Schools of Thoughts in International Relation Theory - Term Paper Example

School of thought Before going into the issue of implementing a theory of school of thoughts related to international relations’ theory in a new dossier, we should first get to know what actually school of thought means. To begin with school of thought, it’s a set of ideas or thoughts that is held or generated by any specific group of people or society. We can also say that it’s a collection of those sets of ideas which are generated by the people who have common characteristics regarding their opinions because a perfect school of thought can only be produced when the people of that specific society share some common characteristics about any specific belief. In history of the world, there exist various schools of thought that may be characterized by beliefs, political movements, cultural movements, currency or social movements. So, having getting some knowledge about school of thoughts, we are now in the position of describing some schools of thought present in the international relations’ theory. Schools of thoughts in international relation theory Before going into the details of schools of thought in the theory of international relations, we must first get to know what international relations are. So, if we talk about international relations, we get to know that international relations are the study of global issues or foreign affairs that exist among different nations of the world. All types of issues that come under the definition of foreign affairs represent the phenomenon of international relations or international studies. Other factors or institutions that influence the study of international relations are government organizations, non-government organizations, multinational companies and different types of corporations. It may also be known as a field of political science that studies the foreign issues related to different nations of the world. We can say that international relations is categorized as positive or normative in a sense that it not only analyzes the foreign issues or policies of different nations but also helps in formulating those foreign policies. Cynthia Weber notes that study of international relations helps nations for the purpose of developing an appropriate foreign policy.1 Thus we can say that thorough study of international relations is of critical importance for every nation of the world while developing a suitable foreign policy. Theories of international relations When we talk about international relations, we must also talk about those theories which have a great influence on the study of international relations. These theories of international relations can be divided into two major types. These types are positivist and post-positivist theories of international relations. Positivist theories are those theories which reproduce the techniques of natural sciences by examining the impact of material forces. Balance of powers and capacity of military forces are the major focus of positivist theories. Colin Elman and Miriam Elmen note that the impact and influence of these material forces are critically examined in order to reproduce or replicate the methods of natural sciences.2 The theories which come under the category of positivist theories are realism, liberalism, neoliberalism and regime theory. Martyin Wight notes that the balance of power had been a system of keeping order.3 When we talk about post-positivist theories, we can say that they don’t promote the perception of studying the social world in an objective manner. The major area of concentration in post-positivist theories is power. The main questions regarding power in post-positivist theories are defining power, making, experiencing and reproduction of power. These questions are the major concepts associated with the post-positivist theories of international relations. Both positivist and post-positivist theories of international relations provide a great help in explaining different types of news records regarding various political and foreign issues of different nations of the world. We can explain various issues regarding nations by focusing on any specific theory of international relations which best suits that issue. This is because these theories of international relations have a great influence on the political scenarios of different nations of the world. News dossier to be discussed The news dossier which we are going to discuss with respect to international relations’ theories is Iranian nuclear programme. Before discussing the new dossier, let’s get to know that theory which best explains this specific news dossier. The theory which we are talking about is realism which comes under the category of positivist theories of international relations. Realism If we talk about realism, we can start by saying that in this positivist theory of international relations, the major focus is on nation’s security and power. All other things come after the factor of power and security for any specific nation. In realism, the prime responsibility of a nation is to strengthen the power and level of security of the nation. Jack Donnelly notes that the nations are more self interested and their main objective is to enhance the security measures for the country.4 And when the interaction or dialogs take place between any two nations, the major focus in those dialogs is to stabilize the level of security of individuals. There different forms of realism are classical, structural, offensive, defensive, neoclassical and liberal realism. The major objective of this school of thought in international relations theory is to prioritize or concentrate on country’s interest and its related security measures instead of targeting social reconstructions or moral principles. Stefano Guzzini notes that nation’s security is taken as the key objective in realism specific school of thought.5 In realism, the states should interact with each other on their own instead of being directed by some higher controlling authority to do so. It’s the responsibility of the nation to start interacting with the other nations. There is no such controlling authority which can direct a nation to start interacting with any other nation. Annette Freyberg notes that realism is the most compelling framework for international relations as compared to other theoretical approaches.6 The principal actors in the international system are those sovereign states which are paid special sort of attention in the world because of their power, leverage and sovereignty. John Hobson notes that long-term cooperation between any two nations or alliance doesn’t seem to be effective because of low level of trust among the nations.7 As a result, nations more concentrate on their own