These schools recognize that leadership can play an important role in stoking the embers of conflict, but both nevertheless see the principal dynamics of conflict resulting from popular sentiment. But what if the principal motive behind conflict is greed not grievance? Profit rather than political power seems to be a growing motivation for violence in civil wars. If economic rationales do play a major role in the motivations of the warring factions, this represents a profound challenge to both prevailing schools of thought. If we recognize that the longevity of conflict can be the result not of anarchy but of economic gain, then there may be method to the perceived madness after all.
1. Anarchy is a condition in which there is a lack of a dominant power that enforces laws and sets policies at a national or international level. It directly challenges the rules of sovereignty, the expectation that the states have higher legal and political influence within their borders. Anarchy is an important term because it tends to cause disastrous effects in global politics. It is the essential element in realism, the idea that war is an inevitable result of the absence of a central authority.
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.
This school of thought focuses on ways in which power affects the international arena by assessing how states influence each other as the most important actors in world politics. Realpolitik pays attention to political power matters such as military preparedness and industrial capacities, ignoring issues of morality, ideology and other social aspects as reasons for actions of states. In this way, realism sets up a strong framework for understanding short-term, interstate relationships, yet leaves the comprehension of deeper, long-term issues weak in the background. Power politics maintains that human nature is generally selfish. This belief comes from their understanding of the trends in international relations.
Doyle is cognizant of the limitations of his Democratic Peace Theory, stressing that protection of liberalism’s heritage of democratization may in fact ensure the adverse consequence of stimulating illiberal practices (Doyle, 1983). The significance of a peace theory which concludes its own underlying principles may actually engender belligerent behavior is questionable. Doyle’s Democratic Peace Theory offers an interesting starting point in the study of the relationship between democratic nations and conflict; however, his suppositions should not to be valued as law.
This generates conflict between states and creates a vicious circle of sizing up every state, making a decision based on what would likely be the most beneficial... ... middle of paper ... ...thus NATO has made its mission to uphold these ideals. Although realism presents a solid framework for international political structure, constructivism fills in the gaps that realism fails to address or ignores. That being said, constructivism is still not the perfect theory as it still debated and contrasted against many other critical theories. Realism presents a solid framework for the international system. However there are some gaps in it structure that it does not recognize or fails to explain.
In international relationships however sovereignty does not supply security therefore a state must vie with its neighboring states to accomplish it. This can lead to a power struggle to ensure that state’s people can live in security.  A second key point of realism is survival. Survival to realists is rather simple; the state with the most power stands a better likelihood of survival. Naturally it is believed that survival is the definitive objective of realism.
Hence, this highlights the importance of international law in foreign policy and the pursuit of both hard and soft power. In essence, I would argue that contrary to common perception, international law is of paramount importance to foreign policy. This is because although international law curbs the expansion of hard power, it promotes the pursuit of soft power. In the international arena today, soft power trumps hard power and hence, I would argue that international law is more important than ever. Therefore, it is certainly not an “is an unnecessary distraction from the pursuit of power in the international arena”.
In order to support my point of view, I will give importance to the reasons of why rulers appeal to categorical imperative when making foreign policy, so I have two reasons for this. One of them is that states depend on each other in economically and politically. Thus, in order to provide this stability which means that continue to stay among other states, states should act through the principles of categorical imperative which are universally valid, good intention and never using people or other states as means to end. The second reason is that if rulers appeal to categorical imperative when making foreign policy decisions, the world can be more peaceful. Since, wars and conflicts which are caused by bad intention, using other people or states as means for gaining advantages which are not universally valid can be hindered by categorical imperatives.
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).