According to the Realists, because states (especially the most powerful) are the actual decision makers in intergovernmental organizations, the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and other U.S. alliances act only according to the ideas of the United States and other powerful countries. These entities do not make real decisions without U.S. approval and, thus, act simply as extensions of U.S. foreign p... ... middle of paper ... ...nt demonstrates a country’s need to protect its territorial integrity amidst world anarchy, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs illustrates the important role of fulfilling safety needs in order to self-actualize, and recent attacks on U.S. soil reveal the real threat to American national security that remains today. If the United States is to continue to be a world superpower, it must ensure that American values, lives, property, and way of life are in no way undermined. One can see that making national security its primary goal in foreign policy will help the United States make certain that it continues to be a formidable force in world politics. ---------------------------------------------------------------------  All information on Maslow’s hierarchy is from a Yahoo word search: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Finally, the success of the US and the defeat of the USSR allowed testing international relations theories and reconfiguring the world order in terms of power. This essay will analyze why Western states favor the realist approach to address security concerns. The document will present the United States of America (US) as the icon of the modern Western world. In the same way, the content will be examined under the scope of its politics and military power. To begin with, it is necessary to highlight that one ruling principle of realism supports the argument that, ‘states exist in an international system that is characterized by competition and war’ .
Realists suppose that states must endeavour to conquer as many resources as achievable for their national security. Realists believe that interactions between states are decided by their might based on their militaries and financial strength. Further, assumption that there is a common distrust of long-standing collaboration or coalition leads to their fundamental political condition of Anarchy. Revolutionist on the other hand may be described more specifically as those who keenly trust in the ethical ... ... middle of paper ... ...ds rationalism obtained its well-liked, most accepted meaning and reached its fundamental political condition of international society which is ideal and relies upon obligations and priori reasoning. To conclude, the three traditions of international theory (realism, rationalism, and revolutionist) developed unique fundamental political conditions based on the circumstances and challenges faced by the states in the course of time.
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.
There is a moral issue here: The civilized world has a mission to go out to these desperate places and govern." Both Selfa and Mallaby take different approaches as to how the intervention of a country should take place and what should be done to that country in particular. Selfa believes that, no matter what approach we take to overthrow a regime of a "failed state," whether through overt force or covert operations, the end result is always the same, "the forcible (and usually uninvited entry of Western military forces into a weaker country, the deposing of its government, and the setting up of a Western-backed caretaker regime. The difference between these imperial ventures and their 19th century cousins is of degree, not of kind." Selfa sees every United States' imperialistic effort as the same as every other imperialistic effort taken up by man, only on a larger scale.
Under this concept, once the strongest power lets its guard down, another aspiring dominant power begins to rise, often leading to war. One then can conclude that changes in distribution of power among leading states may be one factor of war and instability. Another use of the term refers to the deliberate use of policy to crea... ... middle of paper ... ...t is inevitable. Due to the anarchic system in which they reside, states must find their own means of defense against any other state and their potential threats. Although the threats can be merely perceived there is always the possibility of one state gaining more power than other states, in which states, in order to survive, must look on to external collaboration such as alliances for protection.
Risk Management and Homeland Security Risk is present in nearly every action and decision made around the world. Decisions and plans are determined primarily through discovering the risks and finding ways to avoid them and mitigate their impact. There is no doubt that with a mission of greater importance comes greater and more numerous threats and that is why managing risks is a high priority for Homeland Security in the U.S. To ensure the best possible security and safety decisions and plans, homeland security professionals must calculate every risk and find solutions to prevent or mitigate damage they might cause. Policy directly relates to potential risks and without the key resource of research management the nation would not be safe.
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 balance of power is closer with first great debate. The realists also diverge on some issues. So-called offensive Realists maintain that, in order to ensure survival, States will seek to maximize their power relative to others (Mearsheimer 2001). If rival countries possess enough power to threaten a State, it can never be safe. The hegemony is thus the best strategy for a country to pursue, if it can.
The original establishment of the idea of state and sovereignty developed over the concept of a government having an overarching political power over its territory. Security is one of the major missions that every state strives to achieve. Creveld specifically claims that the primary mission of the state is to fight and defend because those that fails are “doomed to disappear.” This is because nothing would matter if it did not exist. The Unite States’ spending in military sho... ... middle of paper ... ...t is just under the assumption that states should cooperate in order to keep international peace. () Works Cited Branstetter, Lee.