The American drone attacks to Iraq in 2002, China’s refusal to cooperate with former US President Richard Nixon in 1989, and India’s rejection of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2005, were said to be a quest to protect national interest. Events in the international environment can be unclear, especially when they do not correspond to the ideologies the countries involved claim to advocate. Domestic politics comes before international relations, and countries typically would not risk national interest over a foreign policy. In order to understand how international relations are influenced by domestic politics, it is necessary to consider what countries refer to as national interest, and who are in charge of ensuring that the demands of the state and the public are satisfied.
Political leaders contend with domestic and international politics based on the interest at stake. In most cases, they are about retaining their political power, which they accomplish through coalitions and support from the public. This paper explores on the means by which domestic politics affect international relations, specifically the endorsement of a foreign policy. Also, this paper describes international relations as a two-level game, and delineates national interest using the realist theory.
The Two-Level Game
According to Hagan (1995), the politics of international relations can be understood as a two-level game. At the national level, local groups pursue their interest by compelling the government to adopt favorable policies, whereas officials seek power by establishing alliances among these groups. At the international level, the national government endeavors to satisfy domestic requirements at the same time it attempts to lessen the adve...
... middle of paper ...
...onal security and economic prosperity, they are also keen at protecting their political power.
The meaning of national interest can vary from one state to another. Nevertheless, national interest is inevitably at the core of domestic and international policies. Domestic politics is important to international relations on account that it is the primary responsibility of domestic politics to ensure that promotion of national interest is observed at all times. A country is prepared to withdraw from an agreement with another country if it puts domestic politics at risk, or to declare war against any country that threatens its security and economic status. On the other hand, this paper does not expound on how domestic politics interact with the international federations and the implications when one country takes an aggressive action against another.
Mingst, K. A. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 78). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
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.
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
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.
Level of analysis discloses three different ways of understanding international relations. The System-level analysis considers "top-down" approach to study world politics (Rourke, 2007, p. 91). It emphasises that international actors, countries, operate in a global social-political-economic-geographic environment and the explicit characteristics of the system outlines the mode of interaction among the actors. The State-level analysis stresses the national states and their domestic practices such as national interests, interest groups, government, and domestic economy as the key determinants of the state of world affairs (Mingst, 2008). The Individual-level of analysis examines human actors on the global stage. It focuses on the human nature, which defines the primary human characteristics that influence decisions; organizational behaviour that describes human interaction within organized settings, e.g. decision-making group; and personal behaviour that investigates the effect of the uniqueness of individual decision makers on foreign policy (Rourke, 2007, p. 65).
Schmidt, B. C. (2007). Realism and facets of power in international relations. In F. Berenskoetter & M. J. D. Williams (Eds.), Power in world politics (pp. 43-63). London: Routledge.
Issues of ideology and power are remained deeply embedded when dealing with democracy. In International Relations, cultural relativists determine whether an action is right or wrong by evaluating it according to the ethical standards of the society within which the action occurs. . This is particularly so where culture is linked to particular state or regional interests. Relativism has become a complimentary to constructivism since these two concepts are philosophically related. Constructivism and cultural relativism are products of man’s mind. According to both, there are no absolute truths that can really answer the central questions in this thesis since the case itself is about culture, values, and ideology. Furthermore,
Roskin, M., & Berry, N. (2010). IR: The new world of international relations: 2010 edition (8th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Longman/Pearson Education.
The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.
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.
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70-1). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company
Kaufman, D., Parker, J., Howell P., Doty, G., (2004). Six Principles of Political Realism. In Understanding International Relations: The Value of Alternative Lenses. Morgenthau, H. J.; New York: McGraw-Hill.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).