It was said a few years ago that if humanity is wiped out in the next 50 years it will not be because of disease or an asteroid hitting the earth, but because of foreign policy and international relations. In a world where thousands of nuclear weapons exist, and more countries are trying to acquire them, where suicide terrorist strikes come without warning and thousands die each day from poverty caused by the way the international system operates. Why is International Relations important? Is it all about war? Is it really about poverty and big business? International relations look behind the headlines to the key players in world politics, asking what the important ideas are and how can we solve conflict or achieve cooperation. Since the creation …show more content…
international relations play a significant role consciously or unconsciously with the following points; firstly, the pragmatic equality of countries, international relations serve as a tool in amalgamating different countries for a common interest (peace) not minding the previous history which might have occurred. In the laws of the people, John Rawls (1999) outlined what he claimed was a realistic utopia (ideal society). This took the form of a peaceful and cooperative order, in which moral ambition was limited to a number of specific goals, including the elimination of unjust war and oppression, the removal of religious persecution and restrictions on freedom of conscience, and an end to genocide and mass murder. Before the inception of IR, countries go into war in dispute as little as religious difference which gave reason in the mass slaughter and other war related vices of a world order. A close example of this war is the Westphalia war in which there was a recorded death of 8million people; The war began in 1618 when the Catholic Hapsburgs tried to crush the Protestants in Bohemia (now part of the Czech Republic). A series of devastating conflicts spread across what is now …show more content…
National interest is a state’s action in relation to other states where it seeks to gain advantage or benefits to itself. National interest, whether aspirational or operational, is divided by core/vital and peripheral/non-vital interests. Core or vital interests constitute the things which a country is willing to defend or expand with conflict such as territory, ideology (religious, political, economic), or its citizens. Peripheral or non-vital are interests which a state is willing to compromise. For instance, Nigeria and Cameroon have disputed the possession of Bakassi for some years, leading to considerable tension between the two countries. In 1981 the two countries went to the brink of war over Bakassi and another area around Lake Chad, at the other end of the two countries' common border. More armed clashes broke out in the early 1990s. In response, Cameroon took the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 29 March
The war lasted from 1095 bc to 1204 bc. Two religions fight for land, money and power. This leaves two questions to people. Why did these religions hate each other so much? They hated each other so much because of their difference of religion and gods.
While claiming to bring civilization to the untamed wilds , conflict in the Americas didn’t end as the Europeans created their empires. With new and growing territories, came new and growing tensions between neighboring powers, and these tensions often ignited into international conflicts. In these conflicts the
This impact is the war, and more importantly for these pieces of text, battle. War is, “a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or distinct groups within a nation or state” (Merriam Webster, 2017). In the two accounts of countries being at war, I believe that there are many similarities, as well as differences between the two accounts.
Since the beginning of time, war has been practiced for numerous reasons ultimately to benefit a group of people or nations. But, when war divides the world into two different sides with the capability to destroy faster than we can create, it makes us question, is war really worth it? With the aftermath of World War One, people we’re still divided, but for a different reason, after a war with a catastrophic amount of deaths we had militarists advocating to fight and pacifists demanding peace. The two sources I have used from this essay comes from a European militarist, Friedrich Von Bernhardi with his book “War a Biological Necessity” and United States pacifists, William James, in his book “Moral Equivalent of War”. Therefore this essay will review the
When George Washington presented his farewell address, he urged our fledgling democracy, to seek avoidance of foreign entanglements. However, as the world modernized, and our national interests spread, the possibility of not becoming involved in foreign entanglements became impossible. The arenas of open warfare and murky hostile acts have become separated by a vast gray line. Even today, choosing when and how to use US military force remain in question. The concept of national isolationism failed to prevent our involvement in World War
All fighting over who would be next. Not realizing that all their greed and all the fighting was putting an end to what they were fighting for, for how could they rule something that no longer
The first great-war shattered the human mind so profound that out of its aftermaths’ emerged a fresh discipline (in 1919 at the University of Whales known to us as International Relations) proposed to prevent war. “It was deemed by the scholars that the study of International Politics shall find the root cause of the worlds political problems and put forward solutions to help politicians solve them” (Baylis 2014:03). International Relations happened to play the role of a ‘correcting-mechanism’ restoring the world order of peace and amity by efforting at its best to maintain the worlds’ status quo. However with the emergence of a second world war much more massive that the first put at stake all the values of that young discipline of IR. The
World History 1600-1650 The world has been in a huge number of wars. Wars could be deadly. Between the years of 1600-1650 , there were a lot of wars, religious conflicts and science developments. One of the most famous wars in this time was the war which started in 1600 and lasted around 30 years and it´s called ¨The Thirty Years War¨. The thirty years war was a series of brutal , bloody , and a very deadly wars that took place mostly in Central Europe and it is seen as one of longest and most destructive conflicts in European history.
