Due to constant balancing of the powers, smaller states or states coalitions would not allow any more powerful state to grab the power and become hegemonic. States exist in fear and insecurity, in fear of war, intervention or collapse, and thus they are dependent on other states. Stability is maintained through the anarchic organization of the interantional system and the constant number of countries who determine the fate of the world. First, in bipolar world the achieved balance can be shaken only by internal political problems, but not by a third state. Even if it tries to play a more significant role, the two great powers can easily return the world to bipolarity.
The first objective includes peace, balance and stability, while the other one has more revolutionary aims. In conflict analysis the objectives of different parties must be conceived, in order to avoid zero-sum situation and get all the possible benefits from resolving the conflicts. Sandole uses the “orange metaphor” while describing the necessity of conceiving objectives, and by these examples the absolute necessity of negotiation is underlined. The first pillar also includes the mechanisms, used for achieving objectives. Three types of means are presented in this case, the first one is quite violent, as it includes the acts based on power, it is more like a fight; the second type of means is described as a game where you have to deceive your opponent and the third technique is debate, where opponents try to persuade and convert each other’s
In addition, there are two principles that work within domestic level rather than international is laissez-fire, which means nonintervention on the side of government attitudes toward the society, and social welfare that indicates social services provided by a state for the benefit of its citizens. Furthermore, liberal theory regards the domestic circumstances of states as crucial variables and alternating in explaining their international behavior, in other words, liberals assume unlike realists that what goes on inside states has a fundamental and undeniable impact on how they behave internationally. Liberalism tells us that the make-up of different types of political systems, which affect their foreign policy decisions. For instance, democracies are meaningfully different from dictatorships as well as liberalism tells us that values (ideas) beyond national survival matter; thus, while realist principles may exert strong influence over the decisions of policy makers, liberal ideas cannot be not ignored—if they are, the results will often be disastrous. This paper examines how liberalism works in foreign policy and can liberal peace be effectively maintained and expanded without provoking
Wendt underlines the point that constructivism is not only about ‘adding the role of ideas’ to prevailing theories of International Relations. Material power and state interest are essentially constituted by ideas and social interaction. Therefore, states in an anarchic system may each possess military and other capabilities, which can be identified as potentially dangerous by other states; but enmity and arms races are not inevitable outcomes. Social interaction between states can also lead to more benign and friendly cultures of anarchy. (Wendt, 1995) Wendt’s analysis focuses on interaction between states in the international system and disregards the role of domestic factors.
For example, international trade can be regulated effectively because it is a yes or no matter, it excludes the more controversial aspects such as customs and tradition. International law struggles to enforce laws based on morality and human rights, primarily because of their diverse interpretations across cultures (Theiler, 2014). Improvements in international law are occurring regularly in hopes of eventually becoming as effective, if not more effective than domestic law. International law can be costly, imposing sanctions can be very expensive and rewards are also costly and unpopular among states. The concept of “Reversible rewards” has been groundbreaking for the international system.
International law has no central authority and operation as an anarchic highly decentralized legal order. Nevertheless, the absence of an authoritarian figure to enforce penalties does not mean that international law should not be considered “real” law. Law is still applied, but practiced and enforced in different ways. Overall, international law is considered “real” law because system of rules, established by binding agreements, that aim to regulate the actions of its members, but with different characteristics practiced in the domestic arena, where there is legislative, judiciary, executive, and police
It places the greatest importance not on state actors, but on the institutions and norms that exist in the international system (Karns, p. 59). Unlike Realism, Social Constructivism suggests that interests and identities of states can in fact change and are not assumed to be fixed. For example, the institution of state sovereignty is important, but the idea of what sovereignty is has changed as the social beliefs, cultural, and norms of states change (Karns, p. 59). According to this theory, the greatest means to affect these kinds of socially constructed changes is through multilateralism. Also in contrast to Realism, Social Constructivism purposes that IGOs have actual power, and their power comes not from their need to enforce authority, but their ability to act impartially as vessels for cooperation, and as actors that can teach and create new norms (Karns, p.
Weakness: They draw attention to the importance of institutions but they do not suggest as the only (proof that one thing definitely causes another) force in politics; other factors play a role such as (how money affects people 's lives) development and diffusion of ideas. Some of the weaknesses of this approach is that it does not incorporate some parts of individual decision making to its analysis. Some of the strengths of this approach include its focus on the effect of political struggle on institutional results and how institutional results then affect political struggles. This approach should be more useful to the analysis of institutional development and policy making clear and sensible choice assume that people have a fixed set of preferences and they behave in manner that (makes as big as possible) the accomplishment of these preferences. One of the(like nothing else in the world) ideas (you think are true) of clear and sensible choice see politics as a series of total (of everything or everyone) action problems.
Psychological factors in international relations – Evaluating psychological factors in international relations comes from the understanding that a state is not a “black box” as proposed by realism, and that there may be other influences on foreign policy decisions. Examining the role of personalities in the decision making process can have some explanatory power, as can the role of misperception between various actors. A prominent application of sub-unit level psychological factors in international relations is the concept of Groupthink; another is the propensity of policy-makers to think in terms of analogies. Bureaucratic politics – Looks at the role of the bureaucracy in decision making, and sees decisions as a result of bureaucratic in-fighting, and as having been shaped by various
This is where it diverges from other forms of liberalism. Institutionalism is not necessarily interested, per say, in human behaviour. However, the theory is concerned with, the emergence of the differing political actors and how they can potentially impact world stability. The cobweb model, of interconnected international actors, was put forward by John Burton in his book World Society. Burton advocates, instead of seeing the world as only consisting of dominated cluster of states, which are always geared for war.