Economic globalization and economic integration can reduce the probability of conflict and war in many cases. Economic globalization is the increasing economic interdependence that has policies such as reductions of tariffs, foreign investment and includes the increase of cross-border movement of goods and services. Economic integration is the elimination of tariff and non-tariff policies through the unification of economic policies on a national level. The way in which economic globalization and integration reduce the chance of conflict and war is by providing the disputing nations with an alternate solution to military action by allowing economic trade competition within the market. Another way of reducing conflict is by creating trade relationships and interdependencies, and lastly economic integration has the ability to change politics; it does so through the interactions of trade markets and relationships built through globalization. Economic globalization and economic integration can in most cases keep dispute behaviours from occurring by using state-state relationships in the sphere of the market. The market becomes an alternate domain in which many disputes can be settled by competition or dependence and can prevent state-state conflict and violence. Economic globalization can reduce disputes between states because it is an alternative to military violence and can result in market competition. An example of how this could be achieved is by having two (or more) states focusing their resources and energies toward the goal of becoming the economic hegemon of the market. If the states focused more on their economic sphere of influence and becoming more profitable, this in turn might draw attention away from any sort of milita... ... middle of paper ... ...g (with loans) to these European and non-European nations they were once again able to get their economies going and get themselves back into the market. The World Bank and IMF are prime models of how economic integration can change how states do politics with one another and how in turn it could reduce conflicts while also, building a state back up to the point where it is able to function on its own with no financial help. Although economic globalization and economic integration cannot solve every conflict and dispute that occurs between states, it does however effectively reduce the amount conflict and war that could possibly occur by bringing states together in trade relationships that create bonds of interdependency and trust through trade in the market. The market acts as an alternative means for conflicts to be solved and bonds to be built between nations.
In conclusion, economic integration and economic globalization help reduce the probability of interstate belligerency because war negatively impacts the markets and investments, post World War reconstruction helps build stronger economies and lastly, countries would rather focus on specialization than war. In addition, economic integration and economic globalization help the economy grow and expand. These points show that war and conflict is decreasing because countries that are economically integrated prefer to free trade without any restrictions. As a result, markets increase since countries have more access to trade and that leads to an increase in globalization, whereas war would put the countries’ economies at risk.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
Peacebuilding only became prominent in the Post-Cold War period and is the newest in the measures for achieving peace and security (Busumtwi-Sam, Module 7). It rests on the premise that democratization, liberalization and pacification are idea for long term peace and security (Tziarras,2012,3). This premise is considered the liberal peace or democratic peace theory. However, liberal democratic polity and a market oriented economy have the potential to impede the consolidation of peace. These two practices paradoxically encourage societal completion as a means of achieving political stability and economic prosperity (Paris,1997,57). Policies related to market liberalization lends itself to sever inequality, which generates violent political polarization. War shattered states are expected to effectively complete a transformation that took several centuries in the oldest European states all while emerging from the tumultuous situation of a civil war (Paris,1997,78). It is unrealistic to expect war shattered states to become democracies and market economies in such a short time frame. There are examples throughout history that showcase the short coming of liberal internationalism as a strategy of peacebuilding. For example, in Rwanda and Angola political liberalization contributed to the resurgence of violence and in Mozambique, El Salavdor, and Nicaragua, the effects of
Advances in technology and the expansion of trade have, without a doubt, improved the standard of living dramatically for peoples around the world. Globalization brings respect for law and human rights and the democratization of politics, education, and finance to developing societies, but is usually slow in doing so. It is no easy transition or permanent solution to conflict, as some overly zealous proponents would argue. In The Great Illusion, Norman Angell sees globalization as a force which results from and feeds back into the progressive change of human behavior from using physical force toward using rational, peaceful methods in order to achieve economic security and prosperity. He believes that nations will no longer wage war against one another because trade, not force, yields profit in the new global economy, and he argues that “military power is socially and economically futile” because “political and military power can in reality do nothing for trade.” While the economic interdependence of nations should prove to be a deterrent from warfare, globalization is not now, and was not a century ago, a prescription for world peace. At the turn of the twentieth century, formal colonialism was still profitable in some regions, universal free trade was not a reality, nationalism was not completely defunct, military force was necessary to protect economic investments in developing locations, and the arms race of the previous century had created the potential for an explosive war if any small spark should set the major powers off against one another. The major flaw in Angell’s argument is his refusal to acknowledge the economic advantages that colonizing powers, even after globalization has started to take shape, can actuall...
Nowadays, Globalization is a main trend for the world economic. The world’s economy has become fully integrated. There are no barriers and borders to trade around the world.
