Problems in international politics come in many magnitudes, all problems have many results and few problems have a clear cut solution. At the structural level, every country’s leader has many goals and an agenda. Relations between countries are similar to friendships. Countries try to have a relationship with another country to gain money, insight, or an advantage. International relations occur for a number of reasons, but a few common ones are: cost benefit, developing or advancing weaponry, or developing more trust. Three specific examples of the reasons countries have problems are because of economics, military, or security. Most problems in international politics are interconnected, and it is hard to pinpoint a resolution. The issues of international politics are interdependent; The root of why those resolving these issues face much adversity lies in the variance in beliefs. Every problem that an analyst of international politics attempts to fix is done in a way that has the least kickbacks to particular institutions. Many would agree that a solution doesn’t have to be solved perfectly, because one such word can be interpreted many ways. Realists would argue that when solving a problem, the government would focus on what they can gain from the problem. Liberals would argue that countries are capable putting aside their quest for power and focusing on gaining mutual interests. When leaders gather to solve sophisticated problems, ironing out a solution requires much compromise. On most days countries are willing to cooperate, but it is the days they aren’t that causes such an issue. Often times so many factors go into solving a problem that it takes time to attempt it. Such is the problem with global economics. Th... ... middle of paper ... ...everyone had the same view the world would be a boring place and that would only exist in a utopian society. Having problems is inevitable, but how we solve the problems is where the adaptation can be made. Governments and countries need to expect problems and have the ability to solve them efficiently. If people were more concerned about actually solving problems instead of avoiding, complaining, and abandoning them; a lot more solutions would exist then problems. Works Cited Parker, Ned . "Iraq's Worsening Situation." Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2013. . Lerman, Robert, and Robert Cherry. "How the government can solve the housing crisis." CNN. Cable News Network, 1 Jan. 1970. Web. 7 Dec. 2013. .
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.
Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
US Presidents have made it a goal during their term(s) in office to establish a good relationship with foreign countries and even try to improve upon existing connections with our allies. Some believe it is to prevent conflicts between the countries while others dispute that it is a threat assessment by the United States to pick and choose their friends and enemies. Preventing conflict between two democracies or countries that practice democracy is called Democratic Peace Theory. However, research has begun to show that Democratic Peace Theory is ineffective and needs to be brought to an end as a model for how international relations are formed or destroyed. Democratic Peace Theory needs to be abolished as a support for forming foreign policy between democracies because of the burden placed on both parties to come to an agreement but still stand proud and victorious as a country without conceding anything.
In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.
International politics traditionally focuses on the relationship between states and international organisations. Despite the fact that the geography may remain inert, the geopolitical situations in regions are shifting over time, and changes in global environment can make an influence on the regional powers. The world’s great powers are the main and decisive actors among states, which make an enormous influence on the processes of the international relationship. Throughout history, the world environment has demanded from nations to get more resources in order to develop their economy and military power. Therefore, countries struggled to get more possessions and territory in order to survive. A high developed economic industry
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.
The international relations between the countries are the process that develops the countries, since they benefit and learn from each other. International relations can be the study of sovereign states and global issues. Also, it would the study of political and economic issues among the countries in order to have a stable political system and to benefit the economy in these countries that have strong international relations. Historically, the idea of international relations has been existed since Thucydides time, who was a Greek writer in the time of Sparta’s war. The international relations between Greece and Sparta played an important role at that time. Countries always act in favour for their benefits and interests. There is no single agreement or political formation without the benefit of the parties participating. Countries always try to ensure their benefits and their political interests. These interests might lay in many aspects and issues. Two main aspects that international relations put the emphasis on are economy and political stability. Economy is, as we all know, the best tool for country development and forward satisfaction of people. When a country has a good economic quota has less likelihood of political threat and regime change. Politics on the other hand plays a major in the international relations system. Countries want to ensure their security and diminish the political threat whether internal or external. Now days, the international relations is the key of success for the countries. For example, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia have strong relations with a developed country such as France, in which they got benefit economi...
The liberalism and the realism approaches the international relations from very different perspective, and even though many of its views contrast from each other, the ...
...onomic conditions were going to change would be to solve the economic problems, not escaping them by blaming everyone else.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
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.
Global Politics The study of international or rather global politics, seeks to provide an account of politics in the broadest domain. The domain of international politics in the twenty-first century is characterised by the increasing number of actors pursuing common and personal interests. It is largely due to the globalised, interdependent nature of the current international political environment that the concepts of sovereignty and power deserve further evaluation. The exercise of authority and power are facts as old as time, throughout the ages men have tried to explain and understand how and why political authority is organised. Sovereignty is a concept used to explain political power, to attempt to understand the complex interactions that take place as man strives towards the most effective and efficient form of societal organisation.
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.
Need for international regimes depend on states’ perception of international problem, which results from their causal and normative beliefs. Interests are not given and need to be analyzed as a function of decision-makers perception of the world; decision-makers should reduce uncertainty via information; actors before developing shared rules at least should have an agreement on issue in question, “otherwise, convergent expectations among independent actors in an international issue-area would be impossible, and cooperation would be doomed to
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”.