Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
international relations concepts
international relations concepts
international relations concepts
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: international relations concepts
Level of analysis discloses three different ways of understanding international relations. The System-level analysis considers "top-down" approach to study world politics (Rourke, 2007, p. 91). It emphasises that international actors, countries, operate in a global social-political-economic-geographic environment and the explicit characteristics of the system outlines the mode of interaction among the actors. The State-level analysis stresses the national states and their domestic practices such as national interests, interest groups, government, and domestic economy as the key determinants of the state of world affairs (Mingst, 2008). The Individual-level of analysis examines human actors on the global stage. It focuses on the human nature, which defines the primary human characteristics that influence decisions; organizational behaviour that describes human interaction within organized settings, e.g. decision-making group; and personal behaviour that investigates the effect of the uniqueness of individual decision makers on foreign policy (Rourke, 2007, p. 65).
The System-level of analysis shows that the Iraq Crisis (2003–present) is not a domestic conflict as it involved international actors like UN, IAEA and countries like USA. In 1991, after the second Gulf War, UN enforced the destruction of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) on Iraq. The UN condemnation of Iraq was crucial to preserve its authenticity. The UNMOVIC and IAEA had been responsible to check Iraq's acquiescence with its responsibility to eradicate WMDs (UN Chronicle, 1991). Iraq’s non-cooperation with inspection agencies by obstructing the inspection from 1997 to 2002 resulted in massive international pressure and strengthening USA’s doubts on Iraq. The apprehe...
... middle of paper ...
...most distressed by outcome of a war, could exercise only inadequate control on the issue of armed action against Iraq. Most of the regional actors discarded the U.S. policy towards Iraq with varying intensity as they feared insecurity after Iraq’s disintegration (Reuters, 2003) whereas; Jordan decided not to endanger its rewarding ties with Washington. Another key actor at this level is the Baathi party in Iraq which was based on tribal division, domestic oppression and economic enticement. Under Baathi regime military, bureaucracy and security services was divided into several competing institutions which reinforced Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq. In the post war Iraq, the USA in collaboration with the Iraq National Congress and the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution started to make Iraq a democracy that is similar to the American political culture and values.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein decided to declare massive aggression on the countries bordering Iraq. The most affected country was Kuwait. Due to the nature of their ties with the United States, Iraq had a well organized and equipped army that was capable of causing massive instability in Kuwait. The United States could not let this happen because of the importance of Kuwait to the US. Kuwait and the US were heavily involved in the oil business with Kuwait being one of the biggest oil suppliers in the world to the US. The aggression by Saddam Hussein to Kuwait was also a major threat to other Arab nations in the region that had formed trade ties with the US. The involvement of the US in this aggression became the first major predicament that President Bush faced regarding foreign policies and relations. The US could not allow Saddam to take over the Arab nations as that would pose a major threat to the supply of oil to the US. In addition, Iraq would have control over 20% of the world’s major oil supplies in the world. As a result President Bush responded to the Iraq despot’s power play with Kuwait to mobilize a global coalition with Arab nations in “Operation Desert Storm” that repelled Saddam Hussein’s aggression in 1991 (Crab and Mulcahy 255).
On March 18, 2003 the United States invaded Iraq. (The Washington Post) The War with Iraq is a very divisive issue around the world. Turn on any news show and you will see a daily debate on the pros and cons of going to war. Because of the situations that have occurred between the United States and Iraq, very different views and perceptions have developed. Much debate on the justification of the United States for being in Iraq, let alone overthrowing its “government”, has been presented from both sides – the Hawks and the Doves.
In early 2003, the threat of Saddam Hussein and the possibility of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq captured the attention and concern of the world. One nation decided to illegally act on these unsubstantiated claims, invading the country, violating the UN Charter and breaking several international laws in the process. The penalizations that were subject to the invading country, the United States, were never carried out. The United State’s role and influence over the UN and the Security Council, along with the nature of the unenforceable, politics and power-based international laws, allowed them to escape sanctions after their invasion of Iraq. The United States did not have a legitimate reason for invading, and their ability to repudiate international law would be unacceptable for any other country. Their decision to invade Iraq was one based on money and politics, and the US should be subject to penalties just as any other nation would have to face after unnecessarily waging war on a nation.
In September 1980, Iraq invaded Iran because of a territorial dispute. This led to a long drawn out war that cost many lives and billions of dollars in damages, with either side unable to claim victory. This paper will focus on the three things that distinguish this war from previous wars. First, it was an excessively protracted and attritive war, lasting eight years, essentially destabilizing the region and devastating both countries. Second, it was a disproportionate war in regards to the means employed by either side. Iraq was supported by Kuwait, the United States, and several other Western European countries, allowing them to acquire advanced weapons and expert training (History.com staff, 2009). Lastly, this war used three modes of warfare not seen in previous wars: ballistic-missile attacks, the use of chemical weapons, and attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf (History.com staff, 2009).
