The International Relations theory that best fits the Gini-out-of-the-bottle approach for this report is the theory of realism. There are five different classes of realism but the two that stands out to me are classic and neorealism. Classic realism leans towards those that represent a pessimistic view and the fact that people are not often what they appear to be and they it would behoove a government not to be so trusting of others. Neorealism represents the struggle of someone that is greedy for more such as power.…
McEvoy, K., (2003). Beyond the metaphor: Political violence, human rights and ‘new’ peacemaking criminology. Theoretical Criminology Vol. 7(3): 319–346; 034391. Retrieved from: https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/11652481/beyond%20the%20metaphor.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1503859112&Signature=JU0Blfq%2FBVuJiGIHeUp%2FelZRh98%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3Dbeyond_the_metaphor.pdf…
Realism, as a way of interpreting international relations has often been conceived to be closely tied to the Cold War. Realism, rooted in the experience of World War II and the Cold War, is said to be undergoing a crisis of confidence largely because the lessons adduced do not convincingly apply directly to the new realities of international relations in the twenty-first century (Clinton 2007:1) Worse still, if policymakers steadfastly adhere to realist precepts, they will have to navigate “the unchartered seas of the post-Cold War disorder with a Cold War cartography, and blind devotion to realism could compromise their ability to prescribe paths to a more orderly and just system.” (Kegley 1993:141). This paper will demonstrate that this picture of realism is incomplete – realism is not an obsolete theory in contemporary international relations, but is indeed relevant - it can be, and has been applied in the twenty-first century. In order to prove this, the work of well-known political thinkers thought to be the precursors of realism, and the writings of present-day international relations analysts will be examined, and the core tenets of realism will be extracted. It will be argued that these root concepts of realist thought do not rely on the circumstances of the Cold War, and are thus not bound by its confines, with the possibility that these lessons retain their validity in addressing issues in the post-Cold War world of international relations.…
Realists are doubtful when it comes to international politics. Realists agree that creating a peaceful world would be best, but that would mean not having to worry about a world of security competition and war. "Realism," as E. H. Carr notes, "tends to emphasize the irresistible strength of existing forces and the inevitable character of existing tendencies, and to insist that the highest wisdom lies in accepting, and adapting oneself to these forces and these…
iii. Hans Morgenthau: said” Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. In order to improve society it is first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of these laws being impervious to our preferences, men will challenge them only at the risk of failure/”…
While it may appear that a government made a certain decision to help a struggling country, or start a war in the name of spreading democracy or bringing an end to terrorism, their true goals lie in much more selfish matters. For instance, a country might send an army into Africa to put a stop to an uprising of rebel soldiers, but on the back side they begin exporting valuable resources to their homeland. Realists believe that power, not peace, is the main focal point of political interest, a hypothesis which can easily be tested by observing the actions taken by previous governments throughout history. By focusing on the study of political power, realists create a continuity of analysis of policy: each state can be analyzed in terms of power politics. Notwithstanding, Morgenthau warns against two common misconceptions: the first would be trying to understand the motives of governing individuals and groups. This is a mistake because motives don 't always align to actual policy or the outcomes of said policies; and the second misconception is the alignment of ideology with action. Put simply, Morgenthau believed that a policy may be made to seem that it has the intentions of the people, or a cause the people believe in, at heart when the reality is that the policy is truly a means to gain additional power. Although it may sound rather obvious. Morgenthau warns that policy has been repeatedly guided by legal and moral guidelines instead of strictly political considerations. As a result, the power of a country and the welfare of its citizens have been routinely endangered. Instead, realism advocates that policy must arise out of purely political analysis. With that being said politics become a bit more translucent. If one were to follow the history of…
Despite the lack of definition, realism has been successful and has become a dominate theory in international relations (Rosenberg, 1994). Therefore defining it remains an active argument, meaning realist scholars continue to debate the fundamental assumptions of realist…
