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.
Statism is an idea that the state is an accurate representative of the will of its people.  The state is sovereign and therefore is able to govern itself as it wants. With this sovereignty that state is able to institute security. After a state has established security it is then able to continue with a communal culture. In international relationships however sovereignty does not supply security therefore a state must vie with its neighboring states to accomplish it.
In this case, should government be able to use its authority in any way it pleases as Hobbes argues or should there be a limit placed on governmental power as argued by Locke and Mill? I believe that a powerful government can exist and provide its citizens with the necessary security while being limited. There is no need for government to be large in order to achieve this. Although both Locke and Mill have a just understanding of what the limits of government should be, I find Locke’s understanding more persuasive. Locke writes that while government should restrict our freedom in order for us to avoid returning to the state of nature , the amount of restriction should be limited.
For realists security is the key and that it is developed by political elites and due to Wendt, it is self-interest actions. Constructivists do not reject completely the concept of security they have only other ideas of how it is built. They reject universal approaches and analytical/abstracted theories of security. Constructivists for it, focus also more on competition between states and
The defining characteristic of the state is the ability to wield power. The use of power, both inside and outside of one’s border, directly speaks to the sovereignty of the nation. If a nation is incapable of disciplining or punishing its citizens it will invariably become a failed state. Moreover if a country isn’t recognized as powerful in the global political arena, that country stands a very good chance of being dominated by a nation who has the capacity to enforce its own will. The use, or at least the perception, of power is so fundamental in nationhood that those who wield the most power can easily dictate world events.
There is a non-linear relationship of power between the plural perspectives of realism. Realists consider states to be the principal actors in international relations as they are deeply concerned with the security of their own nation especially for the pursuit of national interest. However with this perspective there has been some scepticism with regards to the relevancy of morality and ethi... ... middle of paper ... ... anarchy to be autonomous via threats, coercion and by ‘soft power’. Using coercion is hard power. Persuasion and attraction is soft power.
The Power and Authority of the Government Power can be seen as the capacity of a government to get its citizens to comply with it. Power is quite broadly used and can even be seen as obedience as this shows a deliberate self restraint of citizens that might otherwise resist the government. It has a direct connection with authority as authority carries the implication that the institution that has power is supported in its decisions by a substantial amount of people and therefore should be obeyed whether or not the individual agrees with it. A government can have power, but it must be somewhat representative to have authority. The distinction between power and authority can be seen in our system of checks and balance.
The Two-Level Game According to Hagan (1995), the politics of international relations can be understood as a two-level game. At the national level, local groups pursue their interest by compelling the government to adopt favorable policies, whereas officials seek power by establishing alliances among these groups. At the international level, the national government endeavors to satisfy domestic requirements at the same time it attempts to lessen the adve... ... middle of paper ... ...onal security and economic prosperity, they are also keen at protecting their political power. The meaning of national interest can vary from one state to another. Nevertheless, national interest is inevitably at the core of domestic and international policies.
The Origins of the Cold War Yalta - February 1945 This took place before the end of the war, but the Allies knew they were going to win. Churchill · He recognised the danger and wrote to the US urging that action be taken to stop the USSR's "onward sweep." · He did not trust Stalin, although he tried to have good relations with him. · He did not dare criticise Russia too much as the public in Britain had been impressed by Russia's courage and sacrifice against the Nazis. Roosevelt · He regarded Churchill as someone who just wanted to hang on to the British Empire.
To claim Germany is solely responsible for World War I is completely unrealistic as it was Austria-Hungary who declared war on Serbia starting a chain of events resulting in a war involving most of Europe. However Germany's claims that the attacking Russia was an act of self defence was not completely true as Germany was in no direct danger and it is likely that Austria-Hungary plight was an excuse to take on Russia. Another main term in the Treaty of Versailles was the reparations (compensation) that the allies claimed they were owed for the destruction caused by the war, which the allies ultimately considered to b... ... middle of paper ... ...as another that was harsh on Germany, but you could see the allies reasoning behind it. The Germans view that the clause destroyed Germany's global power and economy is justified, however the term was vital to prevent Germany from a global power and danger to everyone. In conclusion, Germany had many complaints about the Treaty of Versailles.