Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Major features of conflict theory
International relations concepts
International relations concepts
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Major features of conflict theory
) Outline the major schools of thought and their respective concepts. Which do you find most compelling as an explanatory framework for analyzing conflicts and global responses and why? Provide illustrations.
Introduction
International Relations (IR) theories are useful because they can provide a simplifying lens for looking at complicated global phenomena, which can help us predict what is to come in the future. IR theories are important because their uses go much further than simply academia. They shape and frame the thinking and understanding of foreign policy makers and governments, who translate these ideas into global actions like conflicts and global responses. They use IR theories to make decisions, distinguish themselves, and to articulate
…show more content…
It also provides a discussion on a compounded explanatory framework for analyzing conflicts and global responses. The first section of the paper describes the theoretical frameworks of realism, liberalism, constructivism and critical theories, in relation to conflict in international affairs. The second section of this paper criticizes the choice of using one theory to analyze international conflict, and from this explains a compounded theory that is inclusive of all the previously mentioned schools of thought. The main idea here is that different international relations theories should be looked at as complimentary, and each as a representative sample of the minds that make up the international system. By combining multiple theoretical standpoints of observation, the weaknesses, biases and problems that arise out of the use of a single theoretical perspective can be overcome. Rather than perceiving IR theories as dueling theoretical perceptions of what is and ought to be the future of the international order, IR theories should be considered in tandem when making sense of global phenomena. Using a single mode of descriptions and response would be unwise with so many options available for triangulation. For this reason it seems that the best analytical framework is one that considers the insight of all …show more content…
For liberals, economic interdependence - sometimes referred to as capitalist peace theory - is believed to discourage state conflicts by affecting the material power of both states. Second, democratic peace theory, or the belief that democratic states are inherently more peaceful than those governed by authoritarian regimes is also an important facet of liberal IR theory. Not only does this imply that democracies are inherently more peaceful than other types of regime, but also that the accountability placed on leaders in democratic systems will entice them to not enter conflicts. Liberal theorists for the most part do not condone violence, but it is important to note that they do support the use of force to prevent the violation of fundamental human rights. This type of intervention is seen as legitimate to liberals because the force is enacted (or resolved) through collectively formed international institutions, like the United
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
...dens the understanding of international relations and correspondingly broadens the understanding of security. Built on Thayer’s and Waltz’s theory, the paper suggests that structure of the international system is central to international security and to achieve peace, suitable strategies are necessary to balance the power relations. While it should not be ignored that the Evolution theory still falls within realism realm with many other forms of complex security problems unexplained.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Silver, Larry.
Many political scientists symbolically consider the Balance-of-Power concept central to a firm understanding of classical realism. As T. V. Paul (2004) explains, the Balance of Power’s common form appears as a system of alliances in which the stronger nations deter their weaker counter-parts from acting belligerently (Paul, 2004). This symbiotic concept of balancing power, nevertheless, is not an inherent thought and specifically appeared in the modern era. Its entrance into the world of international politics represented a fundamental paradigm shift in which it became necessary to reevaluate our systematic understanding of the social and political world Wendt (2006). Questions centered on the underlying concepts that drove the system ever forward such as: by whom was the system made, how does such a system function, what brought about such political organizations, and how could a state theoretically enter into the system. Hume, an ancient and respected theorist, largely analyzed the relationship between states and the idea of the Balance-of-Power theory. Similar to Hume, International-Relations thinkers, such as Spykman, Wolfers, and Morgenthau, became paramount to the concept’s realization. For brevity’s sake, thinkers spent a vast amount of time pondering the theory’s many forms insofar as they produced a semi-coherent discourse upon which its modern form operates.
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.
One of the much-disputed problems of international relations is explaining the occurrence of war. Defining war is easy – it is a military conflict between two or more parties. However, difficulties come about when we question why wars break out. A realist would posit that war is linked with human behavior, so wars are naturally occurring phenomena, and also that the system of anarchy resulting from the absence of a higher power leads to a state of war (Lisinkski). So realism offers a rather cynical explanation: we are destined to wage wars, since all politics is a struggle for both power and survival. Wars may be fought either to protect or expand security of...
