Connection is Key: International Relations Intertwined
Ancient Greece is responsible for many contemporary ideologies for philosophy and politics.
Combining the two creates a whole intertwined web of thought and circumstance. Philosophy is the
study of basic concepts such as existence and freedom, however, philosophy does extend on to other
concepts. Politics is the ideology and practice of governing a group. Both the concepts of philosophy
and politics are evident and connected between three separate works of literature, which are “The
Melian Dialogue” by Thucydides, “Six Principles of Political Realism” by Morgenthau, and “The
Anarchic Structure of World Politics” by Waltz.
“The Melian Dialogue” covers a dispute of nations' futures goes on between two Ancient Greek
states known as Athens and Melos. The “Six Principles of Political Realism” explains how
international politics (politics in general) are objective to be interpreted by one's own understanding of
the six statements, while “The Anarchic Structure of World Politics” discuss the nature of anarchy, and
how it would be applied on a global scale. All three of these 'articles' are related and intertwined with
each other, giving validation and connection of material.
In Thucydides report of the issues between Athens and Melos, the Athenians are wanting the
Melians to become a part of their empire, while the Melians which to remain independent. Athens had
been in many wars and conquest previous to this encounter allowing their wealth, territory, and
influence to increase the capabilities of their state. This quick rise in power is an example of a
systematic unipolar system derived from the Relative Choice Theory. The Melians wished to be
...
... middle of paper ...
...he powers of a country's own government extends only to
the borders of that country, which is the idea of sovereignty. Unfortunately, this “law” isn't always
followed, and a nation extends pass their own borders usually for their country's personal gain; their
relative gain of capabilities.
Breaking the “law” mentioned above would be considered immoral by other states, which
reflects the fourth principle of politic realism which is described and played out in the argument
between the states of Athens and Melos, therefore, connecting all three articles. In philosophy, it is said
that most things do not happen on accident, and that things can have even the slightest connection if
you really think and look for it. There is a reason for those three articles to be placed consecutively in
the book, and the answer has been stated above; connection is key.
... weaker state will remain neutral from a military strength. Melians’ loss reaffirms the absolute power of imperial conquests and nationalism in theories of realism. Since the Melians were allied with the Spartans and failed to cooperate, it is justifiable that the Athenians had the right to want to rule and invade the Melians as means to protect their own strengths.
To try come up with an answer to these questions; he brings into consideration four political outlooks. The various ontologies and epistemologies looked at by the author are:
Borders: A Very Short Introduction, by Alexander C. Diener and Joshua Hagen, is a brief the history of geographic borders and their implications on the world throughout history. Diener and Hagen make the argument that borders, as commonly understood today, are a relatively new phenomenon and as humanity moves forward borders modern boarders will no longer be possible. The writers maintain as globalization continues to make the world a smaller place or as they say, “make the world flat”, the notion of the formal state border is slowly coming to an end. Acknowledging that borders as they are understood today will not vanish overnight and will be here for the foreseeable future but in time they must change is central to their argument (Diener & Hagen, 2012). In making their case they give the reader a brief history of geographic boarders and how the modern nation state came about.
Athens government and military is considerably different from their neighbors. According to Pericles, Athens government is not a copy of our neighbors...
Robinson, Charles Alexander. Athens in the age of Pericles. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1959.
If Athens and Melos went to battle against each other, the gods, if they favored anyone, would favor Athens. We have now examined Thucydides' strongest arguments for Athenian rule. It is clear that Athens had a stronger claim to rule than the Melians had to remain sovereign. We also know that Athens' claims hold up when we examine them for validity. Thucydides beliefs in Athens' claims were therefore well founded.
Zacher, Mark W. “The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of Force.” International Organization. Vol. 55, No. 2 (Spring 2001), 215-250.
their power to reinforce their dominant position and impede the ability of powerless groups to
As perspectives and opinions in the realm of political science are fluid and bound to change, he receives a variety of replies, for the representatives body he sent happen to comprise a Realist, a Liberal and a Constructivist. The variances the philosophies and universal laws his representatives throw back at him intrigue General Cleomedes. He recognizes that within the power play of the world, and the role of Athens as a superpower within the world’s political arena, he must be thoroughly versed in every possible political perspective. Thus, he invites his representatives to share their own view of what transpired between the dialogue between the Melians and the Athenians.
The belief of a nation running their own state is a right for most of us. However, this is only a new conviction. The right for one to sovereign their own nation has come due with hard work. Illicit imperialism has stricken humanity for numerous years. Due to the aspiration of power certain nations today do not self-govern their own state. But why would there be a desire for this power? Some of the main items include natural resources, increased assets, and military expansion. Ideally this is great if this is voluntary external rule, but when it’s no longer voluntary this is when the boundary has been crossed. This is why every nation should have control over their own state if they desire.
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.
In Thucydides’ recount of “The Melian Debate”, the context is the sixteenth year of the Peloponnesian War (415 BC) on the isle of Melos. This time period falls during the Second Peloponnesian War (between the Spartans and Athenians), a time historians recount as more aggressive and violent than the First War. In addition, during this time span, both Sparta and Athens were major Greek powers with mighty armies and navies. Therefore, this document is important because, although Athenian written, it gives modern times an insight to the thoughts and actions of these two groups during the war. Leading off
5. POWELL, Anton, Athens & Sparta: Constructing Greek Political & Social History From 478 B.C, Routledge, London, 1993
The word “philosophy” is derived from two roots that are “philo” and “Sophia.” Philo means love whereas Sophia means wisdom. Therefore, philosophy means the love of wisdom. In actual practice, philosophy entails study of, pursuit, and enquiry into wisdom. A good number of great philosophers have referred to philosophy as the art of thinking. Others have only defined it as the systematic study of human feelings and thoughts.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).