In 1980 Kuwait, feared the dominance of Persian in the Gulf area had no option but to support Iraq financially and act as a life tube to the Iraqi military (3).Kuwait sent medical supplies to the wounded Iraqi soldiers and food during these eight years (3). At the end of the Persian-Iraq war, Iraq managed to keep its country and pride safe, but suffered greatly both financially and humanly (2). Iraq had a loaded debt and owed nearly $37 billion to the gulf countries in 1990, due the assistance they gave it to Iraq during the Persian-Iraq war (2). The ruler of Iraq Saddam Hussein asked the Gulf countries especially the UAE and Kuwait to abrogate the debt, believing the loans should be looked at as returning the favour for saving the Gulf region from the Iranian expansionism (2). The Iraqi ruler calls was futile as his demands was rejected by the Gulf leaders (2). This resolution led Saddam to threaten Kuwait (2).
Economic and cultural turmoil within a nation always has a source. Iraq, a nation currently suffering violence due to the nation’s history, has been brought to its current state with the rise and fall of Saddam Hussein’s rule. The introduction of the Arab Ba’ath Socialist Party in 1968 led to the promotion of the genocide of the Kurdish citizens living in the nation (“Kurdish Revolt”). The Ba’ath Party blamed many of the non-Arab Kurds for a majority of the problems occurring in the Arab states which resulted in the genocide (“Kurdistan Democratic Party”). This was just part of the extreme ruling methods Saddam Hussein used to maintain power. In addition, Saddam Hussein was extremely manipulative and used this skill to his advantage to gain for his personal self-interest. By not ratifying the the boundaries between Kuwait and Iraq although these boundaries were clearly states within letters between the two governments, it allowed Saddam Hussein to step in and use this to his advantage to take over Kuwait (“Iraq Until the 1958 Revolution”). Saddam Hussein is often known as Saddam Hussein’s ruthless dictatorship of extreme and repressive rule, alliances that ensured the continuation of his control, and his numerous refusals to comply with international regulations prompted foreign involvement against Iraq.
The chosen level of analysis and international relation theory to explain this event are the individual-level of analysis and realism. This level of analysis focuses on the individuals that make decisions, the impact of human nature, the behavior of individuals acting in an organization, and how personality and individual experiences impact foreign policy...
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.
The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.
The Iraq War was a protracted armed conflict that began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a US-led coalition. The US wanted to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime and bring democracy. To addition to that, US and its allies believed that Iraq had secret stocks of chemical and nuclear weapons, hence Iraq was a threat to the world (Axford 2010). In March 2003, US air bombed Baghdad and Saddam escaped Iraq. The invasion disarmed the government of Saddam Hussein. President Bush in March 2003 gave a premature speech, that tyrant of Iraq has fallen and US has freed its people. President Bush flew into Iraq to show the world that the war is over, even though nothing was accomplished (Kirk et al. 2014). Iraq was facing 13 years of scantions, therefore regime diverted its resources to flexible networks of patronage that kept it in power (Dodge 2007, 88). Iraq faced widespread of lawlessness and after the violent regime changed US could not control the situation. Iraqi civilians were looting, attacking ministries building and this resulted into a series of event (Kirk et al. 2014) . From a military perspective the regime was taken down, but they made no commitment to rebuild or secure the country.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
Whenever world politics is mentioned, the state that appears to be at the apex of affairs is the United States of America, although some will argue that it isn’t. It is paramount we know that the international system is shaped by certain defining events that has lead to some significant changes, particularly those connected with different chapters of violence. Certainly, the world wars of the twentieth century and the more recent war on terror must be included as defining moments. The warning of brute force on a potentially large scale also highlights the vigorousness of the cold war period, which dominated world politics within an interval of four decades. The practice of international relations (IR) was introduced out of a need to discuss the causes of war and the different conditions for calm in the wake of the first world war, and it is relevant we know that this has remained a crucial focus ever since. However, violence is not the only factor capable of causing interruption in the international system. Economic elements also have a remarkable impact. The great depression that happened in the 1920s, and the global financial crises of the contemporary period can be used as examples. Another concurrent problem concerns the environment, with the human climate being one among different number of important concerns for the continuing future of humankind and the planet in general.
Thakur, R. & Sidhu, W. P. S., 2006. The Iraq Crisis and World Order: Strutural, Institutional and Normative Challenges. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
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”.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).