Throughout Chapter five of her book Shadows of War, Carolyn Nordstrom shares her views on war in terms of social, physical and mental goals and punishes of such violence. To begin, one of the first goals of war as defined by Nordstrom is a direct result of a threat of loss of control. She explains that it is common for one military to feel the need to destroy another when their control over a certain (land area owned or controlled by someone) is under threat (56). An interesting point that Nordstrom makes is relating to/about (community of people/all good people in the world)'s do not tell the difference between the existence of different violences. As stated by Nordstrom, most people will naturally tell/show the difference between different wars; however, very few tell/show the difference between the experience of violence throughout such wars (57).
Political theorists, whether they are realists, or liberalists, over the centuries, have come into conflict over what they believe to be the utmost important task of the state. Hobbes believes the most important task of the state is to ensure law and order, rooting his argument in the idea of a sovereign ruler. On the other hand, Rawls, a modern theorist, firmly believes that a state should focus on realising justice within their society. While a utopian society cannot be achieved by either of these theories, I will highlight why Rawls was right in his assumption that the main focus of a state should be to ensure justice for all within their nation, through analysing and comparing the conflicting arguments of Hobbes and Rawls.
national politics Adam Watson’s Evolution of International Society gave a new dimension in the understanding of international relations (IR). He deeply studied comparatively the formation of international society and political community of the past which has evolved into the modern world system in his ‘Evolution of International Society’. Unlike Kenneth Waltz views of anarchy as the only system in IR, Watson says there are two systems viz. anarchy and hierarchy. In between these systems is the hegemony which defines the contemporary IR.
In International Relations, various theoretical perspectives are employed to provide a clear framework for the analysis of complex international relationships. One key concept that scholars have strived to fully analyze is “anarchy” and its significance within the International System. Anarchy, as defined by many IR scholars, is the lack of an overarching authority that helps govern the international system. (Class Notes, January 29). Its importance and power to dictate actions between states is often debated and various theories have been used to describe its significance.
Constructivists reject such a one-sided material focus. They argue that the most important aspect of international relations is social, not material. Constructivists have demonstrated that ‘ideas matter’ in international relations. They have shown that culture and identity help define the interests and constitute the actors in IR. All students of IR should be familiar with the important debates raised by constructivists, about basic social theory and about the different ways in which ideas can matter in international relations.
As the famous saying goes, “The strong do what they will while the weak do what they must," so let it be with the counties of the world and the role they play in International Politics. Eurocentrism is a concept that places Europe at the centre of the world. Assuming that it is self containing and self representing, the entire world is looked at with Europe at the centre. Eurocentrism bias leads to an illogical understanding of International Relations and makes politics and judgement to incline in the favour of the powerful. In this essay, I will critique the Eurocentric nature of International Relations theory and world politics.
An economics field of study that applies both macroeconomic and microeconomic principles to international trade, which is the flow of trade among nations, and to international finance, which is the means of making payment for the exchange of goods among nations. International economics studies the economic interactions among the different nations that make up the global economy. Often this interaction is viewed in terms of the domestic economy and the foreign sector. The key economic principle underlying international economics is the law of comparative advantage. International economics is growing in importance as a field of study because of the rapid integration of international economic markets.