Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
International relations ESL
International relations ESL
Issues in international relations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
International relations (IR) is the study of relationships among countries. As an academic field it uses normative theory to provide a conceptual framework with which the discipline can be analyzed. These theories can be divided into two fields. The first, positivist/rationalist, focuses on state-level analysis to determine causal explanations of why or how certain phenomena occur. Things that are important to this type of theory are state interactions, size of military forces, balance of power, etc. The second field, post-positivism, rejects the idea that the social world can be studied in an objective and value-free way. This field focuses on constitutive questions about important components of IR. Post-positivism looks to include broader interpretations of international relations to include concepts like class and gender. Gender is an important theoretical concept of IR because women’s experiences continue to be excluded from its study. The positivist and state-centered way the discipline is constructed makes these aspects the basis for ‘mainstream’ international relations. It is under this framework that gender hierarchies privilege men’s knowledge and experiences over those of women. As a result, IR is a masculinized sphere of activity in which definitions of concepts like sovereignty, war, foreign policy, etc adhere to masculine and gendered interpretations and exclude the potential women’s experiences have to shape the discipline. Therefore, a more inclusive approach to mainstream international relations theory is necessary, one that abolishes the traditional construction and definition of key concepts. For these reasons, I will be looking at literature surrounding the gender debate in IR in order to determine if we were to...
... middle of paper ...
...tion, diplomatic agreements, and public policies. The traditional security paradigm refers to the realist construction of security, where the main actor is the state. This paradigm is based on the idea that international stability is maintained when state security is maintained. It also relies on the anarchist balance of power, a military build up, and the absolute sovereignty of the nation-state. The construction of the IR state as sovereign gives it a monopoly of legitimate violence, which appropriates security to a militarized defense of the state and its interests (Pettman). Individuals participate in war because they are part of the system and the underlying cause for war is the international system because there is nothing (no overarching security mechanism) to prevent them. Man is seen as the natural aggressor in war, and the wider definitions of violence and
The article by Laura McEnaney titled Gender Analysis and Foreign Relations is an interesting article focused on a relatively new type of analysis that offers another angle in the world of policymaking. The diplomatic historians who use gender analysis use it in addition to the customary methodologies of the historian to enhance the historian’s studies. Gender analysis has inspired new investigations in the history of men and women and diplomacy, giving way to a new type of understanding of power in a historical context; however gender analysis “enters diplomatic history only through the aegis of culture.”
Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
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.
The contribution of the feminist standpoint in IR theory definitely sparks discussion and debate bringing forth new perspectives which demand to be heard and considered from the more ‘orthodox’ IR theories, previously privileged assumptions and preconceived ideas. This grand entry for the feminists was towards the denouement of the Cold War in the 1980’s , Kirkpatrick; influential US ambassador of the UN during that period was noted to have said that she felt like a “mouse in a man’s world”. Is this still the case with women worldwide and particularly in the West? Tickner’s groundbreaking work set the foundation and key to early feminist IR. Whilst simultaneously interrogating the core issues in mainstream IR, particularly in peace and security, contingent on feminist bases for gendered grasp of issues that have defined it. In this essay we will firstly try to identify and comment on the emergence of feminism within IR in the 80’s. Secondly, we will pin-point and analyze which contributions were of the greatest importance, predominantly via Tickner and Keohane. Finally we will look at the impact and importance of the different types of feminist theories and whether or not they have achieved at enriching our understanding of IR theory.
middle of paper ... ... Unfortunately, this idea of a zero sum military power game does not match up with reality. Each state takes actions based on the given situation and neo-realism misses this nuance. Constructivism actually considers this more by analyzing the actors at play and their identities and interests.
The realism that will be the focus of this paper is that of Kenneth Waltz. Kenneth Waltz presents his theory of realism, within an international system, by offering his central myth that, “Anarchy is the permissive cause of war”. Kenneth Waltz’s central myth helps answer the question as to why war happens in the first place. During the cold war, there was a heightened sense of insecurity between Russia and the United States due to presence of nuclear weapons. The Movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb used cold war tension between the two countries to tell the story of a general who went crazy and decided to unleash his fleet of nuclear bombers onto Russian military bases.
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.
By the end of the Cold War the literature focusing on strategic studies has highlighted transformational changes within international system that affected and altered the very nature of war. As a result many security studies scholars have renounced traditional theories of strategic thought. Clausewitzian theory, in particular, has taken a lot of criticism, regarding its relevance to modern warfare. (Gray, How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?, 2005)
In past experience, through travels outside of the country for business relations it was discovered very early on that most cultures will respect fairness and tolerance, but each to a different degree. American women in managerial positions have had to struggle to find ways to be effective in cultures where their authority and credibility are not traditionally the norm. Perhaps it was the value of fairness that clashed with tolerance or respect for diversity on this particular business trip to Japan over 10 years ago. However, even if there was an underlying agreement on such values, in this particular scenario these values were prioritized differently among the two different cultures and might have been expressed different for that reason.
... for granted. Therefore, it is without a doubt that the incorporation of gender would enrich international relations theory. Tickner, in her critique of Morgenthau has attempted to depict the gender-bias prevalent within the field. By building on Morgenthau’s founding principles in political realism and of international politics, Tickner makes an insightful contribution to the field of international relations by challenging pre-existing paradigms. She is open to Morgenthau’s masculine-embedded principles, and does not refute them but ultimately contends that for complete comprehension of international politics, masculine and feminine contributions must be equally represented. Without a feminist perspective, an incomplete picture of international politics is painted. Feminist perspectives improve our analysis, knowledge and understanding of international politics.
The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.
The discipline of international relations (IR) contains several theories that contain theoretical perspectives to the idea of power. Within the realist perspective there are two approaches that help paint the portrait of the realist theory, the classical approach to realism and the neo-realist approach. Classical realism and neorealism both have been subjected to criticism from IR scholars and theorists representing liberal and constructivist perspectives. The key tenets to realism contain three essential characteristics of international relations which are the state, anarchy and the balance of power. This essay will closely analyse all three characteristics with special regards to power being central to the realist perspective.
Tickner, Arlene &Ole, Weaver. International relations scholarship around the world. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, 2009. Print.
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.
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.