The Processes and Nature of International Relations Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays

Section One

Question One

The discipline of international relations has witnessed several changes, more so in relation to the great debates. However, while analyzing the history of international relations, Torbjørn Knutsen takes the readers back into the 15the century in which certain authors are depicted as medieval and antique. The rapidly changing society as depicted by this author was a clear manifestation of a shift in the ideological viewpoints of people, hence the development of several theories that defined the ideas of people towards international relations. Even more interesting is the fragmentation in the political ideologies by Western nations, hence the growth of the different thoughts such as liberalism, radicalism, and conservatism. Looking at the 20th century, these different ideologies have been instrumental in shaping the processes and nature of international relations.

Liberalism

John Locke, the architect of this ideology, was instrumental in creating the manner in which citizens relate to the governments. This theory encompasses the facts of good governance between states and government styles within each of these states. The main themes of liberal argument are liberty, toleration, and justice, which have been replicated in the international relations today. In accordance with the benchmarks of the liberal mindsets, international relations attained its relevance during the period that the world encountered significant warfare. Through liberalism, it was assumed that states could consider better ways of resolving conflicts rather than banking on warfare, which was outmoded and relatively unnecessary.

The values stipulated in the terms of international relations are protected and nurtured by the international and domestic institutions. However, the ideological viewpoints are further diversified when analyzing the issues that guarantee warfare, according to the liberalist views. Traditionally, the concept of international relations as enshrined in liberalist thought was that the imbalance of power characterized the nature of the undemocratic states governed by corrupt leaders. However, in the 20th century, all these changed with the introduction of the enlightenment liberal thought, which considered wider factors such as the movement of goods and people in facilitating peaceful international relations.

Primarily the liberalist ideas rooted for the establishment of the 20th century direction of international relations, as the world saw an increase in the tolerance to global public opinion, more so in relation to considering the state interests. The freedom of the states, which is a fundamental problem of liberalist viewpoint, was at the centre of the establishment of ways through which the world could promote cohesion based on a set of stipulations. Undoubtedly, the UN is a masterpiece of the liberalist mindset, as it was an institution developed in the 20th century to promote the fundamentals of this ideological viewpoint such as alternative solutions to disputes as well as establishment of institutions to promote harmony across the world.

The liberalist contribution to international relations was instrumental in ending the world wars. The interests of the great powers were assumed to represent the interest of the majorities, as the membership of the League of Nations was universally spread. Therefore looking at the 20th century, it is evident that the principles of the liberalist ideologies are depicted in the cooperative arrangements of the world order.

Realism

As opposed to the arguments of liberalists, realists explain that the international system is one that is characterized by anarchy, which makes the state a monopoly of power. Therefore, states defend themselves with the purpose of surviving against the interests of other states, whether diplomatically, economically, politically of militarily. The role of the realist approach in the 20th century international relations takes after the four main assumptions with which the realists view the world.

To begin with, the realists argue that each state has a primary goal of survival, hence the necessity of these states to catalyze the threats of foreign occupation or invasion. The second assumption, furthermore, is that the states have to utilize their best methods that guarantee continued survival. The third assumption is that all states have equal military capacity whereas the last assumption is that the Great Powers in the world are decisive.

In the 20th century, the world wars began by the realist thought that each state has to defend its territories. The overriding emphases that realists put on power and anarchy have led them to have a tainted view of international institutions and international law. Looking at the 20th century, realists have become facets of international politics that reflect the mere balance of power, with no influence or constrain over the behaviors of states. In line with this argument, the hierarchical authorities that define the anarchical system prompt the realists into concluding that law can only be implemented though the existence of state power. It is for this reason that global superpowers such as the US have undertaken military expeditions in countries such as Iraq, where there seems to be an absence of law due to anarchical balance of power.

Conservatism

In the Western world, conservatism is one of the main political philosophies. In this political ideology, thinkers argue that the maintenance of societies though creation of value is dependent on the respect that the leaders have for the traditional values and the institutions that govern their countries. Therefore, it does not limit the powers of the state; neither does it show any suspicions of these powers as portrayed in realism and liberalism.

In the 20th century, conservatism is one of the theories that helped in developing international relations. In as much other theories highlighted the concept of power as the main course of dissent among countries, this theory depicts the world as largely diverse through considering religion, traditional values and the government in the list of factors to respect for prosperous international relations to be attained.

In international relations, furthermore, conservatism emphasizes on the aspects of belief and identity, as it exposes certain factors that are considered determinants of the manner in which a state behaves. Therefore, the conservatism depicts the position that social norms play in the international political field, hence the establishments of friends or social groups in the 20th century.

