Realist thought on international relations fit comfortably within the context of the great wars of the twentieth century. Powerful nations possessing massive military forces took aim at one another to affect the hierarchical structure of the international system for the good of their own security and power. These wars, however, differ greatly from today’s unconventional war on terrorism. Therefore, the realist theories of yesterday, while still useful, require at least some tweaking to fit the present situation.
Probably the most obvious critique of realism with regard to the war on terrorism is that it is a theory that deals with international relations. The belligerents in the war on terrorism are not always conventional nation-states. Therefore, any theory that seeks to explain international relations must be amended to fit the framework of a situation in which nations are not the only players. This is not simply a matter of diction either. Non-state actors do not always act like states possessing a cohesive foreign policy and a desire for self-preservation and advancement. Furthermore, terrorist organizations are not tied to any specific area of land surrounded by well-defined borders that are protected with conventional military forces. This is not to say that terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are entirely devoid of the motivations on which traditional nation-sates act like the desire for power, wealth, and security; beca...
In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.
The "Red Scare" Reality. During the Cold War, fear and hostility toward communism were the driving forces behind many of the social and foreign policies in the United States. How much of this fear was actually grounded in reality? During the "Red Scare" America was totally taken over by a fear of communism, or anything/anyone that had anything to do with communism. Much of this fear is really unnecessary when you put things into perspective.
Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush administration’s rationale for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq was based on two misleading assumptions: firstly, Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (along with Iran and North Korea) and secondly, that it was aiding and protecting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Such a conjecture based on unsubstantiated evidence helped Bush administration conjure up a dystopian situation which justified 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of “security maximization”. This explanation was given in pursuance of the realist assumption that States’ as rational actors always act in accordance with their national security interests.
...dens the understanding of international relations and correspondingly broadens the understanding of security. Built on Thayer’s and Waltz’s theory, the paper suggests that structure of the international system is central to international security and to achieve peace, suitable strategies are necessary to balance the power relations. While it should not be ignored that the Evolution theory still falls within realism realm with many other forms of complex security problems unexplained.
Terrorism is a rare, broad concept that affects individuals, schools, corporations, and governments alike. Generally terrorists end up wanting to make change with governments, and governments are usually the only groups powerful enough to try to deal with governments. But what should be the best strategy to deal with terrorists? Since September 11, 2001 game theory has been used to analyze how governments and how terrorists should act to achieve their best outcome. This paper will analyze the games that these competing forces can use to determine the best course of action.
The realism that will be the focus of this paper is that of Kenneth Waltz. Kenneth Waltz presents his theory of realism, within an international system, by offering his central myth that, “Anarchy is the permissive cause of war”. Kenneth Waltz’s central myth helps answer the question as to why war happens in the first place. During the cold war, there was a heightened sense of insecurity between Russia and the United States due to presence of nuclear weapons. The Movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb used cold war tension between the two countries to tell the story of a general who went crazy and decided to unleash his fleet of nuclear bombers onto Russian military bases.
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
1] Harmonie Toros.”We Don’t Negotiate with Terrorists!: Legitimacy and Complexity in terrorist Conflicts.” Security Dialogue 39 (2008): 407-426.
Realism is a research paradigm that focuses primarily on power. John Mearsheimer holds that, “Power is the currency of international politics.” The realism research paradigm is used by scholars to explain the causes of both World War I and World War II. Although both World Wars can be explained within the realm of realism, realism only focuses on the systems level of analysis, and does not look at other causes of the wars that liberals look at when examining World War I and World War II, such as the state and individual level of analysis. Therefore, flaws can be pointed out in the realism research paradigm because there may have been other factors that contributed to war that realism simply ignores by design. In this paper, I argue that realism,
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.
To conclude, there are four main components of the realist approach to international relations, they are: state which includes egoism as the states are composed by the selfish people, self-help which includes balance of power as power is used to enhance the survival rate, survival which includes hegemony in order to maintain its position and anarchical system which related to lust for power and led to security dilemma.
The coordinated attack September 11th 2001 on the United States resulted in a prolonged war on terror; that is still active today. Many people are asking how this could happen. Others want to know how to prevent it from happing again. Some wonder if world peace will ever be possible. The United States does not think peace can be possible until the threat of terrorism becomes obsolete. There is no clear answer to the questions and concerns over terrorism although there are several schools of thought on how to respond to terrorism. This paper will discuss; realism, liberalism, and structuralism in an attempt to find a solution. I will offer Foreign Policy recommendations based on these theories; an examination regarding the application of these theories will show advantages and disadvantages of each, as well as how the United States applies them to combat and eliminate the threats of terrorism today.
Whenever world politics is mentioned, the state that appears to be at the apex of affairs is the United States of America, although some will argue that it isn’t. It is paramount we know that the international system is shaped by certain defining events that has lead to some significant changes, particularly those connected with different chapters of violence. Certainly, the world wars of the twentieth century and the more recent war on terror must be included as defining moments. The warning of brute force on a potentially large scale also highlights the vigorousness of the cold war period, which dominated world politics within an interval of four decades. The practice of international relations (IR) was introduced out of a need to discuss the causes of war and the different conditions for calm in the wake of the first world war, and it is relevant we know that this has remained a crucial focus ever since. However, violence is not the only factor capable of causing interruption in the international system. Economic elements also have a remarkable impact. The great depression that happened in the 1920s, and the global financial crises of the contemporary period can be used as examples. Another concurrent problem concerns the environment, with the human climate being one among different number of important concerns for the continuing future of humankind and the planet in general.
International relations first arose during the rise of total war in World War One. The war forced intellectuals to look at International relations in a different spectrum and in order of a way to secure the peace Woodrow Wilson, the US president at the time used the liberal ideology to shape a post war order. This helped contribute to liberalism in International Relations. Liberalism was considered idealist because it operated on an optimistic view of human nature. Soon after the war, however, idealism was being challenged by the bureaucratic realism. And so the debate continues between idealism and realism whether which one is more likely to help explain and understand International Relations. In my paper I will argue that both terms are mutually exclusive and in order to fully grasp International Relations and apply it, there needs to be a good mixture of both. An Idealist view on international relations with an equal admixture of realism will result in more awareness in international relations on a global scale, which will help suppress the need for war and dominance of countries. I will argue this claim by showing that too much of an idealistic point of view will result in naïve thinking and too much of a realistic view will result in a distant global relationship. I will compare and contrast the scholarly works of Mordecai Roshwald and Jack Donnelly and their thoughts on Realism and Idealism in politics; Charles W. Kegley and his thoughts on realism and its challenges; and J.A. Hobson’s view on idealism in International relations. I will then connect all the scholarly works together and construct my own proposal and my contribution to this topic of idealism and realism in International Relations.
Since the 9/11 event, terrorism has been becoming more rampant and violent in nations of the world. Getting to the bottom and providing a solution has also been increasingly difficult and one of the main reasons is the lack of a confound definition. “Terrorism in the most widely accepted contemporary usage of term, is fundamentally and inherently political. It is also unavoidably about pow...