Contribution of this theory can be assessed as complementary to neoliberal mainstream theory of regime analysis, by “adding a theory of preference formation”. “Cognitivism” term is yet another word of the Constructivism theory on international regimes.
Cognitivism brings other views and approaches pertaining international regimes than traditional theories. It focuses more on criticizing the existing theoretical approaches rather than developing a new one. It emphasizes knowledge, ideas, value and other subjective factors’ significance for regimes. According to this theory subjective factors such as culture and norms play significant role in the regime formation and dynamic. Furthermore, it emphasizes importance of the process, which is not
…show more content…
Despite of the differences they both stress the view that rationalists don’t pay enough attention to the state behavior taking as granted identities and interests.
Weak cognitivism: They accept state as a rational utility-maximizer, where the utility depends on knowledge. Weak cognitivism in studying regime tries to fill the gap in interest-based theory by providing the theory of interest change. Assumptions of the weak cognitivism:
➢ Need for international regimes depend on states’ perception of international problem, which results from their causal and normative beliefs. Interests are not given and need to be analyzed as a function of decision-makers perception of the world; decision-makers should reduce uncertainty via information; actors before developing shared rules at least should have an agreement on issue in question, “otherwise, convergent expectations among independent actors in an international issue-area would be impossible, and cooperation would be doomed to
…show more content…
Institutions can be cooperative or conflicting. As to Wendt institution is a structure or set of identities and interests with their formal norms and rules. Such structure motivates actors to participate in collective knowledge. Institutions considered as cognitive entities and they can’t operate without states’ understanding how the world works. But it doesn’t mean that institutions are just „beliefs“. As collective knowledge, they are experienced as having an existence "over and above the individuals who happen to embody them at the
George Kennan says, “Morality in governmental method, as a matter of conscience and preference on the part of our people – yes.” He goes on to say that morality as a criterion for measuring and comparing the behavior of states is flawed. Morality is a preference, not a requirement to govern in the international anarchic system, Kennan argues. Ethics and justice in the international system are measured by how states satisfy varying moral requirements. These moral requirements are defined by a variety of schools of thought, including: Realists, Morality of States theorists, and Cosmopolitans. Realists may validate some action where morality of state theorists and cosmopolitans are fundamentally opposed. In this paper I will examine such examples and detail the key differences between realists, morality of state theorists, and cosmopolitans. I will compare and contrast realists with the other two non-realists perspectives and explore how these theories apply to an international system of states and how these theories shape the way one state acts or reacts in an anarchic system.
The Oxford Dictionary defines institution as “a society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or similar purpose”. On the contrary, an individual is defined as “a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family”. Institutions are organizations created by groups of individuals in order to provide social order and guidelines for a community. Although institutions are intended for common good, they can ignore, manipulate or even enslave individuals. In corrupt institutions, authoritative figures maintain power by oppressing and persecuting those who threaten their authority and are even willing to exterminate individuals to protect the institutions. There are two types of individuals whom institutions typically persecute: those who cannot be molded into the ideal citizen; and those who speak out against the institution. Throughout history, authoritative figures and controlling institutions have taken extreme measures to stifle the individuals, threatening their power. For example, the German Nazi regime sought to
Realpolitik is a goal oriented and practical form of politics, which overlooks morals, ethicality, and ideals to attain the interests of the nation or country. It doesn’t view compromise of ideals or morals as wrong, if it brings about the achievement of the political and national goal. The only thing that makes any action or decision taken right or wrong is its level of success. Those who practice realpolitik will not hesitate to take the decisions needed, whether unethical, unidealistic, or amoral, to bring about the desired end result. To do this, a realistic appraisal of power must be made, and based on that information decisions are taken to realize the self-interests of the individual state.
According to realist view ordering principle of the international system is based on anarchy. There is no higher authority other than the states themselves to check and balance their actions. Consequently, nation-states are the main players in this system. In other words, sovereignty inheres in states, because there is not a higher ruling body in the international system. This is known as state centrism. Survival is an obligation continuing to be sovereign. On the other hand, sovereignty is the characteristic feature of states and its meaning is strongly tied to use of force. According to the most of the realist variants, states are “black boxes”; the determinative factor is states’ observable behavior, not their leaders’ characteristics, their decision making processes or their government systems.
