• Introduction
The current situation in Iraq is the product of the interaction between the institutions within the country, and the effect of the international community. The period between 1865 and 1914 is considered a crucial historical period in the history of Iraq, where several political, social and economic changes have accrued and had shaped the country for years to come. This paper will attempt to discuss one aspect of these changes, which is the formation of new urban centers, the changes that have occurred in the existing cities and the migration of people from rural to urban regions. This paper is part of a larger project, which will discuss the effects of the economic institution that emerged during that time (rentier economy) and the very unstable political institution which characterized the country beginning after world war I and until this day. Before diving into describing the changes that happened during that time, I will discuss some of the most important school of thinking in the political and global economy, and which position will be adapted in this paper.
• Theoretical framework
International political economy (theories) (Hoogvelt 1997)
1) Realism-it gives primacy to the units (national-states), where they continuously interact and compete with each other. The international arena is dominated by anarchist view, where units are in a constant state of struggle with each other to obtain power. Thus, the states will use their power to influence the market and other states. However, the international arena is based on hegemony and balance of power between states. This theory is very similar to the writings of Hobbes and his idea of survival of the fittest, power struggle and balance between the strongest mos...
... middle of paper ...
...rated youth; and a larger conflict started emerging between the poor urban youth in praticular and the frustrated masses in genral and between the burcrats as resprentatives of the forgein powers.
Not suprisingly, the sociopolitical changes, which had happened came from the children of landowenrs, who found themslves capable of acuaring positions in the military. Thus, the increase of the number of the state emploies, the rise of social classes that couldn’t economically adavance because of the rent economy of the state, the diomnation of the landowners and merchants on the economic system, the increase of the anti-imperialist notions had intensified over time untill the 1958 revoluation, which had ended the monrachy that was supported by the british and started the republic or Iraq, an Aran nationalish, soicalist one-party state.
• The rent economy
• Conclustion
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Section 1: Typically, we need a well-balanced meal to give us the energy to do day-to-day tasks and sometimes we aren’t able to get home cooked meals that are healthy and nutritious on a daily basis, due to the reasons of perhaps low income or your mom not being able to have the time to cook. People rely on fast food, because it’s quicker and always very convenient for full-time workers or anyone in general who just want a quick meal. Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation argues that Americans should change their nutritional behaviors. In his book, Schlosser inspects the social and economic penalties of the processes of one specific section of the American food system: the fast food industry. Schlosser details the stages of the fast food production process, like the farms, the slaughterhouse and processing plant, and the fast food franchise itself. Schlosser uses his skill as a journalist to bring together appropriate historical developments and trends, illustrative statistics, and telling stories about the lives of industry participants. Schlosser is troubled by our nation’s fast-food habit and the reasons Schlosser sees fast food as a national plague have more to do with the pure presence of the stuff — the way it has penetrated almost every feature of our culture, altering “not only the American food, but also our landscape, economy, staff, and popular culture. This book is about fast food, the values it represents, and the world it has made," writes Eric Schlosser in the introduction of his book. His argument against fast food is based on the evidence that "the real price never appears on the menu." The "real price," according to Schlosser, varieties from destroying small business, scattering pathogenic germs, abusing wor...
Realism can be described as a theoretical approach used to analyze all international relations as the relation of states engaged in power (Baylis, Owens, Smith, 100). Although realism cannot accommodate non-state actors within its analysis. There are three types of realism which include classical (human
Realism is a theory that strives on competition between states. It is one of the oldest theory and it is also known as political realism. It is
middle of paper ... ... Unfortunately, this idea of a zero sum military power game does not match up with reality. Each state takes actions based on the given situation and neo-realism misses this nuance. Constructivism actually considers this more by analyzing the actors at play and their identities and interests.
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.
Classical realism focuses on the balance of power whereas the neorealist’s theory examines the balance of power as it relates to the structure of an overall system. Realists examine “human nature at the individual level, aggressive states at the domestic level, leaders pursuing domestic and international power at the foreign policy level, and the balance of power at the systemic level” (Nau, 2012, p. 10); and, further argues that polarity between powers...
I say this because it is very evident that there is no single ruler of the world and that there is not one institution that enforces laws throughout the entire international system. Neorealism acknowledges the struggle for power between states, but not in an animalistic manner as realism views. I do not believe that human nature is innately evil and for which that is the reason why all states act rationally by trying to overpower the other. I believe that the realm of anarchy creates an environment that promotes conflict over conflicting values or laws. Each state has their own set of laws that may or may not agree with the laws and culture of another state. Anarchy in the international system forces the theory of realism to concentrate on absolute gains from conflict and how necessary it is to engage in conflict with another state (34 Walt). Neorealism provides a basic, all-including analysis that encompasses many aspects of the international system without excluding
Neo-realism and Liberalism both provide adequate theories in explaining the causes of war, yet Neo-realist ideals on the structural level and states being unitary actors in order to build security, conclude that Neo-realist states act on behalf of their own self interest. The lack of collaboration with other states and balance of power among them presents a reasonable explanation on the causes of war.
In International Relations it is commonly accepted that there is a wide range of different theoretical approaches which attempt to provide an explanation for the different dynamics of the global political system. Realism and Liberalism are well known theories which are considered to be two of the most important theories in international relations. They are two contrasting ideas when it comes to explaining how two states relate to each other in the absence of a world government. Both theories agree that the world is in anarchy and therefore it is helpful to start with a definition of anarchy and what it implies. This essay aims to discuss the contrasts between Liberalism and Realism as well as how these two theories agree that the world is anarchy.
Both of these are international relations theories. International relations theories aid the individual in better understanding why states behave the way in which they do and “several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize” (Slaughter 1). That being said, to understand offensive neorealism, one must firstly be able to know the basis of realism in itself, as well as differentiate neorealism from neoclassical realism. Stephen G. Brooks argues in his article “Dueling Realisms” that both “neorealism and postclassical realism do share important similarities: both have a systemic focus; both are state-centric; both view international politics as inherently competitive; both emphasize material factors, rather than nonmaterial factors, such as ideas and institutions; and both assume states are egoistic actors that pursue self-help” (Brooks 446). Structural realism is another term for neorealism, and both will be used interchangeably in the following case study. Aside from these shared values that both reflect, the two forms of realism both present very different or conflicting views on state behaviour. For one, neorealists believe “the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority” (Slaughter 2) and that states take action based on the possibility of conflict, always looking at a worst-case scenario, whereas postclassical realists believe that states make decisions and take actions based on the probability of an attack or act of aggression from other states (Brooks 446). To expand on neorealism’s possibility outlook, Kenneth Waltz argues, “in the absence of a supreme authority [due to anarchy], there is then constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force” (Brooks 447). Neorealists look at the possibility of conflict due to the potential cost of war, due to
...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.
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 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).
Iraqi culture has one of the world’s most ancient history of culture to date. The country of Iraq has dealt with numerous changes throughout the years ranging from war, economy downfall, and environment changes. A lot of the issues that arose had to do with the power and decision making of the former President, Saddam Hussein. The country of Iraq is located north of the Persian Gulf and its population is equivalent to that of California’s. This paper will discuss the economy in Iraq, as well as the Iraqi culture and their military.