It is completely against North Korean law to act out in any manner against the State, and such is punishable up to life in prison.
However, the successful solution of the problem under current conditions is not possible within traditional approaches to forecasting threats in general, and to ensure the proper level of domestic security in particular. It is well known that in the process of further globalization and military dominance of the information component in the structure of modern civilization, and constantly significantly complicated by the content and nature of war. Naturally, this fact will cause significant changes in approaches to the armed defense of the state 's national interests in the international arena. The main specific feature of domestic terrorism is the focus on the political system of the country, its law enforcement, public security, personal rights and freedoms of citizens. In general, this kind of terrorism is the major threat primarily to the constitutional order of the country.