Politics is often defined as “the pursuit of... and competition for political power” (Djeudo, 2013: 54). This hints at the notion that power is of paramount importance with regards to politics and hence, it is in every state’s interest to pursue power. Therefore, since international law is cumbersome to the pursuit of power, it has no role in foreign policy. However, I would argue that contrary to popular belief, international law is not an “unnecessary distraction” as it helps pursue soft power. In international politics today, soft power is favoured over hard power and hence, I would even argue that international law is a necessary tool in foreign policy.
Realism is a theory that suggests the need for anarchy in the global arena, whilst at the same time realist doctrine suggests that stability can only be achieved through a “balance of power”. With this said, are the doctrines of Collective Security and Defense fundamentally different from realism or does the idea of a “balance of power” mean that even the anarchical law of Realism is destined to seek order or at the very least is at the mercy of its necessity? Evaluation of the bounds of realism and the examination of the “practiced” institutions of Collective Security and Defense can hopefully clarify this. It is essential therefore to define the fundamentals of realism, collective defense and security in order to understand the differences between them and possible correlating factors necessary in the overall evolution of Realism/Neo-realism. Realism as defined, actually applies to pretty much anything.
The human condition and its significance to International Relations have been in debate for centuries. Classical Realist thought has focused on the inherently aggressive and selfish nature of man and assumed that it is these qualities that ensure war and conflict are inevitable aspects of human society. Alternatively, neo-realism emphasises the system structure of international politics. R.J. McShea discusses the significance of the human nature tradition throughout the study of international relations. The endeavour to rid the world of the evil of war and the advancement of the conditions for peace have been developed from the assumption that the interaction of the states, and the way they ought to conduct relations among themselves, are dependent upon the nature of man.
"Conventional Wisdom? The Effect Of Nuclear Proliferation On Armed Conflict, 1945-2001." International Studies Quarterly 56.1 (2012): 149-162. Academic Search Premier. Web.
30 April 2011. Dawson, Jim. "Proliferation Is Key Issue in Nuclear Power Resurgence." Physics Today 58.7 (2005): 33.Academic Search Complete. EBSCO.
America was quick to perpetrate these acts as potentially harmful to the American way of life, and therefore imposed sanctions on India, and later Pakistan. India, in turn, cited defense as a key reason for the testing, and as you will see, their reasoning was justified. In fact, around the world, the cry was for the United States to put an end to their nuclear posture, considered by many to be hypocritical. Even defense experts, such as Andrew Koch of the Cen... ... middle of paper ... ...o/opinion/index.html 4 Mian, Zia. (1998) The Politics of South Asia's Nuclear Crisis.
According to such realists, the State is the main actor in international relations insofar as it evolves in an anarchy international system. The aforementioned anarchical system involves a constant model of competition to assure their security and protect their interests. The State’s urge, or rather nature—one that is for all sakes and purposes selfish, seeks to its most nationalistic interest. As such, the nation’s interest stems from the pursuit of power. Although this currently dominates the field of political science, particularly that of international relations, it searches for power remains, in this regard, limited in the understanding of the terrorism.
The BOP is intellectually closely related to the idea of raison d’état (Staatsräson), an idea that belongs to the intellectual heritage of a Machiavelli, Hobbes or Friedrich Meinecke. Statesmen assumed the existence of objective power relationships in the international system out of which they could derive their ideal strategy to promote the individual national interest of their own state. This means they had to strategically anticipate the decisions of their enemies concerning armaments, alliance policies, and preventive military actions and so on. Statesmen thought in a systemic way. Their decisions, classical BOP theory assumes, are influenced by external developments more than by internal processes.
Luckily for states with equally matched political assets, a state needs only to appear stronger to the state it wishes to dominate. The uses of direct and indirect threats are a disciplinary tactic used the world over to achieve a means. The fear of power can be just as useful as the application if applied to the right situation. The line between intimidating ones enemies and taking action became increasingly skewed during the Cold War. The words of John F. Kennedy best exemplify this in his following statement, “…Armies and modern armaments serve primarily as the shield behind which subversion, infiltration and a host of other tactics steadily advance…” (Walker 1993, 164) The atmosphere created by the USSR and America in 1962 was of a threat,... ... middle of paper ... ...holds free elections, changes to a free market system, and respects the civil liberties and human rights of its citizens.