interest and security rather than building any sort of long-term relationships with the other nations. The main focus of any nation is on strengthening the security measures for the interest of the nation and for the public. Michael Brecher and Frank Harvey note that national security and individuals’ survival is taken as the most important interest by any nation.8 If we talk about relationships between any two nations, we can say that this relationship is determined by comparing the military and economic powers or stability of any two countries. If the countries have enough military and economic capability, their relationships with each others will become strong because in realism, building relationships between any two countries depend upon the military and economic powers of those countries. In realism, there are no such rules or principals which should be followed while taking any sort of action. Michael Williams notes that a realistic and hardheaded approach is always used by the nation for the purpose of solving different problems which may arise.9 The concepts of self-centeredness, egocentricity and competitiveness are promoted in the realism school of thought. Robert Jackson and George Sorensen note that in realism, sovereignty should never be harmed by any sort of outside interference.10 Every step is linked with the next step to happen in realism. For example, nation’s major responsibility of looking for its own interest has a link with strong economy. And strong economy has a link with development of a strong military force. And then strong military force has a link with security of people living in that specific nation. Robert Crawford notes that every nation has the primary responsibility of looking up for its interest.11 So for this purpose, higher level of economy will be needed. And when the nation will have higher economy, it will help the nation in developing a string military force. And when a nation will have string military force, the safety and security level of the people of that nation will go exceptionally high. In realism, the nation is the top level of authority. All other authorities come after the authority of state. And this authority can never be sidelined by any other controlling authority. International relations, as we know, is full of anarchy and disorders. Due to these disorders, anarchy and shift of powers, war between the nations become unavoidable. For the purpose of offsetting one another, the super powers create the global governance. This global governance proves to be very beneficial for setting up the issues among various nations. Let’s now describe the news dossier which is about Iranian nuclear programme and see how the concept of realism school of thought in international relations theory explains this specific news dossier. Realism and Iranian nuclear programme While talking about realism, we must also talk about that kind of an issue which can be appropriately explained by the realism school of thought. The issue which we are talking about is Iranian nuclear programme. Let’s discuss the issue of Iranian nuclear programme in detail while keeping in mind the aspect of realism. Iran has started to work on nuclear programme in 1950s by saying that its basic purpose will be to overcome the shortage of electricity and atoms for peace programme. In the start of this nuclear programme, the United States of America also provided a great help to Iran for the purpose of being a part of atoms for peace programme. That support, appreciation and motivation was not only from the United States of America but also from other western world. It lasted till the Iranian revolution in 1979. After 1979, Iranian government started to work on the nuclear programme with less support and assistance of the western world. Several misconceptions began to arise due to this act of Iranian government regarding nuclear programme. But it is to be kept in notice that strengthening the power is the main focus of any government according to the school of thought of realism. So, if Iranian government started to work on the nuclear programme for the purpose of increasing its nuclear power, then it is the right of the government. But here we should also say that every government, not only Iranian government, should allow the authority of united nations to inspect whether the work which is being done in the name of electricity purposes is actually being done for the same purpose or it has some other objectives also. Before going into the details of the new dossier related to Iranian nuclear programme, let’s first get to know the point of views of Iranian government, Israel and the United States of America regarding Iranian nuclear programme. Iranian government’s point of view According to Iranian government’s point of view, Iran’s nuclear programme is for the purpose of generating electricity and it’s a very peaceful mission of the Iranian government. Iran stresses on the fact that getting enough resources to produce electricity is the right of any independent nation and no power can seize the basic rights of any nation. Iran believes that every government has a right of doing favor for its public and for this purpose they have started to develop the nuclear technology. But the western world is exaggerating the issue by saying that its nuclear programme is not actually for the purpose of meeting the demand of electricity. Israel’s point of view If we talk about Israeli point of view regarding Iranian nuclear programme, we come to know that Israel has a totally different view. According to Israeli officials, Iran’s nuclear programme is a major threat to the existence of Iran’s neighboring countries. Israel thinks that it has enough evidences regarding continuation of Iranian nuclear weapons programme. Israeli government doesn’t believe that Iran has stopped or will ever stop working on its nuclear technology. They think that if Iran gets able to prepare nuclear weapons, then it will be a great threat to the existence of other countries in the Middle East region. So, Iran should stop its nuclear reactors and allow the United Nations’ inspectors to visit the nuclear reactors of Iran in order to know the actual situation of Iran’s nuclear programme. United States’ point of view The United States of America has a different point of view regarding Iranian nuclear technology programme. They think that Iran may go towards making of bombs and nuclear weapons in the next stage of its nuclear programme. They say that Iran’s mastery of civilian technology can lead it to develop nuclear weapons in the coming future and if this happens, it will be very dangerous for the peace of the world any it may lead the world towards world war III. American government believes that Iran is dissembling and deceiving