...aditions of certain cultural practices, but not to the extent of making it a political theory. In todays world, we need a solid foundation to each individual in order to have a working, non-oppressive, self-respecting society. The liberal approach respects the ideals of certain cultures, but not to the extent of the communitarian. Overall, the liberal theory of justice is a more relevant political theory in our globalized world.
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
...ous situations, possibly because these studies have attributed motive and action to the states rather than to the decision-makers within them. Thus, foreign relations and policies can truly be strengthened when people can view and truly appreciate international issue in many different perspectives, such as realist, idealist, liberalist, constructivism, feminist, world economic system analysis, etc. When people are able to see issues and solutions to problems in many different ways world peace might be reachable.
Imperialism is also as a primary cause of conflict to a liberal. This is as a result of countries in the position like that of the USA extending its’ hegemonic state to justify unnecessary use of its’ military forces. This extension of power and influence leads to a breakdown in the balance of power- what a liberal believes is the ultimate cause of war. A liberal sees the balance of power as fragile and risky, making the world susceptible to international conflict at the slightest imbalance.
To conclude, there are four main components of the realist approach to international relations, they are: state which includes egoism as the states are composed by the selfish people, self-help which includes balance of power as power is used to enhance the survival rate, survival which includes hegemony in order to maintain its position and anarchical system which related to lust for power and led to security dilemma.
Throughout the course of this paper, I seek to explore the use of realism theory to both explain and account for the Arab-Israeli conflict. More precisely, how has realism theory played a key role in Israeli and Palestinian relations, and will it impact future diplomatic efforts? The viewpoints and stances of various nations, religious organizations, and geopolitical alliances will be examined in an effort to better understand the past, present, and future of Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Contemporary realism theory will also be examined for the sake of giving the noted international relations theory wider parameters and new boundaries. It is no surprise that the global community has had a significant impact on the region, yet the next step is to link such to the international relations theory.
Liberalism and democracy are closely tied together in international politics. They have a central bond which brings out the notion of democratic peace. Today much of Latin America and the European Union practices democracy. The chances of these nations getting into an armed conflict are very scarce in today’s standards. Liberalism promotes the idea of human security and equality and democracy reinforces that idea into the political framework of governing bodies and their higher authorities. Liberalism leads to democracy which promotes democratic peace preventing conflict between nations. This article will look at how liberalism leads to democratic peace through the process of creating democracy.
Since March 2011, Syria had no longer experienced a situation called peace and harmony. Syrian’s daily life is filled with the events of killing, bombing and torturing of their brothers and sisters. This unresolved conflict began with a revolution to against the government for brook the promise to have betterment in political system (citation). However the government had responded by harsh action. Starting from this point, Syria had slide into Civil War. Based on the brief description about situation in Syria, I strongly believe that the best International Relation theory to describe this situation is constructivism. This is because the Civil War in Syria is socially constructed by some factors which will be discussed deeply in the next paragraph. In this essay, I will emphasize on the two factors that lead to Syria Civil War which are identity conflict in a state and the absence of shared norms of sovereignty; and provide a solution from constructivism perspective which is diplomacy negotiation and limitation to it.
Whenever world politics is mentioned, the state that appears to be at the apex of affairs is the United States of America, although some will argue that it isn’t. It is paramount we know that the international system is shaped by certain defining events that has lead to some significant changes, particularly those connected with different chapters of violence. Certainly, the world wars of the twentieth century and the more recent war on terror must be included as defining moments. The warning of brute force on a potentially large scale also highlights the vigorousness of the cold war period, which dominated world politics within an interval of four decades. The practice of international relations (IR) was introduced out of a need to discuss the causes of war and the different conditions for calm in the wake of the first world war, and it is relevant we know that this has remained a crucial focus ever since. However, violence is not the only factor capable of causing interruption in the international system. Economic elements also have a remarkable impact. The great depression that happened in the 1920s, and the global financial crises of the contemporary period can be used as examples. Another concurrent problem concerns the environment, with the human climate being one among different number of important concerns for the continuing future of humankind and the planet in general.