The World in My Image - Research Paper Example

?THE WORLD IN MY IMAGE Introduction Even though the sovereignty of individual nations cannot be challenged in anyway, there remains a simple fact that no country is an island on its own when it comes to international relations and international levels of interaction (Mearsheimer, 2001). The theoretical meaning of this is that as much as individual nations have the right and power to take decisions that best serve their interest, they also have to put the larger international world into consideration when taking decision so that their decisions and actions can conform to international standards and principles. It is not for nothing then that there exist several international bodies, of which almost all countries of the world belong to one of them or the other. Because of the need to ensuring that national decisions made conform to international principles and standards, policy makers have a great deal of task to learn when it comes to meeting the said standards and principle in the formulation and implementation of national policies. It is for this reason that the need to study international systems to have a fairer idea of the present image of the international system should always be a priority to policy makers. In the present essay therefore, an academic perspective is given of the current world image when it comes to international systems. Such analysis of the current international system would influence decision making at the national and international levels for policy makers. Overview of the International System The term international system is greatly influenced by behaviorism in that the personal systems of human behavior have led to the various theories of international system, being organized into two major components or perspectives. These perspectives are foreign-policy perspective and international-system-analysis perspective (Britannica, 2012). Some of the key theories that make up the foreign policy perspective are how individual states are governed and categories. Under this, mention can be made of some key categorization of individual States such as democratic nations and dictatorship States. At the foreign policy level therefore, nations are better viewed as individual states that have the freedom to operate from very individualistic viewpoints without having to think about the need to conform of strict international standards (Gilpin, 2002). This is indeed where the subject of total sovereignty comes in. At the international system analysis perspective or level however, there are major theories that deals with how nations interact with each other. This perspective or level has been considered to be a major binding necessity as no individual nation can proof to be so independent that it would not need to interact with other nations in one way or the other to get basic social and economic support. At the international system analysis level, the capacities of individual nations are considered in the relations but the essential factor is that each nation is supposed to operate within a confined specification of regulations and conduct. Structure and nature of the contemporary international system According to Dessler et al (1997), the best description that can be given to the structure and nature of the international system is and “organization of units that emerges spontaneously from their interaction.” It could be seen that the description put forth by Dessler et al (1997) is directly rooted in the two perspectives of international system discussed earlier. This is because at the discrete level, States interact with themselves and as a result of their interactions, which are often influenced by the foreign policy perspective, an interaction is developed. Subsequently, the interaction gives birth to the international system analysis perspective and finally forms of the structure of the international system, which according to Waltz (2010), when formed “cannot be controlled by the discrete units from which it was first formed.” In effect, the structure of the international system is a collection of agreed principles by discrete units (States) that bind these discrete units so much that none of them have an outright right to fall out of the principles set. Another important nature of the contemporary international system is that it has regulations that ensure its endorsement and adherence. These regulations, often referred to as punishment of default are what actually bind the individual States so hard onto the structure. Relationship between globalization and geopolitics within this international system Brian (2004) argues that “geopolitics is conversely defined as the territorial control of space, resources, and capacities.” Given this definition, it would be noted that geopolitics is directly linked to the international system. This is because the present image of international system is seen from a perspective whereby regardless of the supposedly enforceable principles that bind all discrete units to the structure, there remain major authorities within the system who in some ways dominate the system. These units have often been referred to as superpower nations who have gained such powers and supremacy because of their geopolitical influence. What this means is that within the current international system, certain nations that have greater territorial control, resources and capacities tend to have authority over others who do not have such geopolitical advantages. Subsequently, even at the international level, the inputs that are brought about by these nations are often given better attention than those from minors within the system (Mearsheimer, 2001). Though it may be debated as to whether or not it is right that some discrete units have more power within a single international system than others, there is no denying the fact that geopolitics have since time immemorial served as a competitive advantage for some countries over