(this essay is NOT as long as it seems - much of the word count is the 30 works cited) Statement of the problem Rogue state is a controversial term applied by some international theorists to states they consider threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destructions Rogue states have been applied to a number of nations, often under the control of authoritarian regimes suspected of promoting terrorism, proliferation of unconventional weapons, or both. Nation States such as Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Pakistan and North Korea currently are considered “Rogue States” and pose as a dangerous threat to the United States and International security. International Security consists of the measures taken by nations and international organizations, such as the United Nations, to ensure mutual survival and safety . These measures include military action and diplomatic agreements such as treaties and conventions. In International Relations, it has been established that there are a set system in place that govern what and how states act. The decisions that these states make are based solely on the premise or personal power and international respect. The general consensus in international relations is that in a world plagued with the fear of nuclear annihilation states act accordingly, simply put the states in question choose to deter and with this deterrence, maintain their international stance. The problem however as it relates to Rogue States in International Relations is there are selective states which choose to be “rogue” and challenge the hegemonic. For the U.S. gover... ... middle of paper ... ...s Christel Lane and Reinhard Bachmann The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Jun., 1997), pp. 226-254 A Nontrivial Example of Application of the Nielsen Fixed-Point Theory to Differential Systems: Problem of Jean Leray Jan Andres Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 128, No. 10 (Oct., 2000), pp. 2921-2931 Information Systems in Treaty Regimes Xinyuan Dai World Politics, Vol. 54, No. 4 (Jul., 2002), pp. 405-436 Risk Aversion in International Relations Theory Barry O'Neill International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Dec., 2001), pp. 617-640 On International Migration and International Relations Myron Weiner Population and Development Review, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Sep., 1985), pp. 441-455 Systemic Approaches to Middle East International Relations F. Gregory Gause III International Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 11-31
Mingst, K. A. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 81). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Mingst, Karen A. Essentials of International Relations. New York : W.W. Norton & Co., 2008.
Firstly to justify why countries limit their immigrations, there should be knowledge of the different types of immigrants as there are different reasons to leave from one country and move into another. In the last 30 years, the number of international immigrants has been estimated 191 million worldwide, two times as before. As ...
Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Yapp, Malcolm. The Near East since the First World War: A History to 1995. London: Longman, 1996. Print.
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.
Willcox, Walter Francis, and Imre Ferenczi. International Migrations. New York: Nat. Bureau of Economic Research, 1929. Print.
Krasner, Stephen D. “Structural Causes and Regimes Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables.” International Organization. Vol. 36, No. 2, International Regimes (Spring, 1982), 185-205.
Maynes, Charles. "The Middle East in the Twenty-First Century." Middle East Journal 52.1 (1998): 9-16. JSTOR. Web. 6 June 2011.
Frieden, Jeffry A., David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. World Politics. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2013. Print.
Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan Way. "Linkage versus Leverage: Rethinking the International Dimension of Regime Change." Comparative Politics 38.4 (2006): 379-400. Print.
Roskin, M., & Berry, N. (2010). IR: The new world of international relations: 2010 edition (8th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Longman/Pearson Education.
Macionis. J, J. Plummer, K. (2005). Sociology. A global Introduction. Pearson Education Limited. Essex. (UK) Third Edition.
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.
Different theories of international relations seek to best explain and predict the whole spectrum of international relations. Some theories are better than others, if one wants to fully understand the spectrum of international relations. The Reductionist theory and the Structural theory both seek to predict the outcomes of international relations, however each leads to a different level and approach of explaining states behavior and ambitions in international relations. When studying and expanding the two theories to its full potential one can conclude as does Kenneth Waltz that one theory is better than the other overall in explaining I.R., this theory being the structural theory in that it explains what the Reductionist theory cannot.