the UN inspectors for the past two decades. So, Iran should stop working on its nuclear programme because Iran doest actually need to develop its own nuclear capacity. The news dossier about Iranian nuclear technology programme As we have got some idea of America’s point of view regarding Iranian nuclear programme, we get to know that America wants Iran to stop its nuclear activities. But Iran doest seem to stop it at all and it has continued its uranium enrichment operations. So, Iran has been subjected to United Nations Security Council’s sanctions related to its nuclear programme. In March 2006, United Nations Security Council discussed the issue of Iranian nuclear programme for the report by the IAEA which was meant to set up Iran’s conformity with terms of NPT. In July 2006, Security Council said that IAEA was not able to provide any assurances regarding peaceful use of nuclear technology by Iran. It then demanded that Iran should stop all nuclear activities and research regarding the nuclear processes. And if they don’t do so, they will have to face the sanctions by the United Nations Security Council. But Iran didn’t respond positively towards the issue. So in December 2006, the Security Council made a resolution whose purpose was to block Iran’s import and export of sensitive nuclear material. When the Security Council saw that Iran’s nuclear programme is still open in spite of the sanctions, so in march 2007, united nations security council banned Iran’s arms exports. The in march 2008, further sanctions were applied and those sanctions were to scrutinize the dealings of the Iranian banks. Looking at the behavior of Iranian government, world powers turned up some heat on Iran regarding the issue. They pressurized Iran and urged that Iran should reveal the nature of its nuclear programme during six-party talks in Geneva. In the meantime, Tehran revealed the existence of a hidden site used for the purposes of nuclear activities. Iran said that it will allow the United Nations inspectors to view the new site but didn’t tell the time and date of inspections. Iran continued arguing that its nuclear activities are just for energy purposes, not for any sort of nuclear weapons development. In October 2009, the head of the UN’s nuclear agency said that Iran is moving towards cooperation with the United Nations Security Council. Iran said that it will allow the team of inspectors to visit the nuclear site located at Qom on 25th of October, 2009. When UN’s nuclear agency announced this news, all the media welcomed Iran’s decision regarding letting the site visited by the UN’s inspectors. Iran also said that the site located at Qom is not operational as yet and denied any sort of attempt to develop nuclear weapons at the newly revealed nuclear site. But the United Nations Security Council demanded a full halt to uranium enrichment by Iran. The talks which took place in Geneva in October 2009 between Iran and six major powers of the world were the first since July 2008 and both sides agreed to continue further talks in October 2009. In November 2009, the head of the United Nations nuclear agency urged Iran to be as much cooperative as possible and should send its uranium abroad for enrichment purposes rather than doing it at Iran. US secretary of state also urged Iran to accept the agreement of sending the uranium abroad for enrichment. But Iran suggested to review the deal and said that it will continue enrichment of uranium in Iran. The plan was that Iran should send its uranium aboard for enrichment and will be processed into the fuel. The fuel will be given to Iran which will show that Iran is not using the nuclear programme for nuclear weapons purposes and its purpose is just to get required energy for the country. When these discussions were going on, news was revealed on 29th November 2009 that Iran tends to build ten more enrichment sites in Iran. This increased the chances of more sanctions on Iran. Iran neither wanted to send its uranium outside nor wanted to stop enrichment of uranium inside Iran; these kinds of acts not only promoted the chances of sanctions but also promoted the chances of military strike on Iran’s nuclear sites. So in December 2009, US warned Iran of new significant sanctions in case of not sending the uranium outside for enrichment purposes. On 22nd December 2009, Iranian president denied Iranian nuclear bomb tests and said that its nuclear technology is purely for energy purposes, not for any sort of military purposes. But the US and its coalition partners said that this technology could be used for developing nuclear weapons so Iran should stop all such activities. On 2nd January 2010, Iran sent an ultimatum to the west by saying that either the west should renegotiate the UN backed deal about Iranian nuclear technology or Iran would enrich uranium on its own. Iran demanded the west to accept the counter plan on nuclear programme. Getting a closer look at the news dossier regarding Iranian nuclear technology programme, we get to know that realism school of thought means to strengthen the power of a nation which is the basic right of any nation in the world but it should not become a danger for the existence of other countries. Strengthening the security measures for the people of the nation is the prime responsibility of any nation according to the school of thought of realism but it should be done in a way so that none of the other nations get any sort of obliteration. Bibliography Weber, C, International relations theory: a critical introduction, 2nd edn, Routledge, New York, 2005. Elmen, C & M Elmen, Progress in international relations theory: appraising the field, The MIT Press, U.S.A, 2003. Wright, M, Four seminal thinkers in international theory, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005 Donnelly, J, Realism and international relations, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 2000. Guzzini, S, Realism in international relations and international political economy, Routledge, London, 1998. Freyberg, A, What moves man: the realist theory of international relations and its judgement of human nature, SUNY Press, New York, 2004. Hobson, J, The state and international relations, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 2000. Brecher, M & F Harvey, Realism and institutionalism in international studies, University of Michigan Press, U.S.A, 2002. Williams, M, The realist tradition and the limits of international relations, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 2005. Jackson, R & G Sorensen, Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches, Oxford University Press, New York, 2007. Crawford, R, Idealism and realism in international relations: beyond the discipline, Routledge, London, 2000. Read More