Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Realist and idealist theory of international relations
A realist approach to international relations
Essay on realist approach to international relation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The article the Obama Doctrine (Goldberg April 2016) was able to answer many questions that the author had about president Obama’s choices and problems he has had to face. The article revealed how the president felt and dealt with the hardest decisions he has had to make while carrying out America’s role in the world. Many key concepts were represented in the article such as realism, humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect. Realism can be described as a theoretical approach used to analyze all international relations as the relation of states engaged in power (Baylis, Owens, Smith, 100). Although realism cannot accommodate non-state actors within its analysis. There are three types of realism which include classical (human …show more content…
Humanitarian intervention can be defined as the right or duty of the international community to intervene in states with certain causes. The causes can be that the state has suffered a large scale loss of life or genocide due to intentional actions by its government or even because of the collapse of governance (Baylis, Owens, Smith 480). One of the main arguments in the article was president Obamas decision not to bomb Syria after many of his Allies and people believed he would’ve after making so many plans and decision to carry out the bombing. Obamas decision can be expressing in some of the key objections to humanitarian intervention. For example, the first key is that states do not intervene for primarily humanitarian reasons. This means that humanitarian intervention would be unwise if it does not serve the states national interests. President Obama did not want to risk taking a shot while there were United Nations inspectors on the ground completing work (Goldberg …show more content…
The responsibility to protect is a states responsibly to protect their own citizens, but when they become unwilling to do so, the responsibility is transferred to the society of states (Baylis, Smith, Owens 480). In the article Samantha Power, the current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, urged Obama to endorse in the doctrine responsibility to protect. She believed power to be a partisan of the doctrine responsibility to protect (Goldberg 3). Obama announced that we recognize the killing of one thousand people which included innocent children through the use of a weapon. His statement mentioned the killings were through the use of a weapon that shouldn’t be used in war in which 98 or 99 percent of humanity says so also. If no action is taken, he stated that we would only be sending a signal that international norm doesn’t mean much and acknowledged this as a danger to our national society (Goldberg 9). Related to the doctrine responsibility to protect are human right norms in which president Obama pointed out were
...heories outlined in this paper. One of the defining principles of realism is that the state is paramount to anything else, including morality. Realists argue that deviation from the state interests in an anarchic system creates vulnerability. Morality of state theorists uphold state sovereignty and argue that intervention is not permissible unless the circumstances are crass and warrant action. They talk about aggression as the only crime that one state can commit to another and suggest that aggression should only be allowed as a retaliatory measure. Finally, cosmopolitans believe that morality can be achieved at the individual level and that morality can be somewhat universally applied. Non-realists do not support preemptive actions or intervention under almost any condition, and the criteria by which intervention is warranted aligns with the principles of justice.
argues that America needs to be more engaged in internationalism. On the other hand, realism
The idea of intervention is either favoured or in question due to multiple circumstances where intervening in other states has had positive or negative outcomes. The General Assembly was arguing the right of a state to intervene with the knowledge that that state has purpose for intervention and has a plan to put forth when trying to resolve conflicts with the state in question. The GA argues this because intervention is necessary. This resolution focuses solely on the basis of protection of Human Rights. The General Assembly recognizes that countries who are not super powers eventually need intervening. They do not want states to do nothing because the state in question for intervening will continue to fall in the hands of corruption while nothing gets done. The GA opposed foreign intervention, but with our topic it points out that intervention is a necessity when the outcome could potentially solve conflicts and issues. In many cases intervention is necessary to protect Human Rights. For instance; several governments around the world do not privilege their citizens with basic Human Rights. These citizens in turn rely on the inter...
Currents Events and U.S. Diplomacy Joseph D. Williams Professor Tracy Herman POL 300 International Problems August 17, 2016 The Reagan Doctrine The term “doctrine” definition is “A statement of authorized government policy, especially in overseas concerns and military strategy” (“Doctrine”, n.d.). The expression Presidential doctrine means an ideological platform that a president uses to spread a policy towards a country or region in order to accomplish foreign policy objectives for the United States.
The doctrine is a particular policy which advocated as government, or basically it is an idea to solve or to deal with some kind of problems or issues. There were twelve Presidential foreign policy doctrines that have been issued throughout the United State’ history since 1823. The Bush Doctrine was the eleventh Presidential foreign policy doctrine which was issued in 2001 by the 43rd President of the United States, George Walker Bush. The Bush Doctrine basically argues that the United States will go after the terrorists all over the world wherever they go and the countries which try to protect them, in addition, the United States has a right to practice preemptive attack for “confront the worst threats before they emerge.” (History News Network) In this paper, after discussing the historical context and origins of the doctrine, I will analyze this Bush Doctrine from three different perspectives. First perspective is whether the Administration followed a policy of isolation or internationalism. The second perspective is whether the president and his doctrine implemented policies that were Unilateral, Bilateral, or Multilateral in nature and the third perspective is whether Administration and doctrine were transactional or transformational.
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.
Humanitarian intervention is often described as “using of military force in others states to halt human rights abuses or otherwise promote human rights”. This definition of human rights fails to consider the other aspects of intervention such as non-violent form of aid, such as medical supplies or food. While there are less aggressive ways that nations can intervene the issues of humanitarian intervention arise from military action. The main goal of intervention is to alleviate the suffering of the people who are suffering from abuse. A common concern with humanitarian intervention is when is it justified for other nations to ignore sovereignty and become involved in a countries domestic matters.
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.
Realism is one of the oldest and most popular theories in International Relations. It offers a perspective about competition and power, and can be used to explain the actions between states. An example of realism is the U.S. reaction – or lack thereof – during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
On July 1, 2016, the President of the United States, also known as the current commander in Chief, Barack Obama sent out an Executive Order that states the purpose of it as being a, “United States policy on civilian casualties resulting from U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict.” He speaks about the national interests at heart such as the nation’s values and our legal obligations. Obama uses ethics within his order by adding the importance of our values. In his order he explains how the nation is seen as one whole community and he does it by not singling any race or religion out or having any numbers enclosed in his order. As the president of the United States, his position comes with the occupation to look out for
The prominent scholar of Political Science, Kenneth N. Waltz, founder of neorealism, has proposed controversial realist theories in his work. Publications such as "Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis", "Theory of International Politics” and “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate,” demonstrate how Waltz's approach was motivated by the American military power. In acquaintance of this fact, the purpose of this paper is to critically analyze Waltz theoretical argument from the journal "Structural Realism after the Cold War". Firstly, this paper will indicate the author's thesis and the arguments supporting it. Secondly, limitations found in theoretical arguments will be illustrated and thirdly, synergies between the author's thesis and this analysis will be exposed.
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.
When considering the concepts of human rights and state sovereignty, the potential for conflict between the two is evident. Any humanitarian intervention by other actors within the international system would effectively constitute a violation of the traditional sovereign rights of states to govern their own domestic affairs. Thus, the answer to this question lies in an examination of the legitimacy and morality of humanitarian intervention. While traditionally, the Westphalian concept of sovereignty and non-intervention has prevailed, in the period since the Cold War, the view of human rights as principles universally entitled to humanity, and the norm of enforcing them, has developed. This has led to the 1990’s being described as a ‘golden
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.