Stephen. D. Krasner is an International Relations Professor at Stanford University and a former director of Policy Planning at the United States Department of State. He is a neorealist who focuses on sovereignty and state structure, international regimes and weak state stabilisation. His theory is the product of contemporary times and projects a broad trajectory of ups and downs in the international state structure embedded with the chain of circumstances within the rigid framework of international relationships and effectively and efficiently analyses the reasons and remedies for the current state of being of the states. His major contributions are Sovereignty-organised Hypocrisy, Structural Conflict-Third world against the global liberalism and Defending National Interest. In his important article, “Abiding Sovereignty” Krasner attempts to throw light on the changing global scenarios and institutions and its effect on sovereignty and the international state system. Krasner says that the sovereign states are the building blocks of the modern state system which has territorial, judicial and economical autonomy and control within …show more content…
The major critique of his idea of sovereignty as an “organised hypocrisy” is that he takes very less effort in giving a larger picture of sovereignty emphasising on “organised hypocrisy”. Theoretical support for this concept is very underdeveloped. Arguments regarding the normative attribute of sovereignty and the relationship of sovereignty to the normative project of the international law are absent in Krasner’s examination of sovereignty. He identification of the “rulers” of the state as primary actors with “constituents” playing undecided, but secondary roles gives as a minimalist and statist view of the micro foundations of International State
Patterson, Foner, and King all describe their typological analysis of Freedom in three uniquely different ways.
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.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Silver, Larry.
Mearsheimer J. J. (2010). Structural Realism. International Relations Thoeries, Discipline and Diversity (Second Edition), p.77-94
In “The Conflict of Autonomy and Authority” Robert Paul Wolff argues that the state’s authority is in conflict with having genuine autonomy. He reasons as follows. If there were a supreme political authority, which have a right to rule, there would be an obligation for a man to obey its laws. However, a man has an obligation to be autonomous, which means taking responsibility for making one’s own decisions about what one should do. Autonomous man has primary obligation to refuse to be ruled. Therefore, a supreme political authority does not have a right to claim authority over a man who has a moral obligation to be autonomous. He concludes by denying the concept of de jure legitimate state.
The presumption is that a state jurisdiction is territorial and if each State has jurisdiction over its own territory, consequently, other States do not have jurisdiction over those affairs in line with the international law principles of non-intervention and sovereign equality of States . In fact, territorial jurisdiction is universally recognized. However, as Ryngaert points out, jurisdiction is not only linked with sovereign and is no exclusively of domestic concern (Ryngaert, p. 7), making reference to the “extra-territorial
The belief of a nation running their own state is a right for most of us. However, this is only a new conviction. The right for one to sovereign their own nation has come due with hard work. Illicit imperialism has stricken humanity for numerous years. Due to the aspiration of power certain nations today do not self-govern their own state. But why would there be a desire for this power? Some of the main items include natural resources, increased assets, and military expansion. Ideally this is great if this is voluntary external rule, but when it’s no longer voluntary this is when the boundary has been crossed. This is why every nation should have control over their own state if they desire.
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.
...t state autonomy cannot be restricted by anything but the community (state) itself. As one might assume, it follows from these differing standpoints that the way each theory view intervention, etc., will be in opposition. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
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.
“The process of globalization and the increasing role of non-state actors in global governance are undermining the role of the state as the principal actor in global policymaking.”
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”.
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).
Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens. 2014. The globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. London. Oxford University Press.
Before we delve deeper into this topic, it is imperative to properly provide a definition of sovereignty and lay down some foundation on this topic. There are four different definitions of sovereignty – international legal sovereignty, Westphalia sovereignty, domestic sovereignty and interdependence sovereignty. International legal sovereignty deals with “the practices associated with mutual recognition, usually between territorial entities that have formal juridical independence” (Krasner 4). The main definition of sovereignty that this paper will use is the ...