Theories Explaining International Relations Dynamics

1448 Words3 Pages

The international setting is home to 196 countries and many international organizations in the world today. The number of countries and organizations in the world is a malleable figure that is constantly fluctuating. Over history, we have learned about countries conquering others, colonies forming their own countries, and countries forming their own colonies. Keeping track of the ever-changing states in the international system has been an overwhelming process. To make life simpler, over the past couple hundreds of years, in an effort to organize the states motivations to make bold decisions, we have developed theories to explain the process. These theories are backed with hard evidence and reaffirmation by other scholars over time. The main …show more content…

Anarchy is commonly seen as an antigovernment and antiestablishment term, but in international relations this term takes a different meaning. Anarchy refers to a lack of formal and authoritative government in the international system (11 Jordan). Anarchy is viewed in different ways amongst the three theories. Thomas Hobbes, a realism theorist, comments on anarchy by saying that when there is no overarching authority, there is no law and no peace because there because these individuals must constantly compete for survival (11 Slaughter). Liberalists believe that international anarchy can be overcome through a particular kind of collective action, like a federation of republics in which sovereign states would be left in tact (11 Slaughter). Constructivists say that “anarchy is what the states make of it,” which means that if a state identifies only with itself that it may see the international system as anarchic (94 Mingst). All three of these theories incorporate anarchy into its methodology, but in respectively different …show more content…

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

Show More
Related

  • The Transformation of America

    1375 Words  | 3 Pages

    In no field other than politics does the justification for action often come from a noteworthy event and the true cause stays hidden behind the headlines. The United States’ transformation from a new state to a global superpower has been a methodical journey molded by international conditions (the global terrain for statecraft), the role of institutions and their programmed actions, and ultimately, the interests of actors (the protection of participants in making policy’s items and i...

    Read More

  • Nuclear Issue in the North Korea from the Eyes of Neorealism and Neoliberalism

    2055 Words  | 5 Pages

    What neorealism believes is fear and distrust originated from the anarchy of international system, resulting in the pursuit of power for survival. As stated by Mearsheimer (2010), power is the currency of international politics. The statement addressed a simple but important question: “why do states want power?” While “human nature” is always claimed by the classical realism, the neorealists, or the structural realists such as Mearsheimer specified the structure or architecture of the international system which forces states to pursue power. All states desire sufficient power to protect th...

    Read More

  • Hobbes's Theory Of Political Nature And The Theories Of Human Nature

    1286 Words  | 3 Pages

    Theories of human nature, as the term would ever so subtly suggest, are at best only individual assertions of the fundamental and intrinsic compositions of mankind, and should be taken as such. Indeed it can be said that these assertions are both many and widespread, and yet too it can be said that there are a select few assertions of the nature of man that rise above others when measured by historical persistence, renown, and overall applicability. These eclectic discourses on the true nature of man have often figured largely in theories of political science, typically functioning as foundational structures to broader claims and arguments. The diversification of these ideological assertions, then, would explain the existence of varying theories

    Read More

  • Causes of War: Systemic vs. Domestic

    1789 Words  | 4 Pages

    The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.

    Read More

  • Summary Of The Conflict Of Autonomy And Authority By Robert Paul Wolff

    816 Words  | 2 Pages

    The focus of this paper will be on criticizing the argument. He effectively explains what justifies the authority of the state by giving reasons that anarchy is better for autonomous nature of man. One might agree that the state can command an individual to obey the rule even if it is against the person’s moral beliefs. His argument, however, seems to undermine the

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government

    3013 Words  | 7 Pages

    Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Idea of the State and Its Relation with the Citizen

    1058 Words  | 3 Pages

    When looking at Hobbes’ idea of the state and its relation with the citizen, it is strikingly shocking how supportive of the authoritarian and absolutist form of monarchical government he is. His ideas are extreme for today’s democratic world however, he is seen as the founder of great liberal political thoughts such as the natural contract. Furthermore he gives great emphasis to the study of the individual in the first book of his work. Although, obviously monarchical, Hobbes also argues in favor of democracy and aristocracy: two less authoritarian forms of government. Hobbes has a historical reputation for validating absolute monarchy, and his work is often dismissed as dictatorial. But it must be remembered that, for Hobbes, sovereignty does not only reside in a king but also in sovereign congresses and sovereign democracies and ultimately the people enable any of these three forms of government to rule, according to what best suits the community.

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Absolute Sovereignty

    3652 Words  | 8 Pages

    Selbourne, David The Principle of Duty, An Essay on the Foundations of the Civic Order London 1994

    Read More

  • Political Realism

    2261 Words  | 5 Pages

    People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.

    Read More

  • Characteristics of the Modern Nation-State

    1609 Words  | 4 Pages

    This essay will describe the characteristics of the modern nation-state, explain how the United States fits the criteria of and functions as a modern nation-state, discuss the European Union as a transnational entity, analyze how nation-states and transnational entities engage on foreign policy to achieve their interests, and the consequences of this interaction for international politics.

    Read More

  • Hobbes' View of Human Nature and his Vision of Government

    446 Words  | 1 Pages

    In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about his views of human nature and describes his vision of the ideal government which is best suited to his views.

    Read More

  • International System Essay

    926 Words  | 2 Pages

    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”.

    Read More

  • Connection is Key: International Relations Intertwined

    780 Words  | 2 Pages

    the six statements, while “The Anarchic Structure of World Politics” discuss the nature of anarchy, and

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Pareto Frontier

    846 Words  | 2 Pages

    1. Anarchy is a condition in which there is a lack of a dominant power that enforces laws and sets policies at a national or international level. It directly challenges the rules of sovereignty, the expectation that the states have higher legal and political influence within their borders. Anarchy is an important term because it tends to cause disastrous effects in global politics. It is the essential element in realism, the idea that war is an inevitable result of the absence of a central authority. It outlines two principles that can lead to war: the preventive motive (war to cease the enemy from growing more powerful) and security dilemma (a rise of insecurity and fear that occurs from a state gaining more strength to defend itself).

    Read More

  • What is State Formation and How Does It Occur?

    1329 Words  | 3 Pages

    In order to answer the question concerning the formation of states, it is necessary to clarify what constitutes a state; the Oxford English Dictionary defines a state as ‘a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government’. There are a number of ways and processes in which to analyse what state formation is, why they have formed and the way in which this has occurred. State emergence can be traced back to the creation of territorial boundaries in medieval Europe, such as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and its transition to a modern state can be attributed to the introduction of gunpowder in war (Hague & Harrop, 2010: 64). The formations of states have also been influenced by the growth of bureaucracy, administration and organisations. There are different theories as to the reason why states form, a certain few of which can be divided into the categories of rationalist, culturalist and structuralist perspectives. In this essay, these perspectives shall enter the debate in trying to justify the reason for state formation and the way in which it occurs. The most prominent feature in the formation of states appears to be the prevention and engagement of a state in war and its following consequences.

    Read More

More about Theories Explaining International Relations Dynamics

Open Document