Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
International Politics is about Power
International Politics is about Power
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
INTR 1006 International Relations: An Introduction Assignment One: Essay Jason Angley Tutor: Paris Thanawathik Question: What Factors shape the International System? Which are the most Significant? 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”. Since the earliest recorded history, there has always been one elusive title that a State has strived for, the title of Super Power. Power is one of the fundamental characteristics of the international system and the distribution of power among states. It is obvious that states are unequal in power and this “entails a number of important implications for international politics”. As a result of this lack of power, the ‘weak states’ desires and concerns are often neglected and the ‘strong states’ demands usually shape the international agenda. In the Modern Society, some would argue that we have two great powers in Russia and the United States, but if you measure and compare the two countries, The United States is more powerful. Some of these categories are population in which the U.S has more than double Russ... ... middle of paper ... ...ment and well-being. It is clear that without the ongoing presence and work of international organisations, the international system would be in a far worse and more chaotic state, with a far greater chance for a civil war to breakout. They also are a major player in helping develop states political and economical systems. Despite the international system being anarchical, it is not in a state of total chaos due to a number of significant factors such as those above. It is obvious that the current international system is highly influenced by many significant factors and some are more prominent than others. With the continued existence of international anarchy it is up to the States and the International Organisations to continue to make the decisions that are in their own best interest and to maintain order and an ever-improving way of life. Word Count: 1,029
International organizations such as NATO and the UN are essential not only for global peace, but also as a place where middle powers can exert their influence. It is understandable that since the inception of such organizations that many crises have been averted, resolved, or dealt with in some way thro...
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
In no field other than politics does the justification for action often come from a noteworthy event and the true cause stays hidden behind the headlines. The United States’ transformation from a new state to a global superpower has been a methodical journey molded by international conditions (the global terrain for statecraft), the role of institutions and their programmed actions, and ultimately, the interests of actors (the protection of participants in making policy’s items and i...
Since the 15th century, the world has been through three major power shifts, as Fareed Zakaria describes in his book “The Post-American World”. Zakaria analyzes that the first power shifting began in the 15th century and took place in most European countries, this was the era of the development of modern science and technology, it has also produced such a long history of political dominance of the nations of the west. . The second shift was the rise of the United States. In the late 19th century, right after it industrialized, the United States emerged as the most developed and strongest country in the world, and for the last century the United States has dominated the global economics, politics, sciences and cultures.
...ractices of other branches of power that the UN cannot grasp upon. In contrast, the virtues of the UN remain undeniably consistent throughout history, but the powers and legislative action the organization fluctuates due to the constant uprising of conflict. However, throughout the history of the 20th century and post Cold – War conflict, the organization's extensiveness has increased, such through the actions of the Non-proliferation treaty of nuclear weapons, and the ongoing tasks of UN Peacekeeping missions. These actions reflected upon the UN fiasco of the Cold War, demonstrate the emerging “politico-economic” society, by laying a prodigious impact of the world via its numerous stretches of the organization.
According to realist view ordering principle of the international system is based on anarchy. There is no higher authority other than the states themselves to check and balance their actions. Consequently, nation-states are the main players in this system. In other words, sovereignty inheres in states, because there is not a higher ruling body in the international system. This is known as state centrism. Survival is an obligation continuing to be sovereign. On the other hand, sovereignty is the characteristic feature of states and its meaning is strongly tied to use of force. According to the most of the realist variants, states are “black boxes”; the determinative factor is states’ observable behavior, not their leaders’ characteristics, their decision making processes or their government systems.
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.
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.
The level of analysis discloses three different ways of understanding international relations. System-level analysis considers a "top-down" approach to studying 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 analysis examines human actors on the global stage.
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.
This essay will describe the characteristics of the modern nation-state, explain how the United States fits the criteria of and functions as a modern nation-state, discuss the European Union as a transnational entity, analyze how nation-states and transnational entities engage on foreign policy to achieve their interests, and the consequences of this interaction for international politics.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).
There are three main arguments concerning the discussion over the amount of power regimes have in the international system. The neo-realist argument is the first one where regimes are not merely considered as inadequate, but sometimes deceptive. This perspective is regarded as conventional structural. Keohane and Stein support the second argument, which states that regimes have certain worth, but only under particular conditions. Finally, the Grotian argument perceives regimes as an essential, secondary phenomenon feature of human nature. The connection of international and domestic stakeholders, through benefits, influence, standards, societies, and knowledge lead to the likely development of regimes.
Today's world is full of problems present on an international scale. Yet, differences amongst states compel them to eschew cooperation. The division between the global North and South is the greatest challenge to global governance. The contrast in economic welfare, political stability, and culture among states creates many dilemmas for the international community. The economic differences between highly developed economies and the rest of the world deters cooperation. In addition, social differences between North and South create cultural clashes that breed violence, and adds difficulty to forming international norms. Moreover, the political weakness of some states in the global South create security dilemmas and keep global governance initiatives away from success. The international order is skewed in favour of the global North and serves to empower them. However, international leaders can solve these issues by promoting global equity. In order for global governance to achieve its fullest potential, the world must first address the inequality of states.