Introduction
Geopolitics has been a major obsession of nation-s¬tates throughout history and even today. The strategies that nation-states use to assert their position in relation to other states are complex and changing with the new nature of states and power in the World. Mackinder originally formulated one of the most crucial geopolitical models in order to capture the way in which states vie for power over space, which has seen renewed relevance as Afghanistan continues to be at the heart of a world power struggle. Whilst organic theories of how nation-states behave and exist in a manner similar to that of organism(relating to geopolitical actions and ambitions) were penned by early German writers such as Ratzel and Haushofer(though have existed before this), that have tended to be adopted by authoritarian regimes and have been extended to the utilisation of repression. These models can be seen to work in conjunction with one another and are at the backbone of geopolitical theory and can be widely applied. However they were originally ideas that were conceived with a very different world in mind when compared with the present. So it would be interesting to see whether the modern nation states in the face of globalisation (whereby the states’ own role have been redefined) still adhere to these theoretical frameworks in regard to how they conduct geopolitical activity.
The Organic State Theory
Since antiquity the idea of a state has been likened to an organism, just as an organism functions as the sum of several organism and cells concerned with individual functions, as does the state. Bluntschli, a 19th century Swiss politician/political writer summarised these notions in the first chapter on his book regarding the state, ‘T...
... middle of paper ...
...udy in the politics of reconstruction. (p. 106). London : Constable and Company, ltd. DOI: Democratic ideals and reality; a study in the politics of reconstruction
Rumer, B. (2002). The powers in central asia. Survival, 44(3), 57-68. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00396330212331343422
Samokhvalov, V. (2007). Relations in the russia-ukraine- eu triangle: ‘zero-sum game’ or not?. Occasional Paper, 68(01), Retrieved from http://ftp.infoeuropa.eurocid.pt/database/000038001-000039000/000038996.pdf
Smith, W. (1980). Friedrich ratzel and the origins of lebensraum. German Studies Review¬ , 3(1), 51-68. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1429483
Tunander, O. (2001). Swedish-german geopolitics for a new century: Rudolf kjellén's ‘the state as a living organism’ . Review of International Studies, 27, 451. doi: 10.1017/S026021050100451X
International politics as one may imagine includes foreign affairs. This is why the topic and focus of this paper revolves around the current event within Eastern Europe. It will focus on both Russia, Ukraine, and the world, and from it, it will be analyzed by using the resources provided within class. After all it is a International Politics course, and one of the best ways to effectively put the skills and knowledge to use is to focus on an event or current event. The paper will attempt to go over in a chronological order of the events that has happened, and what is happening currently over in Ukraine. Afterwards, an analyzed input will be implemented providing reasoning behind Russia's actions, and actions of the world, and potentially some solutions.
Skinner, Quentin. "The State." Contemporary Political Philosophy. Ed. Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 1997. 6-9. Print.
Geopolitics is a discourse that explains and describes the individual ways in which the world’s territorial powers act, the way they are formed and the way in which their citizens experience them. The story of modern Geopolitics is the story of America and American hegemony, with the waning of the great powers of the imperial era the rise of the United States as the world primal economic and military power can be seen as the story of the 20th century. Moving into the new century America is still the hegemon however the rise of china and reawakening of the Russian bear will once again push America to defend it’s vision going forward.
“The state is the highest achievement of man, a progressive and elaborate creation of his free will. The individual, the leader, the people, cooperate in maintaining it.” This idea of state was put forth by Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince, which was in essence a ruler’s handbook to governing and maintaining his land. Machiavelli conjured his theories for government by basing his ideas in his belief that men, especially men in power, tend to follow the same directions, and therefore by looking at past leaders and their follies we can better determine how to run a state. “Men are always the same and are animated by the same passions that lead them fatally to the same decisions, acts, an results…. That one can foresee the course of political development by mediating upon the cycles and phases of historical events, and that essential to a statesman is not only the experience of modern events and constant study of the past. But also the ability to exploit this knowledge in actual political actions.”
In this essay I will contend that ‘shared sovereignty’—as outlined by Stephen Krasner—can overcome the main obstacles of statebuilding. However, to increase the likelihood of success, I posit it is necessary for this ‘shared sovereignty’ to be based in principles of republicanism. Statebuilding has been largely unsuccessful. This failure can be explained by two major, interrelated obstacles: statebuilding’s exogenous nature and prêt-à-porter tendencies. Both of these criticisms allude to the reality that external actors’ interests typically do not align with the host government’s. A ‘partnership’ where sovereignties are tied together for an indefinite period of time addresses these concerns by assuring that the weak or failed state and the external body have agreed sufficiently on their end goals to enter into this relationship. This shared sovereignty and statebuilding being bound to republican statebuilding assures that Western tendencies towards liberalism are appropriately moderated to merge with the sociopolitical customs of the specific state being built up.
