states are in Anarchy. 3) Neoclassical Realism: The actions of the states in international politics cannot be explained just through human nature and system, it needs methodical variables- distribution of power and threats from other states as well as domestic institutes. Liberalism: Liberalism is another leading theory in International relations. According to liberals, states are in anarchical system and there is a perception of pluralism of other actors that play important role in international politics and policies. Liberals also emphasizes on mutual welfares of the states and international collaboration.
This is grounded in the main objective of functionalism idea which is attaining functional cooperation through international organizations. The purpose of these organizations is resolving practical and technical problems instead of problems related to military and politics. Since these issues are harder to overcome in complex political conditions, international organizations provide an environment to handle them in a non-political context which in the end would help to establish international peace. Mitrany argued that a world community was a prerequisite for world government. (Alexandrescu, M. 2007: 23) Hence, one can conclude that the reason behind the rivalry of the states is result of international
The perception with foreign aid does indeed seem ideological and in fact hopeful. However, there is a stark difference between proposing and analyzing a plan and enacting it and making it genuinely practical, which it is not, in today 's agenda driven environment. It is essential to know more transparently about the role of foreign aid what it institutes for countries. There is a conventional belief that foreign aid is always regarded as the right thing to do,
The essay provided an outline on each theory before going on to explain the theory’s view on what causes wars. After I evaluated and juxtaposed, it led me to the conclusion that even though there are changing and opposite explanations to answer the question of what causes wars, realism provided the most relevant answer. It seems as if the balance of threat against a potential hegemony has been the most relevant answer as to what causes wars. I can also conclude from this that because states are the primary actors in international relations they will seek to expand their power because they believe it is an essential element in an anarchical
What Key Historical developments have shaped the international society? In my attempt to answer the question above, I will first start by defining the meaning of the term “international society” before moving onto listing the main historical developments that have helped shape it, starting from the Peace of Westphalia to the international society of today. Although the essay will not delve into the deepest of details of every event, for there are too many and it would be academically negligent to cherry pick, it will try to highlight the main implications they have had on the international society. What is meant by international society? According to Bull the international society as that of states with common interests and values, basing
I support the later one that the position of state in international system and its relative power decides the state’s behavior. The first idea is supported by the theory of classical realism which says that human nature is selfish and the scholars who agreed with this idea like Morgenthau are in the view that the factor that effect the state’s behavior in international system is human nature, he wrote that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature (MORGENTHAU, 1948). It is a very basic building block on which the building of IR is standing, it causes the states to act in a certain way which means the egoistic behavior of states is just a reflection of its people because human nature is inherently
In response to the question-which of them are more important as an influence on international relation? I trust that human nature- realism is more important than the others. Despite the fact that most of politics scholars trust that the force of ideas and the pressures placed on states by the international environment is important as an influence on
Critical thinking poses questions such as how current situations come to exist or how power works to sustain particular contexts. Critical geopolitical writers, in contrast to realist observers, argue that the assumption of a detached and objective researcher recording the observable realities of international politics is fallacious. Far from being objective, the research perspective of realism often contributes to the presentation of a view, which appears to legitimate the power politics of states. In contrast, critical approaches to world politics would suggest that unless one challenges or question contemporary structures and power relations then academic approaches run the risk of merely condoning existing practices. Critical geopolitical scholars now acknowledge that their approaches to world politics are self-consciously situated within a body of conceptual and methodological assumptions about the world.
These are the perplexing question, which come to our mind and in front of the International society when we study International relations. In this complex and unflattering world we look for answers on daily situations that shape and affect our life. Theories help us understand
There are multiple reasons why a country offers development aid, but the most pervasive and realistic is to build up the relationship with another country, or more in tone with this research to increase its power over it. By offering financial, material or expertise aid, country A creates a new situation for country B in which it has to reach certain objectives agreed upon previously by the two actors. In this case we can say that this new situation is highly dependent on the actions of A. As A controls the possibility that B will receive the reward, B’s attainment of the objectives set is dependent on his subjective probability that A will present the reward in the case of conformity to the goals minus the probability that A will offer the reward even if the agreement is broken. This is one of the main issues of development aid today, as the main reasoning for its granting is stemming more from a humanitarian point of view rather than a clear realist and strictly contractual perspective, making its withdrawal or limitation a morally costly