Economic gain, the main concern of states proved to be a barrier to international cooperation. Game theory uses the Prisoners Dilemma game to illustrate, isolate and analyse the rational decision-making processes involved in co-operation to reduce the possibilities for cheating and free-riding. In 2009, the Obama administration announced that the misile defense system in Europe which Russia disapproved of will come to an end, this was viewed by many as a way to attract the Russian support for santions against the nuclear program in Iran (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2007:87).
States cooperate to create international institutions with the goal of avoiding market failures and creating trust. The peaceful drive by self-interested economic behavior permeates international relations. The International Political Economy, stems from the neoliberal alternative of International Relations theory which emerged in the 1980’s through the writings of Keohane (1984) who emphasised the economic sphere and fused politics and economics in order to go beyond the limiting security obsession.
The first challenge neoliberals recognize to the design of institutions is bargaining and what role it plays in international negotiations. Institutions can facilitate cooperation by normalizing the rules and procedures which institutions will reflect as mutually accepted boundaries for behaviour and for the achievement of collective goals. As Mearsheimer (1994:5) stated, ‘great powers will have more influence over international negotiations and their outcome’, but neoliberals have an interset in developing the rational design of institutions. The bilateral agreements following the Second World War served as stepping stones for the European trade via regional...
... middle of paper ...
... the institutions have the ability to control to a certain extent the cheating and well as unequal gain (free riding) through regulation and cooperation.
THEORY COMPARISON – CASE STUDY
Under neorealism it is concluded that the cause of state behaviour is due to the anarchic structure of the international system and not human nature (Alvarenga, 2007). The members of the South African National Defence force were sent to the Central African republic on the basis of a ‘government to government pact’ (bilateral) and not on a mandate from either the African Union or the United Nations as stated in the president’s message of condolence at the memorial service of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) member who died in the Central African Republic. South Africa was acting unilaterally and therefore had no ability to request support from these institutions.
Khrushchev’s finally accepts the proposal the of removing Soviet missiles out of Cuba in exchange for United States removing its missiles from Turkey in a few months. Perhaps Khrushchev’s acquiescence can be explained by the political-bargaining model, which predicts that parties involved in a disagreement, where the states are incredibly high, would be motivated to take any necessary steps via a bargaining process to reach a resolution.
Realism is not only the pervasive approach in international relations literature but is accurate in describing and anticipating state actions. Constructivists need a genuine response to realism and, in order to do that, norms need to enter into the process of rational decision-making. This could take several forms including increasing costs of norm violation, introducing hegemonic power into the system, or redefining interests in terms other than material. Discussions in the literature analyze the impact of norms, regimes, ideas, or principles on international relations, but do not often take a critical enough look at what is at stake. Realist politics hinder progressive, humanitarian initiatives because of its marriage to power and material capabilitie...
Nuclear issue in the North Korea has been a problem widely discussed around the world in recent years, while the whole progress from the start of the nuclear crisis (The withdrawal of the North Korea from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003) to the cooperation (Six Party Talks) and its failure is quite dramatic and worth exploring (Fang, 2009). This paper attempted to use two perspectives including neorealism and neoliberalism to look at the issue, and examine their explanatory power. Accordingly, this paper recognized the importance of the two perspectives in explaining the issue. On one hand, neorealism showed the restraints and balancing behaviors of the states during the process of negotiation, implying the failure of the talks. On the other hand, neoliberalism contributed to clarification of the complexity constituted by different actors and problems in the issue, while demonstrating the rationality of states, as well as the birth of the institution forming international norms. Therefore, the author believed the two perspectives are not contradictory, but complementary.
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Site. 1999. The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'S “Cold War.” The Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Third Edition. 1994: Columbia University Press.
From the realist point of view, the international political system is considered as anarchic. There is a lack of external authority among states that ensures peace, stability and balance of power. In the analyzed document, the author's main thesis states that changes of the system would alter the international political system. However, changes within the system will maintain its anarchism. In order to support his thesis, the author replies to liberal critics, who consider the neorealism as obsolete taking into account three important arguments against the neorealism.
In International Relations it is commonly accepted that there is a wide range of different theoretical approaches which attempt to provide an explanation for the different dynamics of the global political system. Realism and Liberalism are well known theories which are considered to be two of the most important theories in international relations. They are two contrasting ideas when it comes to explaining how two states relate to each other in the absence of a world government. Both theories agree that the world is in anarchy and therefore it is helpful to start with a definition of anarchy and what it implies. This essay aims to discuss the contrasts between Liberalism and Realism as well as how these two theories agree that the world is anarchy.
Level of analysis discloses three different ways of understanding international relations. The System-level analysis considers "top-down" approach to study world politics (Rourke, 2007, p. 91). It emphasises that international actors, countries, operate in a global social-political-economic-geographic environment and the explicit characteristics of the system outlines the mode of interaction among the actors. The State-level analysis stresses the national states and their domestic practices such as national interests, interest groups, government, and domestic economy as the key determinants of the state of world affairs (Mingst, 2008). The Individual-level of analysis examines human actors on the global stage. It focuses on the human nature, which defines the primary human characteristics that influence decisions; organizational behaviour that describes human interaction within organized settings, e.g. decision-making group; and personal behaviour that investigates the effect of the uniqueness of individual decision makers on foreign policy (Rourke, 2007, p. 65).
Gilpin, Robert. Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Print.
Wendt, A. (1992). “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, 46(2), pp. 391-425.
The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.
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.
The security dilemma literatures suggest that cooperation with the other states could be a best solution to deal with the dilemma, and the states should decide when they need to enforce some strategies, such as enforce arms control and one sided defensive strategy to arms racing (Brown, Lynn-Jones, Miller 1995: 380).
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”.
Doyle, Michael W. and G. John Ikenberry, eds. (1997) New Thinking in International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Pres.
... and tension will use the leverage gained from interdependence as a weapon as against each other. E.g., Russia is using its power as a main supplier of gas and oil to weaken the harsh international condemnation.