Section Two

Question Two

As highlighted in the Section 1 above, the study of the international relations discipline considers a wide array of theoretical approaches. The emergence of these theories is dependent on the discipline itself, whereas others have been imported partly or wholly from other disciplines such as sociology, philosophy, and economics. Besides, one can argue that a limited number of scientific theories have not been applied in international relations discipline.

In as much most of the theories, remain to be highly contestable both externally and internally, scholars argue that there is sufficient proof for one to believe in a given theory. The theories surrounding international relations are classified as diverse, with discernable natures characterizing the several schools of thought that theorize international relations. Despite this, the panicles that differentiate the theories are mainly constructed based on the variables such as the military interests, political influence, or the ideological viewpoints.

From the outline above, it would be necessary to analyze the extent to which theory has been incorporated in international relations. Considering the fact that theory has a set of components that make it subject to application universally, the conceptualization of theory in international relations is essential in streamlining the school of thought of each theory as employed in the discipline. The diverse aspects of international relations, furthermore, are only conceptualized through theories.

In a bid to develop the concept of theory as applied in international relations, it is important to understand the basic definitions of theory. Theories are a representation of the intelligent patterns that reflect a design that relates phenomena to each other in meaningful and systematic styles. Theories enable people to make the world more understood and intelligible, as they dissect a topic beyond the overview of its description into questioning the dynamics of the explanations.

International relations theories have distinct patterns, a link that proves essential more so in analyzing the events that have characterized the international scene. The conceptual field of theory includes the epistemological or historical aspects and the socio-philosophical or ontological aspects. Looking at international relations, theory can be conceptualized in explaining the history of international relations as well as the ontological aspects of this discipline.

The history of ideas enshrined in international relations is expounded through definition of problems, development of concepts, and the establishment of doctrine definitions that bind international relations. In line with the international thoughts, theories have defined the conceptual and doctrinal development of the history of the international relations.

As explained by many scholars, conceptualizing theory in international relations discipline is portrayed though depicting the history of international relations as a scientific discipline. Many scientific theories have explained the developments of institutions that are considered agents of international relations, going further to dissect the analysis, description, and systematization of these developments. Even more interesting is the application of theory in defining the terminologies of international relations, as well as the subjects that define the scope of international relations. The cognitive interests that characterize international relations are defined through theoretical constructs, just as much as the international and external boundaries of these epistemological aspects.

A third characteristic of international relations that paint a picture of the essence of theory in conceptualizing the discipline is the philosophical development of international relations. Through theories, scholars analyzed and formulated the norms that define the existing international society. All along, the development of social order to replace the existing ones has been supported by theories based on philosophical construction. Most questions surrounding the existence of international relations find their answers from the theoretical philosophies of social relations. Such questions as the manner and validity of the existence of international relations are answered by the theories presented by ancient philosophies of social existence, and the normative validity that define the existential reasons for international relations.

Throughout the history of international relations, the epistemology of international relations borrows a leaf from the theoretical constructs. Theories have been at the centre of formulating the explicit criteria used in deciding the scientific and logical status of the general propositions or statements enshrined in international relations. Moreover, theories provide a blend of systematic and methodological reflection of the assumptions and preconditions that define international relations. In the absence of theories, scholars could not have established the performance and range of international relations, neither would they have located the limits of knowledge they have produced to improve the study in this discipline.

Furthermore, it would be important to dissect the grand theories of international relations to ascertain the relevance of this discussion. Looking at the realism theory, the national states and leaders are brought into context. The structural principle of this theory depicts international relations as vertically segmented with unlimited influence on the economic and territorial resources that define the world of states as an anarchical. Contrary to realism, idealist theory focuses on the individual. It bases its construct on the world as component of states that are made up of individuals. It is for this milieu that international relations attain the principles of federalism and universalistic constitutions.

There are several ways of looking at the analogy of international relations through different sets of perspective. The diverse sets of IR perspectives have building blocks, most of which are bound by the identity of international relations. Each of these perspectives enshrined in international relations is significant in strengthening the different elements that portray the relevant patterns of the specific topic.

In all the theoretical concepts of international relations, it is evident that the diverse views of the theories have been able to address the multiple mindsets and contexts that make it easier for people to understand based on their personal judgments. Indeed, the above arguments depict theory as an essential component of international relations, with the main traditions of international relations divided a realist, liberal, constructivist, critical or postmodern, historical materialism, feminist, environmental and game theory approaches.

