In the first section of this essay, I will provide a broad definition of realism in International Relations. In the second section, I will argue about the humanitarian cost that incurred due to state independence from morality and law. Meanwhile in the third section, I will argue about the loss of Afghanistan sovereignty that resulted from the external intervention by US and its ally, NATO. Realists argue that, realism is dealing with the reality of international politics and it not just a matter of theory. In International Relation, the term ‘realism’ has many different definitions as it is interpreted by distinct approaches.
In particular, opening up the ‘black box’ of the state whilst maintaining the importance of systemic pressures gives Neo-Classical Realism a much wider context of motivations and variables from which to explain state behaviour, and consequently overcome the limitation of classical realism which makes no claim to explain specific events or foreign policy . However, the theory’s core assumptions are in themselves problematic when looked at from outside of the Realist paradigm, constructivism in particular presents a nu... ... middle of paper ... ...ed by David W. Lesch (Westiview Press 2007) Wohlforth, William, ‘The elusive balance, power and perceptions during the Cold war’ (CUP 1993) Journals: Sterling-Folker, Jennifer, ‘Realist Environment, Liberl process, and Domestic-Level Variables’ (International Studies Quaterly vol.41 1997) Parasiliti, Andrew, ‘The causes and timing of Iraq’s Wars: A power cycle Assessment’ (International Political Science Review vol.24, no.1, Jan 2003) Rose, Gideon ‘Neo-Classical Realism and theories of Foreign Policy’ (World Politics, vol.51 no.1 Oct 1998) Wendt, Alexander, ‘Anarchy is what states make of it’ (International Organizations, vol.46, no.2, 1992) Websites: ‘Another Crisis for the Shah’ Time, Nov 13, 1878. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946149,00.html US National Security Archives: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/summary.pdf
Pre-emption is then like a reflex “a throwing up of ones arms at the very last minute” (Walzer, 2006: 75). Putting aside the definitions of pre-emptive war, the question of whether or not it is justified has become a complex and contradictory matter for many states. The issues of abiding by international law, understanding the meaning of ‘imminent threat’ and morality all come into question. The biggest of problems is that states misjudge threat. The confusion and blurred definition of the term imminent threat leads to states acting out of uncertainty and aggression rather than justified move, which can constitute as pre-emptive war.
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 this paper, I will discuss and address the arguments that he had put forward. If you recall my main point in “The Clash of Civilizations?”, I argued that the conflicts of the future will dominantly be due to cultural differences (Huntington, 1993). However, Said argues that instead of cultural differences, conflicts will stem from the ignorance that different cultures have when it comes to the other (Said, 2001). I defend my argument by pointing out that although Said believes the conflicts will stem from ignorance, the conflicts are still between civilizations. For Said’s argument to make sense, he has to admit that there are and always will be differences between these cultures that are of a sufficient scale, in order for one side to be ignorant about the beliefs and values of the other.
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. Given that International Relation’s main actor is the... ... middle of paper ... ...e most other social constructs, standards and values produce and fuel its modern conception. Furthermore, constructivism questions the ways with which terrorist stakes and national security are linked insofar they have become both a social problem and an expanding fact of danger for the state’s citizens. Despite sometimes remaining underused, social facts are, in reality, a constructions based on certain dominant groups’ interests (Edelman, on 1988). In such an understanding, the association of terrorism’s stakes as threats could manifest as a method with which authorities increase their social control by applying a series of security measures to prevent terrorism’s expansion.
External physical threats are the main source of insecurity for state. For traditionalists, protecting national boundaries and sovereignty is the central focus of security. In his seminal paper titled, “The Renaissance of Security Studies,” Stephen Walt argues that the domain of security studies is “the phenomenon of war.” For Walt, security is rightfully preoccupied with analyzing the impact of the use of force on individuals, societies, and the state. In this perspective military power was used as in instrument of foreign policy, political propaganda, and for economic aims. The former approach to security dominated the Cold War era.
Since the end of the Cold War, non-state actors have risen in both prevalence and apparent power. The presence of non-state entities has caused significant ethical and political problems with Western ideology. Coker discusses issues concerning non-state actors in “Ethics and War in the 21st Century” with special attention given to the conflicting cultural ideas regarding warfare concerning the USA. The ability to label a target as not only an enemy combatant, but a fundamentally opposed force that is willing to ignore common practices and ethics is one that Coker denounces and attempts to explain. The disparity of established ethics between the two groups is only complicated with emerging weapon technologies, most importantly non-lethal weapon systems.
Wolfers believes security is a concept that can be dangerously ambiguous . Long debates outlined two confronting approaches, of traditionalists and wideners, first adherents of the realist school of thought, define security as a freedom from any objective military threat and security studies is defined, for example, by Stephen Walt as “the studies of the threat, use, and control of military force”. Tradi... ... middle of paper ... ...be understood as emancipation and achieved, how Booth argues “by people and groups if they do not deprive others of it”. For Booth and Wyn Jones the state is not the main provider of security but one of the main causes of insecurity, during the last years far more people have been killed by their own governments than by foreign armies. Scott Watson reconceptualise humanitarianism as a sector of security expanding the applicability of securitization theory beyond states and societies to human as referent objects, and has its procedures and logic.
Matters of this kind, such as BSE and climate change, are marked by complex interdependencies between nature and society, fact and value, that challenge these distinctions and the analytical frameworks they support. W... ... middle of paper ... ...sources, but wholly inappropriate for contemporary conditions in which hazards are more characteristically diffuse, pervasive and of indeterminate origin.8 He also elaborates many instructive insights into the effects of contemporary conditions on the individual, on personal life and on conceptions of self in addition to specific prescriptions for the reform of science and democratic reform more generally. However, while Beck’s insights are germane to the concerns of this paper the depth of explanation he provides for the problems he identifies is limited. It will be argued below that ‘post-foundational’ considerations, of the form offered in this paper, offer further explanatory depth to Beck’s insights, and that Beck’s embrace of foundational considerations both dilutes his arguments and constrains his ability to prescribe effective alternative courses of action.