Introduction
Nuclear issue in the North Korea has been a problem widely discussed around the world in recent years, while the whole progress from the start of the nuclear crisis (The withdrawal of the North Korea from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003) to the cooperation (Six Party Talks) and its failure is quite dramatic and worth exploring (Fang, 2009). This paper attempted to use two perspectives including neorealism and neoliberalism to look at the issue, and examine their explanatory power. Accordingly, this paper recognized the importance of the two perspectives in explaining the issue. On one hand, neorealism showed the restraints and balancing behaviors of the states during the process of negotiation, implying the failure of the talks. On the other hand, neoliberalism contributed to clarification of the complexity constituted by different actors and problems in the issue, while demonstrating the rationality of states, as well as the birth of the institution forming international norms. Therefore, the author believed the two perspectives are not contradictory, but complementary.
Analysis Framework
Neorealism-Structural Realism
What neorealism believes is fear and distrust originated from the anarchy of international system, resulting in the pursuit of power for survival. As stated by Mearsheimer (2010), power is the currency of international politics. The statement addressed a simple but important question: “why do states want power?” While “human nature” is always claimed by the classical realism, the neorealists, or the structural realists such as Mearsheimer specified the structure or architecture of the international system which forces states to pursue power. All states desire sufficient power to protect th...
... middle of paper ...
...issue. In this case, neoliberalism not only helps states to make a more rational decision, but also gives a birth of the institution forming the norms for the states’ solving crisis in the future. To conclude, both of them are important, while they are not contradictory, but complementary.
Reference
Baldwin, D. A. (1993). Neorealism and Neoliberalism. New York: Columbia University Press
Keohane, R. O. & Nye, J. S. (2000). Power and interdependence. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Mearsheimer J. J. (2010). Structural Realism. International Relations Thoeries, Discipline and Diversity (Second Edition), p.77-94
方玥雯[Fang Yue Wen] (2009). 北韓核武研發與東北亞安全：2002-2007. [The North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons and the Security in Northeast Asia: 2002-2007] in台灣[Taiwan]: 國立政治大學[National Cheungchi University] Retrieved 18 July, 2013 from http://nccuir.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/37029
New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Silver, Larry.
Neo Gramsican is a critical approach to the study of International Relations and the global political economy. It explores many elements that are essential for the maintenance of the international relations. It explores the interface of ideas, institutional and material capabilities as they form the specify shape of the state formation. Neo Gramsican analyzes how the grouping of social forces defines the sustainability of the world orders. Cox’s perspective on Neo- Gramscian is about the transformation of the main forms of state and their change under the pressure from the forces from world order and civil society.
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.
Rogue states under dictatorial rule threaten the fragile peace, which exists in our modern world. Constantly as a society Americans have always fought against these said foes. However all too often we pass a blind eye to the humanity of the enemies’ civilian populations. For more often than not, those who live within these systems are chronically oppressed. The nation of North Korea is no exception, with “Bing-brother always watching.” The government in North Korea pervades all aspects of life.
Since the end of the Korean War, the United States has enacted policies to isolate and undermine the Kim Dynasty in North Korea. A key development took place in the past several decades where North Korea broke away from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop their own nuclear weapons and while lacking launch capabilities, they have been successful in their development. During this process, the United States took active policies to deter the North Koreans in pursuit of their goals. It is easy to assume that the United States took this stance in order to maintain a military edge in the region. But under closer examination, this neo-realist perspective does not explain why the United States pursued this policy.
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70-1). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company
The two states also used diplomacy in both a public and private forum. Publically, the two condemned one another in the UN, but the most significant diplomacy occurred in private. The duo interacted with each other most meaningfully through secret telegrams and backchannel negotiations, and it was through secret diplomacy that an agreement was reached. Once again, neorealism is displayed as its ideas about international organizations are reinforced. For neorealists, international organizations exist and can be utilized, but are not significant in situations of national interest or survival. The film depicts this concept for while the UN is used to try to gain public support, the ...
The negotiations on the nuclear threat and the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula have recently shaped the agenda of the North Korean system of international relations, thus affecting the patterns of foreign policy of the DPRK. This issue has gained such a priority to lead to the establishment of the 6PT experiment, thus proving to stand at the core of the debate on the stability and safety debate in the Northeast Asia region. The theory of realism provides reasons why North Korea has positioned the nuclear weapon debate at the centre of its policy. One of the fundamental assumptions of Realism is in fact that each state, embedded in an international order characterized by a condition of antagonism, attempts to pursue its national interest. Besides that, the overriding national interest is defined in terms of national security and survival.