Section 3

Question One

According to the realist theory, the international political scene is determined by power. Besides, the Greta global powers are the main players in this realist account, as they consider paying attention on the military and economic power at the command of each nation in this league. Most of the great powers struggle to have substantial amounts of power, besides being under constant surveillance in case other global powers shift power against their favor. Power politics is the synonymous identity of international politics according to the realist mindset. Despite this universal mindset across the realist realm, differences are evident on the substantial facets of issues in this theory.

Mearsheimer and Walt have been the main protagonists of the differences that have characterized the realist schools of thought. The diversity in thinking, moreover, is perpetuated by the question that seeks to establish the reason behind the need for power by states. In as much as this question is simple, it exposes deep cracks on the ideologies of the realists, with the classical realists arguing that power is a characteristic of human nature.

Despite the fact that the classical realists hold this view, more questions arise on the effective means through which great powers have more desire for power, and the dominance that rivals show over the states that have not attained the status of being great. Contrary to the classical realists, the structural realists debunk the myth that human nature has prompted states to desire more power. Instead, these realists argue that the international system has a structure that pushes them into pursuing power. This proposes that the great powers are the pinnacle of the global authority, and that they have no guarantee of being spared in the event that they are attacked by similar powers.

The ignorance of the cultural differences between the structural and classical relists depicts a gap in the ideological viewpoints of the realist theoretical standpoint on international relations. These differences are essential in bringing up the question on the amount of power that is enough to cement the divergent views of both the structural and classical realists. These are the building blocks of the defensive and offensive realist theories. These blocks aim at including the entire concepts not enshrined in the previous realist mindsets, hence the presence of gaps and ideological differences.

The offensive and defensive realists are competitors that aimed at explaining a similar phenomenon, one that dissects the classical and structural realist divide. Looking at the arguments provided in the structural and classical realist approaches, it is arguable that the defensive and offensive realist theories base their arguments on the questionable assumptions that created discourse between the need for power and the amount of power required by the great states.

Offensive realism is a masterpiece argument of John Mearsheimer, which maintains a view that great powers pursue hegemony by gaining as much power as possible to suit any circumstances. The international system, according to the offensive realists, encourages the offensive strategy, as it advocates for anarchism that breed insecurity. In line with this argument, only the strongest nations can be guaranteed of security, a primary circumstance that enables the great powers to pursue hegemony.

The most significant concept of offensive realism in international relations is the nature of balance of power, as is the case of the realist theory. The offensive realists argue that the nature of power balances makes the strong state naturally dreaded or feared by the weak states. Similarly, the rising states are considered threats to the strong states, just as much as neighboring states fear one another. The concept of offensive realism is enshrined in this fear, which is manifested through states striking first. Similarly, this fear promotes risky behavior among states in pursuit of security. Among the prospects of offensive realism is the massive investment that countries direct towards building their militaries.

Based on this discussion, offensive realists such as John Mearsheimer are driven by the assumption that policymakers begin with a perception that concrete international relations policies are solid ways through which the concrete effects of fear can be mitigated. Therefore, the behaviors of states tend to depict the need for first conquer, hence the opportunistic expansion. In the offensive realist viewpoint, self-defense is difficult because of insecurity and polices that aim at defensive expansions. The expansion due to offensive realism is a recipe for resistance, a factor that facilitates polices that aim at taking advantages of the first strike, and subsequent development of preemptive wars.

On the other hand, Kenneth Waltz maintained that it is unwise for states to invest in maximizing their world power shares. Waltz, with his defensive realist thought, explained that defensive realism proposes the balance of powers, since the system has internal structures that would automatically punish states that aim at controlling a lot of power.

In international relations, furthermore, the main aspects of defensive realism are depicted through the assumptions that this theory makes. To begin with, the world has structures that determine the interconnections and relations that each country fosters with her neighbors. Therefore, the world will always have security dilemmas, and there is no way that the world can escape these dilemmas. Contrary to the divergent offensive realist view that proposes the maximization of power, this viewpoint argues that the probabilities of war are not solely dependent on the security dilemmas presented to the Great powers.

Herein, the structural factors are presented as the intervening variables that define the international policies. The security dilemmas present the options of military action and alternative dispute resolutions, since the variables such as access to raw materials, geography, and military technology are the structures that define the level of powers gained by states. Therefore, the policies made by states under the defensive realist approach focus on the structural factors that are instrumental in dictating the amount of powers that states can gain. As explained, the defensive realists recognize the incentives created y the international system, hence pursuit of hegemony is considered foolish based on the structural and strategic positioning.

The Processes and Nature of International Relations - Assignment Example

Extract of sample "The Processes and Nature of International Relations"