Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Although the aspirations and goals of states are often motivated by external political pressures, analysis of recent foreign policy decisions demonstrates how internal political forces can play equally crucial roles in the pursuit and execution of these objectives. Thus, it would be invalid to claim that domestic politics and the nature of regimes play minor roles in either the goals a state pursues or the means it employs to reach them. By understanding how the diffusion of power in governments affect policy decisions, one can develop increased awareness of the linkages that exist between the internal pressures of domestic politics and the external forces of foreign politics. Before discussing the impact of domestic politics on foreign policy objectives and their execution, one must first understand the different types of policies that states pursue. The foreign policy of states can be directed toward the protection and enhancement of valued possessions (“possession goals”) or intended to improve the environment in which it operates (milieu goals).
This can be seen as a strength and a weakness. A state is more inclined to favor an agreement or sign a treaty if there is a significant gain for the state than if it would have minimum benefit. The strength behind this realist idea is that the state will always look out for the best interest in its people and for its security. Classical realists are correct in describing states as motivated by self-interest and this claim is still relevant in current international politics but because of the dynamic of the current international system an excess in self-interest could lead to massive global instability. Although this idea may seem trivial and straightforward, it’s a main ideal of classical realism that has significant weaknesses in the current international system.
Realism and the Significance of the Human Rights Norm With rampant violation of the human rights norm, are norms relevant in international politics? What significance do they hold if they do not inform policy decisions? Can anything be done in order to strengthen the normative element of human rights protection on a large scale? Constructivists declare that norms, principles, regimes or ideas are important factors at play in the international system mitigating pure self-interest and power politics that dictate behavior, as per the dominant realist worldview. However, to what extent norms actually influence decision-making is the true test to the relevance of constructivist arguments.
The statement addressed a simple but important question: “why do states want power?” While “human nature” is always claimed by the classical realism, the neorealists, or the structural realists such as Mearsheimer specified the structure or architecture of the international system which forces states to pursue power. All states desire sufficient power to protect th... ... middle of paper ... ...issue. In this case, neoliberalism not only helps states to make a more rational decision, but also gives a birth of the institution forming the norms for the states’ solving crisis in the future. To conclude, both of them are important, while they are not contradictory, but complementary. Reference Baldwin, D. A.
In order to support my point of view, I will give importance to the reasons of why rulers appeal to categorical imperative when making foreign policy, so I have two reasons for this. One of them is that states depend on each other in economically and politically. Thus, in order to provide this stability which means that continue to stay among other states, states should act through the principles of categorical imperative which are universally valid, good intention and never using people or other states as means to end. The second reason is that if rulers appeal to categorical imperative when making foreign policy decisions, the world can be more peaceful. Since, wars and conflicts which are caused by bad intention, using other people or states as means for gaining advantages which are not universally valid can be hindered by categorical imperatives.
The inclination of his paradigm is that one culture must win and another must lose. His hypothesis thus promotes political actors, policy makers and citizens to understand cultural dissimilarities as devastating and to support such differences. Consequently, his civilizations approach may not provide a standard paradigm, but it may add to realist and liberal approaches to explain international relations. – 3
Conceivably, there is a strong desire to avoid more conflict through amicable resolution of both the national and international disputes. The success of U... ... middle of paper ... ...on of some UNSC interventions are mainly contributed by poor institutional structures, procedures, socioeconomic matter, and political challenges. International relations are increasingly drawing attention to the interdependence of national economies aspects of life. The UNSC needs to strengthen their guidelines and policies by creating few but strong institutions that will aid in advancing their agenda of maintaining peace and security around the world. The review of the current guidelines is crucial for nations to take the institution seriously.
In conclusion, the theory of perpetual democracy is based on tangible pillar but upon analysis, relativity, uncertainty and vagueness present themselves hence the criticism. It lacks uniformity in defining the key principles of democracy and liberalism despite being in line with the modern world where countries want inclusion in efforts to become globalized. To end my argument, the theory can be said to be a double-edged sword whereby it can lead to peace or justify war. With more succinct and clear definitions, the theory is okay in a modern world.
And states seek security through balancing the distribution of power. Second, polarity, which is determined by distribution of, has a significant impact on the choice of balancing behavior of states. And consistent with the history, this theory suggests that states are more likely to go to war under multipolarity while a bipolar system is relatively stable because of security dilemma between two great powers. After this, I will discuss two liberal critiques of the theory and further explain why realist theory best explain the onsets of these events. First, both liberals and realists agree that international system is anarchic and survival of the state is the primary interests (Marten 9/19/2011).
The General Assembly recognizes that countries who are not super powers eventually need intervening. They do not want states to do nothing because the state in question for intervening will continue to fall in the hands of corruption while nothing gets done. The GA opposed foreign intervention, but with our topic it points out that intervention is a necessity when the outcome could potentially solve conflicts and issues. In many cases intervention is necessary to protect Human Rights. For instance; several governments around the world do not privilege their citizens with basic Human Rights.