Both of these are international relations theories. International relations theories aid the individual in better understanding why states behave the way in which they do and “several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize” (Slaughter 1). That being said, to understand offensive neorealism, one must firstly be able to know the basis of realism in itself, as well as differentiate neorealism from neoclassical realism. Stephen G. Brooks argues in his article “Dueling Realisms” that both “neorealism and postclassical realism do share important similarities: both have a systemic focus; both are state-centric; both view international politics as inherently competitive; both emphasize material factors, rather than nonmaterial factors, such as ideas and institutions; and both assume states are egoistic actors that pursue self-help” (Brooks 446). Structural realism is another term for neorealism, and both will be used interchangeably in the following case study. Aside from these shared values that both reflect, the two forms of realism both present very different or conflicting views on state behaviour. For one, neorealists believe “the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority” (Slaughter 2) and that states take action based on the possibility of conflict, always looking at a worst-case scenario, whereas postclassical realists believe that states make decisions and take actions based on the probability of an attack or act of aggression from other states (Brooks 446). To expand on neorealism’s possibility outlook, Kenneth Waltz argues, “in the absence of a supreme authority [due to anarchy], there is then constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force” (Brooks 447). Neorealists look at the possibility of conflict due to the potential cost of war, due to
Created by Gideon Rose in the late 1990s, Neoclassical Realism combines the Classical Realist and Neorealist theories, specifically Defensive Realism. This new form of Realism is an addition to Waltz’s model of Neorealism, which fails to explain foreign policy. Rose describes the theory in his 1998 article titled Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy: “It explicitly incorporates both external and internal variables… The scope and ambition of a country's foreign policy is driven first and foremost by its place in the international system and specifically by its relative material power capabilities. This is why it is realist. The impact of such power capabilities on foreign policy is indirect and complex, because systemic pressures must be translated through intervening variables at the unit level. This is why [it] is neoclassical” (Rose
Since its origin in 1948, North Korea has been isolated and heavily armed, with hostile relations with South Korea and Western countries. It has developed a capability to produce short- and medium-range missiles, chemical weapons, and possibly biological and nuclear weapons. In December 2002, Pyongyang lifted the freeze on its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program and expelled IAEA inspectors who had been monitoring the freeze under the Agreed Framework of October 1994. As the Bush administration was arguing its case at the United Nations for disarming Iraq, the world has been hit with alarming news of a more menacing threat: North Korea has an advanced nuclear weapons program that, U.S. officials believe, has already produced one or two nuclear bombs. As the most recent standoff with North Korea over nuclear missile-testing approaches the decompression point, the United States needs to own up to a central truth: The region of Northeast Asia will never be fully secure until the communist dictatorship of North Korea passes from the scene. After threatening to test a new, long-range missile, Pyongyang says it is willing to negotiate with "the hostile nations" opposing it. But whether the North will actually forgo its test launch is anyone's guess. North Korea first became embroiled with nuclear politics during the Korean War. Although nuclear weapons were never used in Korea, American political leaders and military commanders threatened to use nuclear weapons to end the Korean War on terms favorable to the United States. In 1958, the United States deployed nuclear weapons to South Korea for the first time, and the weapons remained there until President George Bush ordered their withdrawal in 1991. North Korean government stateme...
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.
From the realist point of view, the international political system is considered as anarchic. There is a lack of external authority among states that ensures peace, stability and balance of power. In the analyzed document, the author's main thesis states that changes of the system would alter the international political system. However, changes within the system will maintain its anarchism. In order to support his thesis, the author replies to liberal critics, who consider the neorealism as obsolete taking into account three important arguments against the neorealism.
Realism is one of the important perspectives on global politics, it is a notion about the conservative society and political philosophy (Heywood 2011: 54; Shimko 2013: 36). Besides, Gilpin (1996) claims that “realism…, it is not a scientific theory that is subject to the test of falsifiability, therefore, cannot be proved and disproved.” (Frankel 1996: xiii). The components of the realist approach to international relations will be discussed.
Globalization has effect the role of the state immensely; as the process of present’s challenges to state sovereignty and autonomy. In spite of borders becoming more ill-defined and fluid in as a result of the process of globalization (Weiss 2000, 2-3). The state will remain relevant and necessary because citizens need a place to cast their votes, taxes have to be paid to particular authorities, which can be held accountable for pub...