The World Bank impacted political developments during the 20th century. For example, after the fall of communism in Romania the World Bank revived its relations with Romania by approving two loans to help finance Romania’s new government. Later the new government created new programs and reforms to free up prices and set up the basic laws and regulations required for a free market economy. This impacted the country in many ways since the price hikes were way to high causing protest across the country which caused the government to resign, and a transition government was created in September, 1991. During this transition period, the Bank renewed its partnership with Romania by giving more loans to show support of certain parts of the country’s reform program. The loans were successful in promoting trade.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an international organization was set up in 1945 after World War II. The whole world had experienced severely destruction during the period World War One and World War Two, each state need the restorative processes and a good platform to recover its inherent ability and make their citizens get rid of poverty, hence economy problem it was the first problem that states should be concerned.
the effect that the work of the IMF and the World Bank have had on the
Realist perspective explains globalization in terms of the relative distribution of power (Nau 2007, 278). In their opinion, trade and economic activities thrives “only under favorable security conditions,” and those conditions rely on the relative distribution of power (Nau 2007, 279). They believe that alliances and hegemony are the two most affirmative security conditions. “’Free trade is more likely within than across political-military alliances; and …alliances have had a much stronger effect on trade in a bipolar than in to a multipolar world.’” (Nau 2007, 279) In other words, the fewer dominating states with power there are in the system, the stronger is the alliance and its effect on trade. In a multipolar world, countries cannot trust each other in trade because alliances are rarely permanent and therefore, countries might use the gains from trade to increase its military power and threaten to cause damage to the other country. Thus, realists argue that,
The formation of the world economy has shaped and encouraged cultural exchange around the world. In the past different countries explored foreign areas in search of valuable commodities and resources. Such as the Europeans interest in Eastern goods motivated them to explore the East. The interaction between the East and West promoted cross-cultural exchange. The shared interest for profit will motivate countries to cooperate and be more interdependent. Furthermore, the growth and expansion of the global economy has been helped form international organization such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In a way world trade and international business has made countries more interconnected to one another.
Globalization assists in the diminution or eradication of constraints by States in relation to exchanges across borders. Further to this, the said diminution and eradication of State border constraints kindles an increase and integration of multifaceted global systems of production. This has ultimately led to improved levels of exchange of goods and services. Thomas Friedman is of the opinion that globalization is a growing phenomenon and with that will have enormous influence in the business organization and practice just like globalized trade, outsourcing, supply chaining and political forces have had in the past (Friedman, 2008). Globalization can thus b...
There is an undeniable fact that there has been a rise in globalization. It has become a hot topic amongst the field of international politics. With the rise of globalization, the sovereignty of the state is now being undermined. It has become an undisputed fact that the world has evolved to a new level of globalization, the transferring goods, information, ideas and services around the globe has changed at an unimaginable rate. With all that is going on, one would question how globalization has changed the system that is typically a collection of sovereign states. Do states still have the main source of power? What gives a state the right to rule a geographically defined region? It is believed by many that due to the introduction of international systems and increasing rate of globalization, the sovereignty of the state has been slowly eroded over time. My paper has two parts: First, it aims to take a close look at how globalization has changed the way the economy worked, specifically how it opened doors for multinational corporations to rise in power. Second, to answer the question, is it possible for it to exist today? And even so, should it?
In The System Worked, Drezner contends that despite the massive scale and reverberations of this latest crisis (larger, as he argues, than those that precipitated the Great Depression), the global economy has bounced back remarkably well. Examining the major resuscitation efforts by the G-20, IMF, WTO and other institutions, Drezner asserts that, aside from averting a full-fledged depression, the international response appears to have sufficiently prevented the crisis from igniting internal repression, border disputes, and arms races. Yet his conclusions sidestep fundamental arrangements in today’s international system and in many ways misgauge existing conflicts and their underlying grievances. During the initial stages of the 2008 crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power. They voiced genuine concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict—whether through greater military exercises, diversionary wars, or violent trade disputes.
The beginning of the 20th century saw a regional conflict expand into a global conflict for the first time in human history. The Great War, which became to be what we now aptly call World War I, demonstrated that warfare was no longer limited to a local or regional theatre, (Judge, 719). Following World War I, the global impact due to America’s Great Depression provided additional evidence of globalization of markets, (Judge, 772). By the end of the 1930s a great many of the countries of the world were preparing to once again show that warfare could take the global stage. World War II impacted every continent of the world with the exception of the practically uninhabited
International relations are established by mutual concern of all nations for economical-social development of nations with peace-full coexistence. when we say peace-full coexistence then it refers to both internal and international peace and harmony. In the era of Globalization when international relations are extremely impacting on country's internal functions,