Marxism is all about the bottom line, the economy drives political power, that’s to say he how has the control of the most resources, and material forces has the most logical political power. The underlining idea behind pluralism is international relations, the idea that transnational actors do have an influence on the government of the modern state. This theory views all organized groups as being potential political actors, and the idea is that all these political actors mobilize support to achieve policy goals. The definition of modern state is also essential to understanding which political theory best applies. For the purposes of this paper, the definition of modern state will be as follows: an organized territory with defined geographical boundaries that are recognized by other states has a body of law and institutions of government.
In this concept, international society based on shared concerns of international order such as anarchy, sovereignty, diplomacy and nonintervention. Pluralism underlines the instrument side of international society to balance the excessive disorder threat in an international anarchy. While, Solidarism is about the shared norms in international society such as limitation things on the use of force, and acceptable “standard of civilization” with regards of human rights and states and civilization relationship. In this notion, sovereignty can also consider as many degrees of political convergence (as in the EU). (Buzan 2001) These two concepts play key role in the definition of international society because they are linked together to outline the key theory of international society.
Using dialectic analysis, Marx found that bourgeoisie are locked in conflict with the proletariat. Dialectic analysis insists that in order to understand the nature of things, it is extremely important to see them interconnect with other things within a larger totality. In this case, Marx's dialects outlined two central theories: surplus value and the materialist conceptions of history. Ideology is a system of ideas and ideals, especially on that forms the basis of economic or political policy. The function of ideology using Marx's perspective would be that continual reproduction of the means of production.
Proponents of Neo-Classical Realism contend that it is relative power in particular which determines a state’s foreign policy . These relative power concerns then indirectly effect domestic (dependent) variables which in turn influence the decision making process. From a theoretical standpoint, Neo-Classical Realism is balanced between pure systemic theories, and those which prioritise Units. It is both an extension and response to Waltzian neorealism; particularly in the acceptance of the primacy of systemic variables, whilst adding domestic level variables. 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 .
This model consist of thoughts and ideas, not the conditions and material forces. After the Cold War realism’s approach to the security was challenged. These assumptions argue that, the world is shaped socially, thank to unlimited feelings and interactions of all structures, and factors are automatically determined; as evenly factors such as the ideas, norms and views are fundamental for politics to function. What distinguishes constructivism and realism is the approach to safety. For realists security is the key and that it is developed by political elites and due to Wendt, it is self-interest actions.
His major contributions are Sovereignty-organised Hypocrisy, Structural Conflict-Third world against the global liberalism and Defending National Interest. In his important article, “Abiding Sovereignty” Krasner attempts to throw light on the changing global scenarios and institutions and its effect on sovereignty and the international state system. Krasner says that the sovereign states are the building blocks of the modern state system which has territorial, judicial and economical autonomy and control within
This is the largely accepted reason for the use of proxy wars, but this essay will argue a different interpretation of the concept. This essay will analyze the concept of proxy wars through the lens of a world-systems theorist: Christopher Chase-Dunn. With extensive emphasis on his writings in Global Formation: Structures of the World Economy this essay will provide an interpretation that is consistent with Chase-Dunn's worldview. It will be argued that the logic behind proxy wars is less a matter of geopolitical and geostrategic aim than it is a matter of economics and the domination of the interstate mode of production. After an outline of the world-systems view, the terminology that will be used to describe the actors in the world-system, and the relationship between these actors, this essay will commence with the application of these ideas to the use of proxy wars in achieving the strategic goals of the state.
It is their thoughts on social contracts that lie at the center of the many spheres we are a part of. For Hobbes and Locke, social contract theory sought to analyze the relationship between rulers and the ruled. It’s a relationship that exists in virtually all governments: there is always a position of power, and a position that must respond to that power. For Hobbes, a social contract was needed to lift people out of a condition of war that exists in nature anywhere government is absent. The rule of law and a government were vital to Hobbes’ theory.
I have inadvertently expressed my opinion that nations are structurally political and that it is in the interest of their leaders to appeal to their unique traditions in order to maintain their power. Either way, the choice between these two approaches rests on the hands of the nation and its relationship with the international society. Globalization does not hinder the existence of the nation but rather helps it establish a place in the structure of power in a world which is still dominated by politically and economically dominant super powers.
Topics related to the growth of NGOs, MNCs, free trade, and the spread of democracy within contemporary international politics are explainable by Liberalism’s core ideologies. Since Liberalism views anarchy as an effect of the players within the system and not a structure of the system, Liberalists believe that it can be eliminate through cooperation between players. Furthermore, Liberalists provide three ways to accomplish systematic harmony to include free trade within the economic system, player cooperation, to achieve various goals to include social topics by not limiting those who can affect and influence the system, and the development of organizations to supervise the actions of the international system and the interactions between states (Baylis et all 2011, 102-106, 252-253). Understanding the difference in how the system is viewed between Liberalism and Structural Realism allows each theory to discuss different subjects within international topics, however from the end of the Cold War to the attacks on 9/11, Liberalists felt that their theory was dominant over Structural Realism. The time showed the growth of various players, the spread and advocacy of democracy, which eliminates potential threats to and from other democratic actors all working within a free market economic system (Walt 1998).