Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
International relations theories nowadays
International relations theories nowadays
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: International relations theories nowadays
The erosion of absolute sovereignty. Since the end of the Cold war and collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the concept of sovereignty has begun to disappear from modern day international relations. Sovereignty refers to a state’s ultimate political authority over its given territory and that external to this there’s no higher authority that states must obey nor recognise (Baylis.J, Smith.S, Owens.P. 2011). The notion of sovereignty is a key factor of the theory of realism (Neufeld.M. 1998), and is heavily interlinked with the theory’s key perceptions of non-intervention and self-help (Baylis.J, Smith.S, Owens.P. 2011) – ideas that will be examined throughout this essay, and used as a means to prove the lack of sovereignty present in the international …show more content…
2011), was only furthered by the enhancement of the role of international organisations following the end of the Cold War. The United Nations, which although began in 1945 became largely in demand following the fall of Soviet Union, with an increase in the number of states seeking membership after 1990 (UN. date unavailable). This increase combined with the call for a more prominent role of the organisation by individuals worldwide in protecting the rights of human beings, positioned the UN as a powerful figure in the international community (Alger. 1998). The power of the United Nations was only strengthened by its role in determining international jurisdiction, a factor which according to Ivan (2013) saw a new means of intervention arise, based around the notion of the responsibility of states in maintaining human rights. The conclusion of the Cold War therefore left the international community with a higher authority that had the ability to intervene legally into other states and concern itself with the rights of individuals, rather than states (Baylis.J, Smith.S, Owens.P. 2011). This change saw the new international system drift further from sovereignty and realism, as now states had the obligation to their citizens to respect their rights or face the consequences of the new superior
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
The question is whether a state is looking inward or outward for a deepened understanding and heightened application of human rights. The nation-state, which is authorized to transform principles into both policy and practice, is the central resolution to the question. However, nation-states are faced with the challenge of balancing their sovereignty with the moral necessity to produce enforceable regulations that both establish and protect global citizenship. Although there is a national interest in building a reputable international rapport, it cannot be denied that sovereignty is always an ingrained issue. In return, nation states attempt to limit the extent to which it involves itself in the addressing of human rights violations abroad. For example, although countries delegate authority to international institutions, they do so conditionally and preserve the right to disengage. Furthermore, solidarity joins sovereignty as another hindrance to a post-national world comprised solely of human rights. For as long as human rights include positive rights, such as freedom from poverty, there is a requirement for thick solidarity, a form of global community commitment. Necessitating a sense of collective responsibility, thick solidarity is increasingly
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.
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. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
...yers to serve any interest but there own, making intervention something selfish and not altruistic. The compromising values of self-interest and benevolence are clear reasons in themselves to abandon intervention policy. The potential for malice is more than just great, but it is imminent. It is bound to occur and to be harmful. Intervention today spells intervention tomorrow and paves the road for havoc through a deadly precedent. Finally, there is no example of legitimacy that can be relied upon as the world is composed of so many systems founded on a multitude of cultural beliefs. Thus it is impossible to use intervention policy fairly, ensuring that Sovereignty is not impeded upon for the benefit of politics. Clearly upon the lines of reasoning represented in this paper there is no way that Canada or the world community can support intervention policy.
Sovereignty is the authority of a state to govern itself. In the case of the 11 federally recognized tribes of Wisconsin, none of them were “defeated” or surrendered. As a result, these tribes still have the right to exercise self-governance. Since tribal members are also United States Citizens, there is a complex set of laws which govern them.
In International Relations it is commonly accepted that there is a wide range of different theoretical approaches which attempt to provide an explanation for the different dynamics of the global political system. Realism and Liberalism are well known theories which are considered to be two of the most important theories in international relations. They are two contrasting ideas when it comes to explaining how two states relate to each other in the absence of a world government. Both theories agree that the world is in anarchy and therefore it is helpful to start with a definition of anarchy and what it implies. This essay aims to discuss the contrasts between Liberalism and Realism as well as how these two theories agree that the world is anarchy.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
...t state autonomy cannot be restricted by anything but the community (state) itself. As one might assume, it follows from these differing standpoints that the way each theory view intervention, etc., will be in opposition. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
National security undeniably has a preponderant place in the political, economical and military agenda of each state. Therefore, the state has a paramount responsibility in the contexts of its own domestic and transnational security. Whatever may be the way the state adopts in order to protect itself and its citizens, it needs to be accord with an international system. In this sense the state tends to follow a specific model in terms of international relations. Focuses in the case of western societies in general, and more specifically the United States as the iconic model of the western world, states tend to favour a realist perspective in terms of national security. Albeit, what is exactly the realism theory in the national security field? According to Glaser the realist view proposes the achievement of most high standard quality of national security focused on the acquisition of superior grades of power among the relative states sparking the idea of the presence of an anarchical international system .
When considering the concepts of human rights and state sovereignty, the potential for conflict between the two is evident. Any humanitarian intervention by other actors within the international system would effectively constitute a violation of the traditional sovereign rights of states to govern their own domestic affairs. Thus, the answer to this question lies in an examination of the legitimacy and morality of humanitarian intervention. While traditionally, the Westphalian concept of sovereignty and non-intervention has prevailed, in the period since the Cold War, the view of human rights as principles universally entitled to humanity, and the norm of enforcing them, has developed. This has led to the 1990’s being described as a ‘golden
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
The subject of national sovereignty presents a puzzle. On the one hand, the notion of the sovereignty of the state figures importantly in our descriptions of, and our prescriptions for, global political change. (1) For example, a natural characterization of the political changes in Eastern Europe and Central Asia preceding and following the demise of the Soviet Union is that a number of national political communities have vigorously asserted, sometimes by force of arms, claims to national sovereignty. Against this is the claim that, as a result of the contemporary realities of global affairs, national sovereignty has become irrelevant, an anachronistic notion. According to this view, there is a variety of factors which, especially in the past several decades, have drained states of their sovereignty by depriving them of the ability to protect themselves and their citizens from the negative effects of the actions of other states or outside groups. The most important of these factors are the accelerating pace of global economic integration and the increasingly wide-spread and detrimental human impact on the environment.
There are three main arguments concerning the discussion over the amount of power regimes have in the international system. The neo-realist argument is the first one where regimes are not merely considered as inadequate, but sometimes deceptive. This perspective is regarded as conventional structural. Keohane and Stein support the second argument, which states that regimes have certain worth, but only under particular conditions. Finally, the Grotian argument perceives regimes as an essential, secondary phenomenon feature of human nature. The connection of international and domestic stakeholders, through benefits, influence, standards, societies, and knowledge lead to the likely development of regimes.
The United Nations has made many achievements since the agreement made in 1945. The efforts of the UN helped end the apartheid in South Africa allowing the citizens of South Africa equal participation in the Elections of April 1994 followed by a consensus in choosing a form of government. 90 percent of children in developing countries attend school and 60 percent of adults in these countries can read and write thanks to the UN and the struggle to improve education in developing countries. Over 300 international treaties have been created through United Nations efforts to strengthen international law. These achievements and many others encourage people like myself to promote and praise the United Nations.