The theory of complex interdependence was created as a reaction to the realist theory. The theory of complex interdependence has many parts but has been compounded into a simple definition of being “the entire intricate range of interactions among modern nation, which has made transnational forces even more important” (49). The ideas of complex interdependence represent a challenge to the realist ideas about national sovereignty because according to realism, the only thing motivating the states is endurance of sovereignty. National sovereignty is the supreme controlling power by which an independent state is governed, and the realists believe that the supreme power in an independent state should be based on its military and economic force. With the complex interdependence theory, the government does not rely as much on military and a power balancing force (hard power), but focuses more on increasing the economic relations with other states in a peaceful manner which decrease the amount of security dilemma that nations face. The idea of national sovereignty is lost in this aspect because with complex interdependence the focus shifts from the survival of one’s own nation state to cooperating with other nations to make better ties in international affairs.
Realists believe that the state is the dominant actor in the international system and that the state can use force to get what it needs. Realists believe that a state’s external relations should be based more cautiously on a basis of military and economic strength, also known as “hard power” (31). Realists are very cynical when it comes to world affairs; instead of seeing nations coming together to work and make peace, they see the unending threat of conflict and war. Realist be...
... middle of paper ...
...x interdependence uses other resources such as international organizations and transnational actors as their major instruments, which they find more effective than using force.
Even though, complex interdependence does hinder some of the realist ideas, both theories produce different political outcomes. With complex interdependence, there are multiple goals to pursue; with more actors in play, each actor will pursue his or her own goal. Complex interdependence may have been created as a possible solution to the way the realist approached national sovereignty but there is no plausible way to take out the military force out all because at some point war and conflict is unavoidable.
Works Cited
Johnson, Loch K. 1942-. American Foreign Policy and the Challenges of World Leadership. Power, Principle, and the Constitution. New York: Oxford UP, 2015. Print.
...ot afford to lose its predominance in oil rich gulf region. Saddam’s defiance challenged American supremacy and consequently, a planned invasion of Iraq was launched by U.S. and her allied forces in 2003. The invasion had two-fold objectives: one was to secure oil resources in Iraq and other was to reassert its Political-economic dominance in the region which is of great strategic importance to US. Realist theory narrows down the scope of interpretation of war to power politics characterized by military capability while critical and Marxist thinking employs “historical structures” to understand why power is being exercised in a certain way. It broadens the scope of concept of power beyond military perspective. Thus, Iraq war which was fought beyond the scope of “offensive realism” can be better understood within the theoretical framework of Critical/ Marxist theory.
Realists disregard the fact that moral values guide ones foreign policy. They also believe that even though one might deceive themselves about considering democracy and morals, the matter of the fact is that people will always put their self-interest before anything else thus governments act upon things such as geopolitical, economic interests for example. According to realists, there is no higher authority to punish those countries that misbehave so a country can just do whatever it pleases.
What neorealism believes is fear and distrust originated from the anarchy of international system, resulting in the pursuit of power for survival. As stated by Mearsheimer (2010), power is the currency of international politics. 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...
As the Cold War began to wind down, many foreign policy and international relations experts, scholars and public intellectuals raced to synthesize new paradigms on what the new World Order would look like on the eve of the 21st century. First in a speech in 1993, then in an article published by the well-regarded Foreign Policy magazine titled “The Clash of Civilizations?”, Dr. Huntington argued that interactions between nations in the international arena, would largely begin to form along cultural and civilizations boundaries. He names eight civilizations with distinct A more powerful speculative theory in the realm of current and near-future international relations systems is the one advanced by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye in “Power and Interdependence.” This paper will discuss the main thesis and arguments by Huntington, display which arguments are weak or insufficient, then discuss why the idea of complex interdependence is a more valid and powerful systems level analysis tool for our time. #FINISHED
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.
In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.
All branches of realism share some central tenets. Realists believe that the world exists in a state of anarchy. Since there is not a world government to keep states from attacking each other, or to punish them when they do, it becomes very important for each government to be able to protect itself and ensure its survival. It is also why states are considered the most important actors in realism. Due to the anarchy, the world operates in power is extremely important. If a state has military power, and to a lesser extent economic power, they are able to defend themselves and even influence other states. Realism stresses the importance of one state being more powerful than its competitors.
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
However, the structure and process of international relations, since the end of World War II, has been fundamentally impacted through an immense growth of a variety of factors at multiple levels, which leads to the liberalist theoretical perspective of global complex interdependency. The complex interdependency is constructed from the liberalist theoretical perspective emphasizing interdependence between states and substate actors as the key characteristics of the international system (Ray and Kaarbo 7), which means that cooperation can be made more te...
National security undeniably has a preponderant place in the political, economical and military agenda of each state. Therefore, the state has a paramount responsibility in the contexts of its own domestic and transnational security. Whatever may be the way the state adopts in order to protect itself and its citizens, it needs to be accord with an international system. In this sense the state tends to follow a specific model in terms of international relations. Focuses in the case of western societies in general, and more specifically the United States as the iconic model of the western world, states tend to favour a realist perspective in terms of national security. Albeit, what is exactly the realism theory in the national security field? According to Glaser the realist view proposes the achievement of most high standard quality of national security focused on the acquisition of superior grades of power among the relative states sparking the idea of the presence of an anarchical international system .
To conclude, there are four main components of the realist approach to international relations, they are: state which includes egoism as the states are composed by the selfish people, self-help which includes balance of power as power is used to enhance the survival rate, survival which includes hegemony in order to maintain its position and anarchical system which related to lust for power and led to security dilemma.
Kenneth Waltz, the founder of structural realism, conveys a theory that favors the systemic structure of a state rather than the behaviors of individuals within. He posits states as black boxes where cultural and regime differences have no bearing behind their ultimate pursuit for survival. In the Theory of International Politics, Waltz elucidates three principles of state behaviors that govern their interaction in the anarchic international system. However, in this paper I will only discuss two, ordering principle and character of units.
The discipline of international relations (IR) contains several theories that contain theoretical perspectives to the idea of power. Within the realist perspective there are two approaches that help paint the portrait of the realist theory, the classical approach to realism and the neo-realist approach. Classical realism and neorealism both have been subjected to criticism from IR scholars and theorists representing liberal and constructivist perspectives. The key tenets to realism contain three essential characteristics of international relations which are the state, anarchy and the balance of power. This essay will closely analyse all three characteristics with special regards to power being central to the realist perspective.
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”.