Up to the subatomic level, models in physics are relatively small. Only little equations are needed to explain the totality of the world. However, it is not possible to explain international relations in the same matter, since the complexity of world politics cannot be accurately modeled. When seeking causality for a phenomenon in international relations, it is studied through lenses of different theories to find the most accurate set of explanations. It is of similar importance to consider that these explanations can be categorized into three levels. These levels offer a framework for analysis by looking at the international system, states, and individual actors and it is important that we consider all levels of analysis when thinking theoretically about international relations.
Each level offers a distinct set of explanations for a phenomenon. Looking at the sum of these makes it possible to determine whether an explanation, proposed on only one level, is logically consistent and significant enough to provide causality for an issue, or whether a combination of explanations from more than one level is needed to find a conclusive answer.
The international system as a level of analysis is an important tool when thinking about international relations, since it incorporates the totality of interactions that take place within a system.
During the rise of behavioralism and realism, international politics was conceptualized as a system, comparable to the solar system. This conceptualization is based on the assumption that the system is composed of units that act in patterned, largely habitual ways and that they impact each other with their actions. Similar to other systems, a change in one of its units causes change in other...
... middle of paper ...
...tages is one of its largest weaknesses at the same time, in my opinion. When the focus lies on the totality of the system, generalizations lead to the assumption of great behavioral uniformity among the systems actors and their relationships. While it seems logical that most states seek to preserve what is in their national interest, it is important and necessary to consider that states might differ in their intention to preserving that interest, or simply in what they consider to be their national interest, for example. Disregarding the relevance of variation among states could lead to imprecise assumptions about the systems actors and could raise questions about the explanatory capability of this level of analysis.
[1] Karen A. Mingst, Ivan M. Arreguín –Toft. Essentials of International Relations (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., October 2013)
New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Silver, Larry.
It is that simpler explanations are more likely the better choice than complicated drawn out explanations. The simpler something is the easier it is follow and there is less room for mistakes. Complicated explanations are more likely to make errors in them. This of course is when both theories explain the data or situation equally well. For example if you walk into the kitchen and the cat food has been knocked over and split all over the floor you would have to evaluate the different explanations. If your in-between two explanations that are the cat jumped on the counter and knocked it over or the dog unlocked its kennel pushed a chair over to the counter and then jumped on the counter, this tool says to go with the first option. Both explanations are reasonable and would explain what happened but the first less
Edkins, Jenny, and Maja Zehfuss. Global Politics: A New Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2009. Print.
Mearsheimer J. J. (2010). Structural Realism. International Relations Thoeries, Discipline and Diversity (Second Edition), p.77-94
Understanding the World ‘We’ Live in’, International Affairs, Vol. 80, No. I, (2004) pp. 75-87.
Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security. Cambridge: President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. 71-81. Print.
My answer to these two questions is threefold: First, I assert that TSMs and INGOs can and have posed substantial normative challenges to state hegemony, most commonly the notion that the state enjoys a monopoly on representation of its citizens and their interests. Furthermore, TSMs and INGOs that employ the use of violence (particularly terrorism) breach the conventional notion that states...
Kent, J. and Young, J.W. (2013), International Relations Since 1945: A global History. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
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.
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”.
Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens. 2014. The globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. London. Oxford University Press.