The structural-systemic approach posits that wars are usually the result of imbalances and rapid changes of power. The Democratic Peace Theory explains that democracies are less likely to fight one another since democratic states have a norm of compromise for negotiation. Democratic states are transparent and stable, and civilians direct military, helping to solidify this stability. Democratic states have system provided checks and balances to avoid a rush to war since constituents will hold politicians accountable. However, criticism remains as this theory leads one to the conclusion that democratic states would provide us with the absence of…
If no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of 'state' would be eliminated,” It is about being “political” example. It is not about perusing common goals, it is all about power. The State is an identity that claims to have a monopoly on the use of force.” The way he bases his conclusions about the possibility for ethical action in the realm of politics, is by legitimacy. The only way that an action is “ethical” is if it is legitimate.…
As a famous representative of realism theory, Waltz asked himself the question why do wars occur? “Waltz’s question is as old as war itself, possibly because “to explain how peace can be more readily achieved requires an understanding of the causes of war” (Waltz, 1959: 2). By the time Waltz posed this question, many answers to it already existed. These answers fell into three categories (or as IR theorists came to define them, were found at the three “levels of analysis” or in the “three images”). These three categories/levels/images are: the individual, the state, and the state system” (C. Weber, 2009, p. 17). These main causes of conflict will be represented in detail in the main body of the paper by the example of Berlin Crisis.…
Conflicts between international countries are apart of the world we live in currently. Different way on how to address and pursue these problems to find solutions vary in range. Ideas of pacifism, realism, and just war theory are way to interpret problem solving for war. Just war theory has shared characteristics of realism relating to war being apart of our lives, and the pacifist motives to not going to war but differing because there are some reasons to go to war. Just war theory allows war to have morals.…
Russett, B. M., Oneal, J. R., & Cox, M. (2000, September). Clash of Civilizations, or Realism and Liberalism Deja Vu? Some Evidence. Retrieved from Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37: http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iss/Indra.de.Soysa/POL2003H05/russet_oneal_cox_JPR.pdf…
Political scientist Barber (Rutgers; An Aristocracy of Everyone, 1992, etc.) grandly divides the planet into no more and no less than two camps to explain the present universal, sorry mess. The only hope, he says, is democracy, and between the equally malign forces of Jihad and McWorld, the odds for it aren't too good. According to the professor's realpolitik, McWorld means not merely worldwide fast food but all capitalist buccaneering, global marketeering, cyberspace, megamergers, and international corporate incest aimed at nothing but profit. The Japanese motor in your Swiss camera might be made in China and sold by a British ad agency. Borders mean nothing in McWorld; the sun never sets on its flag. Movies, TV, and theme parks like EuroDisney and the local mall are all. Fighting for hegemony, probably without ultimate success according to Barber, is international Jihad. By Jihad he means not merely Hamas or Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. Add neo-Nazis, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, unregulated militia members, and the balkanization of the Balkans. Fundamentalism and nationalism, often drawing sustenanance from imaginary history, are in impassioned battle with infotainment and merchandising. The struggle is not impeded by any government or international agreement. Earth looks like a political Rubik's cube. Jihad receives bomb-making instructions on the Internet. McWorld sells designer jeans to Palestinian and Israeli alike. The paradox hardly enhances the freedom of the individual, and democracy suffers under either banner. And yet, declares Barber, democracy is our only viable choice. The bifurcation of the global village may seem simplistic, but assuredly the dialectic is not. The author's range is, perforce, universal. Certainly he is no optimistic Toffler, Fukuyama, or Pangloss. His concern for the public weal is patent; his impassioned argument is provocative and portentous. This is a generally erudite, copiously detailed synthesis, a polemic long on problems and short on…
Characterize the differences between the world before 1945 and the world after that year with respect to international relations.…
Since the early ages, thinkers and analysts have tried to understand the relation between the states at an international level. Moreover, that it led to the formation of a discipline in the 20th century, known, as International Relations (IR). Though, it was considered a discrete academic field within political science, till the year 1919. Year 1919, saw the emergence of International Relations as a formal academic discipline with the founding of the first ‘chair’(professorship) in IR- the Woodrow Wilson Chair at Aberystwyth, University of Wales(now Aberystwyth University), from an endowment given by David Davies, became the first academic position dedicated to IR.…