others and as such the developing trend would not stop any time soon. To those other countries that do not have such geopolitical advantage, what they have often fallen upon to gain some advantage to win some attention at the international front have had to do with globalization. Brain (2004) again debates that “globalization is a product of an Anglo-American maritime trading practice that seeks "the free flow of goods, capital, and ideas" (p. 7). What this means is that within the concept of globalization and geopolitics, minor and developing countries who do not have so much international powers within the international system ought to agree to concepts and principles of free flow of goods, capital and ideas across their borders to the shore of major and powerful nations so that in the event of taking sizes, they would win the hearts of these powerful nations (Gilpin, 2002). It is not for nothing therefore that developing countries continue to sign development agreements with developed countries who have better voices at the international levels so that their interests will be protected at the international stage. In this regard, it would be said that the relationship between globalization and geopolitics has been to bridge the gap between less powerful and powerful nations at the international level so that each nation would have its interest defended in one way or the other within the international system. Relevance of current international structure to individual and international security From the image painted about the current international system so far, it has been seen that there are two major levels on international system and these are the individual level and the international levels. However, the international structure that is created as a result of interaction between discrete units at the individual level puts so much responsibility on individual states to conform their foreign policies to international standards. The same argument holds for the issue of security (Huntington, 1996). At the individual level, each nation has the right and responsibility (from the national perspective) to ensure maximum security that puts the sovereignty of the nation at the highest pedestal. Because of this right/responsibility, individual nations are permitted to implement security policies that protect their interests. However, because international standards are always supreme, it is also important that the individual security policies and arrangements are designed not to conflict with international provisions. A typical example that can be sited in this regard is the production of nuclear weapons as individual security formula. Because the use of nuclear weapons is prohibited at the international level, it is not permitted that individual countries would use them for their individual securities. Future of international system and its relations to developing countries Held (2010) makes it clear that nations live on multi layered, multi dimensional and multi actor levels, depending on what they want to achieve from the international system. Particularly for developing countries, the trend of modern international system gives so much indication that if they do not take advantage of the multi-layered system to act as impressive contributors to the international structure, there are chances that their interests will be taken over by the developed world in the nearest future. To this end, it is advised that more advantage be taken of the fact that it is possible for nations to operate as multi-actors to have very close developmental binds with the developed world so that their interests can be promoted. This suggestion is given against the need for developing countries to strive on their own to gain development because from all indication, it would take a very long time for any developing country to overtake the already existing developed countries given the fact that the current international system favors the developed countries into developing even faster. Conclusion In conclusion, it would be reiterated that the current image of the world as viewed from the discussions above on international system has it that even though in theory, the structure of international system is supposed to be compact and binding, there are superpowers who in some way control the regulations of the structure. In clear exemplification, mention can be made of superpowers such as the G-8 in international circles. The powers gained by these countries could also be linked directly to their geopolitical advantage. But even debating on whether or not it is right that some countries would have supreme powers over others, when they are all within the same confines of international system principles, it is important to point out that globalization has also helped in bridging the gap between more powerful countries and less powerful ones. Subsequently, almost every country is becoming relevant at the international level because they are putting the advantages gained into use by equipping their individual securities, which collectively transfer to international security. CITED WORKS Brian W. Blouet. Geopolitics and Globalization in the Twentieth Century. Journal of World History 15.3 (2004) 405-407. London: Reaktion Books, pp.204 Britannica. International Relations. 2012. Web. October 2, 2012 Dessler, D., Kratochwil, F. V., & Mansfield, E. D. (1997). What’s at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate. International Organization (pp. 441-474). New York: Longman Gilpin, Robert. War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Print Held, David. Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and Realities. 2010. Polity Press and Blackwell: New York. Print. Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996. Print Mearsheimer J. John. Tragedy of Great Power Politics New York: W. W. Norton, 2001. Print Waltz, K. N. (2010). Theory of International Politics. New York, NY: Waveland Pr Inc. Read More