How would you feel about explaining all of human world history with just one theory holding a few basic assumptions? Maybe it’d be easier to start by trying to explain one event or time period as a warm-up. There are many theories of how the world’s political arena works, i.e. realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, green theory, and a multitude of others along with variations of those just mentioned. There of course is some truth in all theories, yet each is flawed to a certain extent (Lisinski). Realism functions under the assumption that states are the only actors on the political stage, also known as statism (includes individualism). Additionally, the states work in a system of anarchy. By this it is meant that in the absence of a higher, trans-governmental and universally recognizable authority, as it is in the world, no rules exist or are followed in the international arena. The other assumption is that politics are driven by aspects of human behavior – numerous motivations such as the drive for power, will to dominate, self-interest and ambition (Lisinski). 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... ... middle of paper ... ... but also than any other theory. Its focus on social factors and importance of ideas allows it to address problems that are not even in the scope of other theories. Additionally, the example of liberalism, Christianity, and socialism, among others, prove that ideas and ideologies can really change the world – as was already mentioned, a core belief of constructivism. The superiority of constructivism may be seen in that it is capable of explaining realism, while realism cannot do the same back (Lisinksi). Also, as my International Politics professor once said after another student asked what constructivism is, “No one really knows,” meaning there is much to be accounted for in the theory since it is simply a consideration of ideas and human interpretation and consciousness as they relate to international relations. I like that. Sometimes it’s better not knowing.
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Right and left realists both offer completely different solutions to crime, primarily because the way in which they focus on looking into crime is completely different. Left realists favour victim surveys (Lea, Left Realism: a framework for the analysis of crime, 1992), saying crime is caused by relative depression, social injustice and marginalisation whilst right realists favour looking at official statistics when studying crime, they say crime is caused by a simple lack of control. However when looking at both sides of realism and their solutions to crime both show to have positive and negative solutions, meaning it can be argued either way regarding
Human nature will always corrupt the mind of modern man and send him down the destructive path of war. Due to this, the chronology of war is a constant stream of events that have dated back to the creation of civilization. The inevitability of it is based off something within the mind, that we call human nature. This phoneme pulls the attentions of man towards the path of greatest gain in the quickest amount of time. A part of this is due to mans greed to obtain as much power as possible. Power doesn’t hold one meaning however, it can be broken down into many aspects of appeal for man, creating even more of attraction. Whether the individual in control is seeking power through wealth, through control, or dominance their means of obtaining it includes war or destruction.
War, in all its forms, is tragic. International law was created to establish some basis of rules to abide by—including war—and states have signed on to such a contract. The actions of states in this ever globalizing world are difficult to be controlled. The source of international law operates through the hands of the United Nations. The enforcement of the law occurs through reciprocity, collective action, and a display of international norms (Goldstein, p. 254). War in fact has been given a justification, though it is arguable whether or not the basis of the idea is correct. Wars can be just under certain conditions.
However, realists may have the edge when they debate that the “logic of collective security is contrasted with the difficulties of its application” (Weiss, 2007: 4). Unsurprisingly, distrust was an elephant in the room after WWII, as highlighted by the Security Council’s 193 vetoes between 1945-1990” (Baylis, 2011: 316). The United State’s invasions of Vietnam, Grenada and Panama in addition to the Soviet Union’s invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan (Weiss, 2007: 4) are merely a few examples of the constant proxy war operations that took place throughout the second half of the 20th century. This highlighted the ineffectiveness of the UN’s Security Council in preventing conflict across the world, and supported realists, that “there is no supranational authority [the UN] capable of wielding overwhelming power” (Rittberger, 2006: 15). This largely contradicts Kant, who claims that “international organizations can constrain decision-makers by positively promoting peace” (Dunne, 2010: 102). Liberalists including Kofi Annan argued that the ‘security dilemma’, which is built on the premise that “one country improves its security at the expense of other states” (Dunne, 2010: 81) had been averted. Although recently it has been bright in terms of the UN serving as a successful platform for peace and compromise between states; I still take into account the period 1945-1990 where the UN
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 way my philosophical mindset works derives from the ideologies of realism. It always has and always will. Reason being, I was raised by a very uptight family that views life as it is and accepts it. They don’t really wish or imagine possibilities better than it is. I’ve come to learn that realism is the more optimum direction to take in philosophy. In my past experiences, I’ve come to make predictions in certain scenarios with a realistic mindset and most of the times, I was right. I interpret realism as being more conservative and following the conventions of society thus being more socially secure. I also base my realist view on past experiences that I have seen or been through and it makes sense to take what one has experienced and apply it to future scenarios.
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.
