More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on classical realism in international relations
Merits and demerits of realism theory of international relations
Essay on classical realism in international relations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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). Morgenthau goes onto his third method of analysis which is reviewing a state’s usable and unusable power. The most popular example of this is the possession of nuclear weaponry. Nuclear capabilities and that threat of their use is a form of useable power for states like the US and Russia but not for states with underdeveloped nu... ... middle of paper ... ...th 2001). Roth argues that the concept of international jurisdiction is not a new idea but was exercised by the US government in the 1970 after an aircraft hijacking. Also the war crime courts established after the end of World War II exercised international jurisdiction. In fact the Geneva Convention states that is a person regardless of their nationality should be brought before the court of any state in which that person has committed grave breaches of law and convention. Roth states that the concept of international jurisdiction is not a new one but that only in recent years have states been willing to act on universal jurisdiction and go after criminals of the international community regardless of their stating or power within the international community. Roth believes in the ability and authority of international organizations and institutions (Roth 2001).
There continues to be a growing debate to this day over the use of international law in the Supreme Court, and even though the case of Roper v. Simmons and Justice Kennedy, are nearly a decade old, they are both frequently
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.
Neo-realism and Liberalism both provide adequate theories in explaining the causes of war, yet Neo-realist ideals on the structural level and states being unitary actors in order to build security, conclude that Neo-realist states act on behalf of their own self interest. The lack of collaboration with other states and balance of power among them presents a reasonable explanation on the causes of war.
The prosecution of international crimes and the end of impunity are core goals of international criminal justice. However, they must be balanced with the rights of the accused and the necessity to have procedural safeguards in international criminal trials. Without such guarantees, the prosecution of heinous international crimes would lose its legitimacy, and the credibility of international criminal tribunals would be undermined. In this context, fairness is the criterion used to distinguish ‘victors’ justice’ from impartial criminal proceedings; to mark the boundary between an unlawful prosecution of international crimes, and the fight against impunity following the highest procedural safeguards. The peculiar nature of international criminal
International law is based on positivism, what is observable and what is practiced. Like any system of laws, international law is meant to maintain order within the international system. International law is also meant to maintain a sense of justice. The attempts to meet these objectives are found in the international institutions such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. Unfortunately, there are times when order and justice come into conflict. The Cold War era, for example was highly ordered, but there were quite a few injustices observed at the time. In Kosovo, on the other hand, the UN Security Council could not maintain order and acted out of a sense of justice.
The oxford dictionary has attempted to define power as the “ability to influence people or control the behaviour of people”. Power has been related to different forms such as political economic, military and even psychological. Power has widely been considered to be the classic determinant of conflict between interstates. Realists view power as a source of state preference. Animosity is constantly caused around power relations which in turn determine why states go to war and why politicians emphasize the role of power in conditioning distance. There is a non-linear relationship of power between the plural perspectives of realism. Realists consider states to be the principal actors in international relations as they are deeply concerned with the security of their own nation especially for the pursuit of national interest. However with this perspective there has been some scepticism with regards to the relevancy of morality and ethi...
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 .
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.
judgments only as a ‘‘subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law’’. Nevertheless, there are many reasons to believe that international courts and tribunals do play quite an essential role in the advanced development of international law.
Von Galhn and Taulbee. 2013. Law Among Nations. An Introduction to Public International Law. Pearson Education.
The idea that colonialism is crucial to the formation of international law and that international law has always been enlivened by the mission of civilizing, governing and transforming non-European peoples. Was international law a creation of Europe and western theories to ease the occupation of sovereign societies throughout the history? Looking back at the history of international law development in the period from the 1648 Peace of Westphalia to the First World War parallel to the political events taking place at that time, one can find that many international law doctrines and principles that were formed in Europe emerged out of European history and experience. These doctrines, invariably, were created and altered by Europeans for their own aims.
Deterrence is a theory of International relations based in Realism. Essentially, it tries to explain the situation of when two or more states threaten retaliation if attacked, in order to deter the attack. It is therefore possible to very simply state deterrence as "You hit me, I hit you." For this essay, two main questions have to be addressed, ‘Has it worked?’ and ‘Does it make sense?’ To answer these questions, I will firstly define what deterrence is, I will then examine some of the main arguments for and against it, in theory and in reality; finally, I will show some of the consequences of states following such a policy. Deterrence, as already stated, can concern itself with any form of threatened counter-attack, however, for this essay, I shall be concentrating on Nuclear deterrence, using examples from the cold war, therefore, when the word ‘deterrence’ is used, it should be taken as ‘nuclear deterrence’. Hedley Bull describes deterrence as follows: "To say that country A deters country B from doing something is to imply the following: (i) That Country A conveys to Country B a threat to inflict punishment or deprivation of values if it embarks on a certain course of action; (ii) That Country B might otherwise embark on that course of action; (iii) That Country B believes that Country A has the capacity and the will to carry out the threat, and decides for this reason that the course of action is not worthwhile." Therefore, for deterrence to occur, a state must convey a message to another state, usually "these will be the public an authoritative utterances of government officials." Secondly, to use Hedley Bulls’ language, country B would consider following a course of action which Country A does not wish and does not because of the threat - not because it has no interest to. Thirdly, Country A must be able to convince Country B that it is capable of carrying out its deterrence threat and is prepared to use it. Mutual deterrence is where two or more states deter each other from following a set of actions - effectively a stand off or a stalemate between the actors. The concept of deterrence can be seen easily in public statements, for example, Churchill told Parliament on Britains hydrogen bomb was, "the deterrent upon the Soviet union by putting her....on an equality or near equality of vulnerability," a soviet ...
Universal jurisdiction also called the universality principle enables nations to prosecute offenders of certain crimes, even though they don’t have any nexus to the crime, the alleged offender and the victim. As a concept it was historically developed on the maritime legal principle of hostis humani generis (enemy of the humankind) to address the issue of piracy, which caused considerable destruction of international trade. However, today this principle is applied to prosecute perpetrators of crimes against humanity. This principle also operates on the international concept of jus cogens which argues that certain obligations under international law are binding on all states and therefore they cannot be altered by a treaty. The Eichmann Trial and the Pinochet Case both have been very significant points in international legal history emphasizing the universality principle.
international politics (politics in general) are objective to be interpreted by one's own understanding of
Being born to Russian and Georgian parents, I have been curious in the different cultures of the world from a young age. Since I was born, my parents would take me on trips to visit my relatives in their respective countries, which spurred my interest towards international relations. Here at USC, I had the opportunity to take a class in the international relations field. My Spring 2015 IR 210 class with Professor Lamy was one of the most enjoyable and memorable classes I have taken at the University of Southern California thus far. The class was inspiring not only because of the interconnectivity and globalization of the world, but also because the course led me to study different mentalities and schools of thought, including the viewpoints