Rulers of countries are constrained by the system as a manifestation of the state in which they operate but also have a degree of autonomy as individuals. The quote "In the international environment rulers constantly scan for resources material and ideologies, that will enhance their ability to stay in power and promote the interests of their supporters. Rulers are calculators, not agents manifesting some deeper international institutional structure although they may be firmly embedded in the in well-established domestic arrangements". This quote discusses some of the limitations rulers operate under, and represents much of the realist argument of how the international system works. The quote mentions how rulers may conduct themselves. …show more content…
As the "principal actor" in the international system the state is primarily concerned with its own survival in a hostile and anarchic world. The state will attempt to amass as many resources as possible to build up its strength. This help ensure that it remains sovereign, and "promotes" the interests of its supporters who are the individuals who make up the state. This is like the quote where a ruler will amass as much power as possible to both stay in power and stay relevant to their supporters by promoting the interests of their supporters. Since a state is basically a group of people the ruler is also a person, however because they are the decision maker of the state they function as a rational actor promoting the interest of the state. Niccolo Machiavelli had this in mind when he argued that a ruler must be prepared to undertake any action that lead to the preservation of the state. This usually means the ruler tries to stay in power so that they can ensure the sovereignty of the state. While there is an international system above the state the most that system can do is to influence the state to act towards its own best interest within that system of other nations and organizations. The state does not act for the system above it, it acts for itself. Lastly, domestic political arrangements are largely irrelevant at the level of the state even if they play a significant part in …show more content…
World opinion was against all of these moves. The rulers only concern is for the power increase for their nation and thusly themselves. They have no concern for the wellbeing of the international community in making these moves. Finally both Hitler and Putin were and are very visibly "embedded in well established domestic arrangements" of their respective countries. So much so that they embody the national image of Nazi Germany and modern Russia. This may have eventually caused them to stop being a "rational actor" nonetheless their initial moves definitely fit the role of rational actor. Another example of acting in the country 's interest over domestic arrangements would be President Obama 's campaign promise to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as close Guantanamo Bay. Neither of these things happened on his election to president, much to the dismay of many members of his political party, however the decision was not made by the Democratic Party but the government of the United States of America, which acted in the interest of the
In analyzing the institution of power so closely, the author has brought to light a multiple
In today’s world, there are several types of governments that control their countries. There are democracies, dictatorships, republics, monarchies etc. Absolute monarchy was a very common form of government centuries ago. Throughout this time period, many leaders, dictators, monarchs made mistakes that the government looks at today. The abuse and misuse of power by absolute monarchs inexorably led to the rise of modern democracy. This is shown through leaders abusing their powers as absolute monarchs, the unreliability of monarchy, and corrupt governments.
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
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.
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).
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.
...t state autonomy cannot be restricted by anything but the community (state) itself. As one might assume, it follows from these differing standpoints that the way each theory view intervention, etc., will be in opposition. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
Realism is one of the important perspectives on global politics, it is a notion about the conservative society and political philosophy (Heywood 2011: 54; Shimko 2013: 36). Besides, Gilpin (1996) claims that “realism…, it is not a scientific theory that is subject to the test of falsifiability, therefore, cannot be proved and disproved.” (Frankel 1996: xiii). The components of the realist approach to international relations will be discussed.
Realists believe that the state is the dominant actor in the international system and that the state can use force to get what it needs. Realists believe that a state’s external relations should be based more cautiously on a basis of military and economic strength, also known as “hard power” (31). Realists are very cynical when it comes to world affairs; instead of seeing nations coming together to work and make peace, they see the unending threat of conflict and war. Realist be...
Globalization and the increasing role of non-state actors have shifted the position of states, the traditional “main players” in global governance. However, whether this change undermines states is debatable. In one sense, states’ roles have somewhat diminished: Non-governmental entities – namely transnational corporations (TNC), but also global non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and others – have an increasing voice in global policy debates, which may lessen states’ influence in governmental affairs. But in several other key ways, states’ retain their powerful role. For example, states remain the key negotiators and entities in major global governance entities. Additionally, states retain compulsory power over their subjects or constituents, a form of control that new players in global governments have generally not obtained.
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”.
Why and how did globalization occur? Different perspectives have different explanations as to why and how globalization evolved. Realists argue that international trade is most effective when there is hegemony in the world market, whereas liberalists believe that it is a matter of how countries use the idea of reciprocity in their decision about trade. I agree with the realist perspective because hegemony allows the global economy to enhance and international trade functions the best when a hegemon dominates the world market.
Ethnic kin that live in another state can give support like material or emotionally for ethnic groups in an ethnic conflict. This group can be part of a diaspora, which is “an international actor, or external party, that can fuel ethnic conflict (&W 63)”. States may still give support to their ethnic kin in other states, thus having an international ties within another country. When a country supports one side of an ethnic conflict, it can threaten enemy groups and cause a security dilemma. Aid and support from foreign actors can help assist like in development projects, International actors can play a huge role when it comes to protecting minorities rights, settling ethnic conflicts but military interventions may be needed. International countries can come in and be third mediators. They can “promote confidence-building measures (such as elections, autonomy, power sharing, and demonstrations of respect) for warring parties (J&W 66)”. A down side to this, is that if the negotiations fail, then the third party will take a hit on their reputation and economics if they are trading partners. In a sense of ethnic conflicts, states should do that internally instead of having a third party. At the end of the day, international actors can play three roles: they either protect and help the victims of the oppressive government, help balance the power on the ground and allowing a group to protect
However, Hedley Bull, in his most famous analysis ‘The Anarchical Society’, rebuts these realist criticisms, writing about the primacy of International Law and insists that it is a ‘negligible factor in the actual conduct of international relations’ alongside the fact that states ‘so often judge it in their interests to conform to it’. This directly opposes the idea that realists put forward, as it suggests that states are actually inclined to adhere to international law, and it is crucial to the success of it. Although there is an element of truth in realists’ analyses, it is not to the extent of which realists contend and it should be noted that they fail to acknowledge the fact that the favourable conditions order would bring serves an incentive for states to cooperate within the realms of an international society. Furthermore, realist critiques do not actually deny the existence of an international society, but there critiques revolve around an evaluation of its effectiveness. Opposing the popular conception of neo-realists that the current political climate consists of an anarchical system with all else following from this by chance, therefore assuming that it is a contingent, is Brown’s emphasis on there being ‘a reason we have and need an international society’: to achieve a good amongst all states. This is shown by international organisations such as the European Union and United Nations, the latter of which has the ability to impose sanctions and other punishments on states if it does not adhere to international laws. The United Nations mandate explains how it seeks to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’, as it was initially born out of the League of Nations which was set up after the end of World Wa...
The rough consensus on global governance, despite the vagueness of the term, is that it refers to a visible variety of processes that have fundamentally altered the means by which power is exercised in the modern era. The extent of that variety remains hotly debated, with some claiming that the term encompasses “virtually anything”, and so a solid grasp on what the concept actually entails may only be gleaned by coordinating various descriptions. The classic depiction by International Relations scholars of the international system as inherently anarchical and state-centric may today be no longer as self-evident as it once was, yet an entirely new and comprehensive global system of governance has yet to truly emerge. In this stage of development, it may remain impossible to gain a firm grasp on what global governance consists of, due to the novelty, rapidly changing and loose nature of this new paradigm. Regardless, as the