International Relations Theory - Assignment Example

? International Relations Theory What are the three main ‘engines of progress’ that constitute liberal internationalism? The main engines for the liberal internationalism are the instrumental rationality. This entails the calculations of costs and benefits of economics; capitalism and a universal consumer culture; and democracy. The first engine does bring to fore the cost implications for a nation working as a single entity in international business. The costs of such a venture are higher considering the economies of scale are lower as compared to a country that trades as a bloc with other countries. As such, most countries would prefer forming trade blocs to benefit from incentives and low costs of doing business. Trade blocs have had to practice liberal trading by eliminating tariffs and other restrictions to international trade among the bloc countries. Capitalism entails free market for all where the market structure promotes the force of demand and supply to take place. This calls for less or no controls from the concerned governments thus eliminating government controls. The consumers are also free to choose the products and services they want from anywhere in the world. The international market exhibits such trends. This makes it possible for many countries to prefer capitalism to other ideologies such as communism. For those two reasons, capitalism and universal consumer culture sets a stage for liberal internationalism where individual choice to sell or buy is respected. The final engine is the democratization of governments across the world. Democracy entails self-rule forming a government of the people by the people where majority choice rules. The enjoyment of rights and freedoms that are seen in democratic governments constitute liberal practices in political structures (Marks, 1-19). Democratization works best if the state is ‘strong’. What does that mean? The formation of state is entrenched in there being a unified civil society and as such, the state remains imperative if civility in society is to be sustained. The people in a state do try their best not to harm the rights of others while they exercise theirs. This kind of scenario presents democracy where the rights and freedoms of others are respected and upheld. Without the exercise of upholding other people’s rights and freedoms and letting the people make their choice, there would not be democracy. For people to engage in democratic practices, there must be a civil society that is stable, sensitive to the rights and freedoms of others, and preservation of liberty, property and life of the people is upheld. For the stability of society, the state needs to operate within the limits of natural laws and civil laws. The need to become democratized emanates from the fact that people within a state demand that single interests be eliminated and the tyranny be checked for the benefit of majority. A strong state has all the mechanism needed to establish civil obedience, upholds rights and freedoms of the people, the faults of the civil society can be corrected, and the state has the capacity and necessary authority to act that way. Strong civil society, stable governments, and strong civil structures in terms of institutions are better recipes for democratization as opposed to anarchy. Anarchy breeds tyranny. Democracy is constituted when limits to power is realized, mutual relations between the state and civil society are established, rule of law is upheld, constitutionalism promoted, and freedom and rights of all people are equally promoted through democratic participation, thus a strong state with functional democracy (Marks 1-19). What do realists think about ‘China’s rise’ and its implications for international order? The rise of China will transform the East Asia and this influence is set to spread to other parts of the world. China’s take on international matters will be stronger and will bring about a huge drama. The rise of china is seen towards the direction of superpower where the United States is deemed to decline from its stature and give way to Chinese superpower. The international world order will shift immensely and change from western-oriented world order where western cultural practices, economic underpinnings, military prowess, and all other things associated with western power will be replaced by the Chinese-oriented world order. During the bloody period of the 20th century, the west did descent from the superpower position and this started gradually shifting and reorienting towards the east. Given that china is getting even more powerful, the position held by the US in international order keeps eroding and as such, there are two things that could possibly happen are the fact that china will use its influence in the world to reshape the existing rules and structure the institutions of the system existing in the world so as to further its interest (Cox 3-5). The states that are in decline will perceive this rise as a bigger threat to their establishments. This has the implications of developing tensions, distrust, and eventually a rise in conflict levels as features of a transition in power. China will be significantly powerful more than the US. The US will remain locked up in international squabbles as it is the situation today. The Asian-centered world order will arise (Ikenberry 2-5). Identify three main causes of the decline in effectiveness of international organizations The declining power of states that supported the formation of these international organizations has been pointed out as being a major cause of the decline in the effectiveness of international organizations. This is because the dominant power normally sets up systems and determines the kind of norms, principles, rules, and procedures for making decisions within the system. This was the case with the UN and other international organizations. The strength and prestige of the dominant state is a major recipe for continued acceptance of these international organizations and as such, if they start declining like the US is doing, their structures also start collapsing hence the decline in international organizations’ effectiveness. The scarce resources have forced countries to start looking at their individual roles within their states in order to avoid being pushed into international organizational issues. For that reason, states have focused on allocating resources within their boundaries