Just war theorists, along with pacifists, on the other hand oppose these arguments and therefore critique of this form of diplomatic action. To construct a valid understanding of the realist perspective the arguments Kissinger puts forth in his book Diplomacy will be examined, and then a critique of those arguments will be offered through a just war theorist perspective. Policy differences between Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt lead to different actions and desires. These differences were substantial, and so were their different views on foreign policy. Roosevelt became a president more determined to lead the United States (US) by its national interests.
Utilizing an absence of conflict between democratic nations as the basis for the theory, Spiro identifies that proponents of Democratic Peace assert two aspects of the theory (Spiro, 1994). One is an institutional or structural belief, whereby such factors as public opinion, or checks and balances amongst the government constrain the likelihood of war. The other, is an ideological belief, whereby the liberal values of such regimes strive for peaceful interactions and constrain conflict. Democratic Peace Theory would therefore discredit the realist perspectives for interstate conflict which focus upon a sovereign state’s strategic interest within an anarchic world sphere. The theory has achieved status of dogma in many circles, but nevertheless has its share of critics who subscribe to the realist theory such as David Spiro and Bruce Russett.
To begin with, it is necessary to highlight that one ruling principle of realism supports the argument that, ‘states exist in an international system that is characterized by competition and war’ . This principle helps understanding some of the states’ motivations to preserve their integrity and national interests. At the same time, it permits to comprehend why security is so important when it comes to defending the growth and development of the state. Hence, one might think that under the scope of realism, the st... ... middle of paper ... ...the particular case of the US, politics has offered the opportunity to strengthen its privileged position among the international community. This position has been wisely used to expand not only its ideology, but also its authority through international powerful organizations such as the UN.
In order to understand the overall effectiveness of progressivism it has to be explained why Americans wanted to intervene, what happened during the intervention , and what were the consequences. First, The United States had no intentions of intervening in another country's problems because they saw no reason to make another countries problems one of their own. Once the United States realized that the allied powers were struggling they knew that in order to protect world democracy they would have to intervene. It was expected that a victorious Germany would be more aggressive and formidable against the United States1. One of the main reasons the United States intervened was because it wanted to protect the rights of smaller nations and end international militarism.
Still, from what he writes in his book, Second Treatise of Government, one can realize that he would support forcing President Obama’s hand. One reason why is because of his support of Majority rule. President Obama has really not taken a stand on the controversial Keystone pipeline, because he would upset his base if he approves it but hurt red-state Democrats who support it. Congress support is. R... ... middle of paper ... ...believes executive power should be.
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).
“America Re-enters the Arena: Franklin Delano Roosevelt” Franklin Delano Roosevelt was determined to protect the national security of the United States. At first, Roosevelt felt that it was in the best interest of the United States to avoid involvement in the war. However, he knew “sooner or later, the threat to the European balance of power would have forced the United States to intervene in order to stop Germany’s drive for world domination” (Kissinger 369-370). But this was not Roosevelt’s main problem; Roosevelt had to prove to the American people that unlike World War I, US involvement was necessary. He had to “[transform] the nation’s concept of national interest and [lead] ‘a staunchly isolationist people’ into yet another global war” (handout).
Soon after the war, however, idealism was being challenged by the bureaucratic realism. And so the debate continues between idealism and realism whether which one is more likely to help explain and understand International Relations. In my paper I will argue that both terms are mutually exclusive and in order to fully grasp International Relations and apply it, there needs to be a good mixture of both. An Idealist view on international relations with an equal admixture of realism will result in more awareness in international relations on a global scale, which will help suppress the need for war and dominance of countries. I will argue this claim by showing that too much of an idealistic point of view will result in naïve thinking and too much of a realistic view will result in a distant global relationship.
Realism is also shown in History while Thucydides explains the causes of the war. Machiavelli (1469-1527) challenged the realist tradition and created the foundation for modern politics. He talked about the “effectual truth” and how it should make the individual and country stronger. Another famous realist is Thomas Hobbes (1588-1683). Hobbes attacked the belief that humans know what is right and wrong and can make the right decisions.
Realists may validate some action where morality of state theorists and cosmopolitans are fundamentally opposed. In this paper I will examine such examples and detail the key differences between realists, morality of state theorists, and cosmopolitans. I will compare and contrast realists with the other two non-realists perspectives and explore how these theories apply to an international system of states and how these theories shape the way one state acts or reacts in an anarchic system. Realists: Kennan, a notable realist, famously said that morality should be a foundation for civic virtue and a condition for a successful democracy. He also argued that morality is a preference on the part of the people.