Considering theoretical perspectives, Anievas (2005) discusses theories of IR and goes into the detail pf Habermasian social theory to understand the practical implications of such a theory considering discourse ethics and communicative action. Anievas suggests that the contradictory nature of international relations and its relation to globalisation perspectives could be understood within the Habermasian context and the constructivist approaches to IR also have more socially oriented applications of the Habermasian framework (Anievas, 2005). Habermas emphasized on the importance of the public sphere, and the need for a political community transcending nation state on ethnic and cultural similarities for a community based on equal rights and democracy. Thus the Habermasian framework could be applied within socialisation perspectives to explain globalisation as a phenomenon which transcends cultural or ethnic boundaries for equality at all levels. Discussing on the role of foreign policy practised by the global powers, as the United States, Mabee (2004) suggests that the US foreign policy is defined and explained in terms of imperialism and the notion of an empire. Mabee points out that the US as an empire probably conveys deeper meaning to the process of foreign policy and US domination than the concept of US as an imperial republic. According to Mabee, the notion of imperialism would suggest the dynamics of power and coercion that seem to be a part of an anarchic international system. Imperialism and globalisation has a direct relationship with certain interpretations of globalisation being focused on the influence or hegemony of one culture especially western culture on the other more oriental cultures (Mabee, 2004).
There are other theoretical alternatives, such as the constructivist approach to globalisation, and Palan (2004) suggests that constructivism in international relations has a string link with