with less interest in engaging in seeking superiority. The spread of things such as capitalism, universal consumer culture, and democracy and general liberalism has meant that states are less engaged in international conflicts and for that reason the role that bodies like the UN play has been reduced due to long periods of inactivity. Besides, the shift in power has meant that emerging superpowers such as China and India have a bigger say in international matters where their actions have in a way derailed the functions of the international organizations. For instance, China has been on the forefront in vetoing many sanctions needed to be imposed on various countries, a situation which makes it hard for such organizations like the UN to effectively function (Honghua 1-12). Are human rights universal? Human rights are thought by many to be universal in that they form part of the natural laws that all individuals in spite of gender, race, ethnicity or cultural and geographical orientations need. The human rights according to the UN Charter are very universal and are outlined. However, there are those who think that human rights are not universal. What is known is the rights and values of all people across the world are normally defined and limited by the culturally held perceptions and given that we do not have a universal culture, then one would still argue that there are indeed no universal human rights. The concept of universal human rights’ existence is enshrined in the fact that the supporters take an individualistic approach in that the greatest need of people is to be free without any form of interference by the state in their affairs (Hutchings 71-89). The issue of universal human rights has been tainted as a western cover up for interfering with affairs of the developing countries given the fact that it is not possible to offer all human rights when the institutions in these countries are underdeveloped. Many of the human rights are specifically attributed to the western cultural practices which might not apply in some countries away from the west. The human rights will only become universal when they are indigenized and owned by the local people in what might appear to be a global culture but if the status quo is to be maintained, and then we shall still have no universal human rights (Tharoor 1-6). What are the main tensions between territorial sovereignty and national self-determination? Territorial sovereignty has more to do with integrity of a nation in that force shall not be used to interfere with internationally recognized boundaries of each and every state. The states that have been recognized as sovereign possess the right to exercise control of their territory and act within their borders and it is thus illegal for any other external force to try and alter their borders through territorial expansion. The UN Charter respects the principle of self-determination and exercise of equal rights. In order to foster self-determination and territorial integrity, all members of the UN will avoid any form of threat to use force aimed at interfering with territorial integrity of another nation or its political independence. A state is able to challenge the issue of territorial sovereignty through forceful annexation of territory and by use of force in order to support a need to secede. The tension thus exists when a given state needs to annex the other completely and in this case, territorial sovereignty is interfered with. Besides, another tension comes about when force is used by a country to force the other into consenting to secession. The tensions occur due to the fact that territorial sovereignty is against territorial splits while self-determination is to be promoted by letting the people gain the power to govern them especially where the minority groups who feel sidelined decide to take up self-rule. Self-determination has in most cases however been practiced in decolonization process. The current volatile and war status of many nations have put to question whether territorial sovereignty can be upheld alongside self-determination. Thus, the tensions will still be exhibited. Identify two ways in which ‘just war theory’ fails to reconcile the tension between necessity and justice in the conduct of war The just theory of war stipulates certain issues that need to be addressed. The jus ad bellum or the justice of one deciding to resort to war as the solution in the first place, just in bello or the justice practiced within the conduct of ongoing war, and the jus post bellum that has to do with the justice of peace agreements that are normally signed at the end of war and the subsequent termination of engagements of war. The just war theory has failed to reconcile the tension that exist between necessity and justice during wars because of the fact that the two parties have differing interests and the other reason is that for war to end, one party must give in to the demands of the other which brings about the issue of not having exercised justice to another state. The country that attacks first could still be considered as the aggressor for failing to take up accepted international legal actions. When one state goes to war against the other, it assumes that it has the necessity to do so and with this, it will be exercising its right to justice. However, the attacked nation also feels that it is necessary to protect itself and demands that justice be exercised in order to receive fair treatment. Achieving these two becomes a problem and thus one state must give in at times of war to gain peace. The issue of proportionality also sets in such that it is not possible for warring states to receive equal treatment when they are in war hence the injustice (Brady and Garver 9-18). What is the difference between an ‘instrumental’ view of theory and a ‘constitutive’ view of theory? Give examples. Instrumental view of theory is a form of rational thinking that tries to focus on what is most efficient means that could be made use of in realizing a specific end but avoids tackling the value that the end gives. It looks at theory in terms of how and does not answer why. It helps promote the understanding of human about things in a more general format and help improve human conditions. This kind of instrumental view does have the interest in trying to understand necessities that nature brings, and the possibilities that are available in trying to harness the natural laws, and promotes the natural