When discussing whether or not a nation-state should enter a war and when to do so, three beliefs on foreign policy and war exist. The three different diplomatic stances are that of pacifism, just war theory, and political realism. Political realism, or realpolitik as it is often referred to, is the belief war should only occur when it is in the national interest of the particular nation-state. Henry Kissinger, a political realist, in his book Diplomacy argues that realism is the only logical answer. Just war theorists, along with pacifists, on the other hand oppose these arguments and therefore critique of this form of diplomatic action. To construct a valid understanding of the realist perspective the arguments Kissinger puts forth in his book Diplomacy will be examined, and then a critique of those arguments will be offered through a just war theorist perspective.
“In the place where idealism and realism meet, that is where there is the greatest evolutionary tension.” Idealism prioritizes ideals, social reforms and morals, by wanting to benefit not just yourself, but the world around you, believing people are generally good. On the contrary, realism gives priority to national interest and security with emphasis on promoting one’s own power and influence by assuming that people are egocentric by nature. Based on the definitions stated above, idealism and realism are significantly different from each other and their divergence of thought is more apparent when various proponents of each such as Woodrow Wilson, Henry Lodge, Barack Obama and George W. Bush have varied outlooks on comparable issues in politics. Subsequently, an idealist’s reaction to a particular issue would be a lot different than a realist’s response. Therefore, idealism deals with normative ideas and allows for improvements in the progress of not only a single state, but the whole world, however realism solely focuses on the benefits of one’s own nation.
In the 19th century, the Realism Movement started which was when people started to see life in a realistic way and did not look past all the negative aspects. The realism movement had an effect on music and literature. Famous plays like The Cherry Orchard, Ghosts, and Hedda Gabler, were heavily influenced by Realism. Musicians like Dmitry Bortniansky, Alexander Scriabin, Dmitri Shostakovich, Vasily Alexeievich Pashkevich, and Lera Auerbach from the 21st, 20th ,19th, 18th century were influenced by the Realism Movement. From the 18th century to the 21st century, the Realism Movement has changed the way that musicians and writers compose their works, which caused people to go from thinking that life is perfect and it does not have any negative aspects, to seeing that life is not perfect and acknowledging the negative aspects of life.
In the late 19th Century, Realism became popular, by challenging many of the ideals and spiritual themes of Romantic painting. The late 19th Century was also a period of intense political instability in Europe and an epoch of major economic and social development in England. The movement grew in prominence, predominantly because of its opposition to the classical model of staid hypothetical modes of representation taught in the academies (Clark 2002, 134). The ideals of Romanticism had failed to appeal to the new breed of visionaries, who wanted more than intangibles, whether in art or literature. The passion, drama and mystery, inherent in Romantic paintings also failed to continuously inspire spectators. Hence, Romantic artists were driven to seek even more distant locales for exotic content, or to spice their canvas with images of faraway peoples. The aftermath of the Revolution fostered a desire for a pragmatic evaluation of reality. Its failure and the successive oppressions of Napoleonic regimes had taken its eventual toll on the sensibilities of the French peoples (Clark 2002, 133).
Renowned author Napoleon Hill once said, “War grows out of the desire of the individual to gain advantage at the expense of his fellow man.” Ever since the creation of man there has always been conflict and over time that conflict resulted in anger and hostility. War is simply put is basically just a major clash among multiple countries or groups within countries. War can be caused or motivated by the desire for resources, land, and power. It can also be motivated by religion. War can be both armed and unarmed as proven by the “Cold War” between the United States and the Soviet Union in the nineteen sixties’. War involves the interest and motives for both sides involved in the conflict. Over time war has evolved from the conquering of land to the protection of freedoms and liberties. In earlier days wars revolved around cultural beliefs and the domination of land but they have now progressed to the protection of freedom and for the self interest of those involved. Of course there are also numerous people to object to war because of the harmful effects it has on the human race. These people are called Pacifists meaning that they refuse to carry out in act of service in war or participate in any aspect of war. However, as there are many people who oppose war many there are also even more people who approve of it. Pro-war people would insight that war is a just cause and is necessary for nations and groups to prosper. Everything has a purpose; including war. Although millions of people have died as a result of war, their lives were not lost in vain. The millions of people who have died have given up the lives as a sacrifice for the religion, freedoms, and beliefs that they stood for. Of course at times in wars it seems as if the...
First school of thought is realism which is the most dominant theory since WWII. To give realism a more vivid picture in 21st century, there are accounts of events which agreed upon the realist
From the realist perspective of international relations, states responsibility to protect civilians is the legitimating of military intervention by strong states against weak ones. According to Hans J. Morgenthau, one of the assumptions of classical realism is that all human beings inherently seek to increase their power . The power-seeking human nature creates a situation where statesmen struggle for power over other states: “Politics is a struggle for power over men…the modes of acquiring, maintaining, and demonstrating it determine the technique of political action.” In international politics, states are always concerned about national interests such as security and wealth. To preserve their interests, intervention could be an option.