Political crisis in Ukraine has been dubbed as the biggest confrontation between the East and the West since the end of the Cold War. As the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine was annexed by the Russian Federation, the escalation of the current crisis is increasingly probable. While pro-Russian demonstrators are protesting in the eastern Ukraine, especially in Luhansk and Donetsk, approximately 40,000 Russian troops are amassed close to the Ukrainian border. Despite numerous attempts from the European Union (EU) and the United States to deescalate the crisis, the problem is still imminent and Crimea is still annexed. Since Russia is “one of the world’s major oil producers (ranking 7th in terms of its proven reserves) and the country possesses by far the largest natural gas reserves (with more than 20 percent of world proven reserves)” (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2011, p. 575), the West faces huge challenges in confronting its geopolitical power. The current policy of the West is extremely dangerous for Post-Soviet states who seek to inherit western ideologies and refuse to be influenced by Moscow. In order to tackle the Crimean crisis, challenge Russia, and overcome the economic challenges of Ukraine, new polices should be measured and established. Accordingly, the West should consider the following recommendations:
Historically, realism has been the dominant theory of International Relations which explains the fundamental features of international politics, inevitably associated with conflict and war (Chiaruzzi, 2012, pp. 36). Basically, there are two approaches of realism; classical realism and neorealism. Classical realists strongly emphasize on historical reality and takes its principles, orientations and practice from the account of history (Chiaruzzi, 2012, pp. 37). In contrast, neorealism is based on a scientific method by examining economic theory and philosophy of science rather than historical reflection (Chiaruzzi, 2012, pp. 41). In addition, power is central to realist perspectives of International Relations because it is crucial for the understanding of two principal issues: who can be expected to win a conflict? And, related to this, who governs international politics? (Guzzini, 2013, pp. 47). According to Morgenthau, power was the consequence of the drive for domination, the immediate aim of all political action, and the essence of international politics (Guzzini, 2013, pp. 47).
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.
In order to answer the question concerning the formation of states, it is necessary to clarify what constitutes a state; the Oxford English Dictionary defines a state as ‘a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government’. There are a number of ways and processes in which to analyse what state formation is, why they have formed and the way in which this has occurred. State emergence can be traced back to the creation of territorial boundaries in medieval Europe, such as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and its transition to a modern state can be attributed to the introduction of gunpowder in war (Hague & Harrop, 2010: 64). The formations of states have also been influenced by the growth of bureaucracy, administration and organisations. There are different theories as to the reason why states form, a certain few of which can be divided into the categories of rationalist, culturalist and structuralist perspectives. In this essay, these perspectives shall enter the debate in trying to justify the reason for state formation and the way in which it occurs. The most prominent feature in the formation of states appears to be the prevention and engagement of a state in war and its following consequences.
While some may argue that a state-centric international system is apt for non-state actors, since to attain a foreseeable future, they need to comprehend the state system and how to operate within it. This structure is weakening as non-state actors are increasing their influence in conflicts and challenging the international order founded upon the power of states. The openness of commercial markets and the weakening territorial sovereignty has limited the state’s monopoly of power asserted by structural realists. In Structural Realism After the Cold War, Kenneth Waltz alleges that, “If the conditions that a theory contemplated have changed, the theory no longer applies.” Theories and traditions in international relations must become more comprehensive if society intends to tackle the conflicts of the 21st century more effectively in the future.
The discipline of international relations (IR) contains several theories that contain theoretical perspectives to the idea of power. Within the realist perspective there are two approaches that help paint the portrait of the realist theory, the classical approach to realism and the neo-realist approach. Classical realism and neorealism both have been subjected to criticism from IR scholars and theorists representing liberal and constructivist perspectives. The key tenets to realism contain three essential characteristics of international relations which are the state, anarchy and the balance of power. This essay will closely analyse all three characteristics with special regards to power being central to the realist perspective.
Furthermore, the Ukraine and Russia have always shared a history; as both states are embodiments of the process of transformation, that have risen from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the end of the Cold War. The Ukraine’s material legacy is demographically and territorially close to Russia, thereby, tying the Ukraine to Russia.
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
This essay will describe the characteristics of the modern nation-state, explain how the United States fits the criteria of and functions as a modern nation-state, discuss the European Union as a transnational entity, analyze how nation-states and transnational entities engage on foreign policy to achieve their interests, and the consequences of this interaction for international politics.
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?