scientific way of thinking, besides manipulating the nature of both the living and the dead. The difference with constitutive view of theory come in the sense that the instrumental view of theory takes into account mathematical approach and physical objects considered instruments in trying to explain things (Leonardo 504–525). Constitutive view of theory is one that does not seek to generate or even track the causal patterns that have been observed in time but only does ask how the thing was constituted. This view entails many forms such as the study of how some objects in social settings were constituted; the theory of state like how a given state is made. The functions that such a state has to carry out could also be envisaged. This view tries to establish how or ways through which certain norms, rules, and ideas in objects that are considered social were constituted. Within this view, the belief is that the social and natural world was constituted by means of ideas that are held today. The act of theorizing is thus theorized (Glynos and Howarth 23-34). What do ‘critical theorists’ criticize? Critical theorists try to be self-conscious in social settings with the aim of creating change and enlightening others on issues presented by others in society and do not subscribe to doctrinal assumptions. They do criticize the limits that are put on issues by people who pose to have certain knowledge about things. Criticism could take either a positivist or a negativist approach. Most critics try to put forward ideas that seem to have been left out by others while presenting their work. They criticize the works of others by pointing out weaknesses or poking holes in the knowledge presented or they could also show the stronger points that are part of the work. They do criticize knowledge and thus aim at emancipating its function (Leonardo 504–525). Such role of criticism comes in handy in search of the educational quality. It has been argued that quality is actually proportional to the amount or depth of analysis one gives a certain piece of work. The critical theories criticize the establishments in state, institutions, and other social settings or even literature with the view of shedding light for the benefit of change, understanding or simply opposition to the status quo. Critical theorists also do criticize with the objective of improving the course of knowledge and impart new ideas and thus add to the development of knowledge. Critical theorists thus end up criticizing almost anything in the social setting as long as they deem it constructive and necessary. Much as criticism is good, appreciating what others have done becomes necessary and avoiding baseless criticism which cannot be supported is not good or required (Kanpol 134–149). Can liberal internationalism survive the decline of American hegemony? Liberal internationalization does embody the concepts of rationality and freedom. The existence of logic natural science in the current modern world is evidence enough that liberal internationalization will still persist even with the decline of America. As such, the liberal internationalization concept is naturally evolving in its own context. This is because the ideas and the political formations in the world are not cast in stone and are thus very flexible and change with time (Smith, 330-36). The fact that we have seen various changes within the open markets, security in cooperation, institutions regarded as international, community that is democratized, change that has been very progressive, problem solving that is collective in nature, and the observance of rule of law by many countries, are good enough to give evidence to the fact that even after the demise of US as the superpower, liberal internationalism will not collapse. The vastness of liberal internationalization in terms of ideas and designs should help explain the argument that it will not decline. All human beings in the current world order have realized that there are deeply held interests that are common to people in the very setting up of cooperative world order. This world order has been organized on the known principles of reprocity, restraint, and sovereign equality. An assumption in these debates about the continuation of liberal internationalization is that states are still able to mitigate against constraints and get into cooperative engagements in order to help solve dilemmas that exist in security, push for collective actions, and be able to make up a system that is both open and stable. Based on these grounds, the liberal internationalization will still evolve and ascend even with the hegemony of the US (Deudney, and Ikenberry 179–96). Works Cited Brady, James and N. Garver, eds. Justice, Law and Violence, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991, 9-18 Cox R., “Beyond Empire and Terror: Critical Reflections on the Political Economy of World Order”, New Political Economy. 9: 2004, 3-5 Deudney, Daniel, and G. John Ikenberry, The nature and sources of liberal international order, Review of International Studies 25: 1999, 179–96 Glynos, Jason and David R. Howarth, Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory, Routledge, 2000, 23-34 Honghua Men, Critiques of the Theory of International Regimes: The Viewpoints of Main Western Schools of thought, 2010, 1-12 Hutchings K., “Happy Anniversary! Time and Critiques in International Relations Theory”, Review of International Studies, 33: 2007, 71-89 Ikenberry G. John, The Rise of China and the Future of the West: Can the Liberal System Survive? Princeton University, Council on Foreign Relations, January/February 2008, 2-5 Kanpol, B., Teacher group formation as emancipatory critique: Necessary conditions for teacher resistance. The Journal of Educational Thought, 25(2), (1991), 134–149 Leonardo, Z., Reality on trial: Notes on ideology, education, and utopia. Policy Futures in Education, 1(3), (2003), 504–525 MacFarlane S. Neil, Normative Conflict – Territorial Integrity and National Self-Determination, Centre for Social Sciences, 2010, 1-6 Marks Susan, The End of History? Reflections on Some International Legal Theses, European Journal of International Law, 1-19, Excerpt from Fukuyama in Newsweek, Davos Ed., December 2001–February 2002 Smith S., “Epistemology, Postmodernism and International Theory: An Reply to Osterud”, J. Peace Res., 4(3): 1997, 330-36 Tharoor Shashi, Are Human Rights Universal? New Internationalist magazine, March 2001, 1-6 Read More