Continuing on the suggestion that theory and neutrality cannot coincide, Cox elaborates by describing each theory as having a perspective which is derived from a “social and political time and space” (Cox, 1981: 128). These perspectives stick to theory, but do not always lead them. “Sophisticated theory is never just the expression of perspective” (Cox, 1981: 128), and therefore, even though theory may have a perspective and ‘some purpose’, this does not mean it cannot transcend it. However, it will still be there in the background, aware of social pressures that present themselves as problems to the consciousness (Cox, 1981). The nature of theory is to be aware of these problems, and to serve two possible purposes; provide a guide of tactical
From the realist point of view, the international political system is considered as anarchic. There is a lack of external authority among states that ensures peace, stability and balance of power. In the analyzed document, the author's main thesis states that changes of the system would alter the international political system. However, changes within the system will maintain its anarchism. In order to support his thesis, the author replies to liberal critics, who consider the neorealism as obsolete taking into account three important arguments against the neorealism.
What I learn that institutions are an important to society. They provide a structure for society that can guide social behaviors. When I think of institution they are providing a service to abundance of people. This institution consists of police, fire departments, and government. They provided a service that can benefit the greater population and without these institutions these services would be unavailable or extremely limited. However, some institutions when not regulated they can become detrimental to the people. Such as Walmart, they provide an excellent benefit to some communities. However, Walmart has crushed the small local businesses in the community because of Walmart is a on stop shop. Those once local own can no longer compete
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
Level of analysis discloses three different ways of understanding international relations. The System-level analysis considers "top-down" approach to study world politics (Rourke, 2007, p. 91). It emphasises that international actors, countries, operate in a global social-political-economic-geographic environment and the explicit characteristics of the system outlines the mode of interaction among the actors. The State-level analysis stresses the national states and their domestic practices such as national interests, interest groups, government, and domestic economy as the key determinants of the state of world affairs (Mingst, 2008). The Individual-level of analysis examines human actors on the global stage. It focuses on the human nature, which defines the primary human characteristics that influence decisions; organizational behaviour that describes human interaction within organized settings, e.g. decision-making group; and personal behaviour that investigates the effect of the uniqueness of individual decision makers on foreign policy (Rourke, 2007, p. 65).
Issues of ideology and power are remained deeply embedded when dealing with democracy. In International Relations, cultural relativists determine whether an action is right or wrong by evaluating it according to the ethical standards of the society within which the action occurs. . This is particularly so where culture is linked to particular state or regional interests. Relativism has become a complimentary to constructivism since these two concepts are philosophically related. Constructivism and cultural relativism are products of man’s mind. According to both, there are no absolute truths that can really answer the central questions in this thesis since the case itself is about culture, values, and ideology. Furthermore,
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state.
However, the structure and process of international relations, since the end of World War II, has been fundamentally impacted through an immense growth of a variety of factors at multiple levels, which leads to the liberalist theoretical perspective of global complex interdependency. The complex interdependency is constructed from the liberalist theoretical perspective emphasizing interdependence between states and substate actors as the key characteristics of the international system (Ray and Kaarbo 7), which means that cooperation can be made more te...
Worldviews are also dominated by the states influencing the territorial boundaries. It has been true for the worldviews developed in the past. It is also true in the modern cognitive way. Little bear (2000) noticed a clash of worldviews and maintained argument to manage them in a way that the worldviews different from the dominating one are also taken into account. Despite this it cannot be ascertained whether worldviews are solely attributes of local circum...
In order for society to meet the basic social needs of its members, social institutions, which are not buildings, or an organization or even people, but a system whose of social norms, mores and folkways that help make people feel important. Social institutions, according to our textbook, is defined as a fundamental component of this organization in which individuals, occupying defined statues, are “regulated by social norms, public opinion, law and religion” (Amato 2004, p.961). Social institutions are meant to meet people’s basic needs and enable the society to survive. Because social institutions prescribe socially accepted beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors, they exert considerable social control over individuals.
Despite the international system being anarchical, it is not in a state of total chaos due to a number of significant factors such as those above. It is obvious that the current international system is highly influenced by many significant factors and some are more prominent than others. With the continued existence of international anarchy it is up to the States and the International Organisations to continue to make the decisions that are in their own best interest and to maintain order and an ever-improving way of life.