International Relations - Essay Example

? International Relations International Relations It is a recognized fact that politics, much like society, is usually governedby objective regulations that are based on human nature. In the arena of international politics, these ruels determine the numerous political theories that seek to describe international relations between nations. International Politics has always been distinguished by unending conflicts despite governing political systems as well as idealistic efforts to unite all nations of the world through global establishments like the United Nations. To better appreciate the international approaches taken by countries in the third and second worids, it is vital to understand the various international relations theories that exist. Different Theories and Perspectives Constructivism The Constructivist theory is centered on the place or importance of human consciousness in world affairs. This is a fact that is removed from the aspects that dominate the realist perspective such as economic capabilities, the existing military forces, and the distribution of power among the world’s richest nations; and directs attention to how groups of people or individuals can transform an entire nation’s ideas. In the constructivist’s view, the world is basically a ‘social construct’ (Tickner & Blaney, 2012). Constructivism emphasizes the power of concepts, which are supported by an in-depth comprehension of international structure. This theory essentially underlines the fact that the world is always in a state of continuous change. Frequent adjustments are not just perceived as being inevitable, but as the permanent responsibility of any nation’s citizens. In Constructivism, human values, ideas, and shared beliefs are important because the world’s practices are constantly affected by how people speak about them (Tickner & Blaney, 2012). This theory heightens the ordinary citizen’s personal sensitivity to their socially constructed interests and identities. When considered against the backdrop of international relations, constructivism stresses on how nations perceive themselves as well as their national identity (Tickner & Blaney, 2012).  For instance the identification with words like ‘middle power’ or ‘superpower’ and the implied meaning that comes with these expressions determines the subject’s conduct; and so the theory’s ideas influence how states and their rulers conduct themselves on the international stage. Classical Realism and Neorealism The realism focuses on the world as it really is instead of reflecting on how it ought to be. Basically, this is an empirical and not a normative model (Tickner & Blaney, 2012). Freudian observation appear to support the realist’s beliefs in the examination of personal behaviour within groups. This seeks to define how primary human instincts lead people to engage in the avoidance of all kinds of pain, the never-ending pursuit of personal objectives, and the importance of employing foreceful tactics when dealing with other people, organizations, or nations. Realism is essentially a pessimistic theory that stresses on the intermittent patterns of power politics as evidenced by repeated rivalries, conflicts, and wars (Tickner & Blaney, 2012). In this theory, the factors that are predominant include the security dilemma and the balance of power. Realists also view the state as the main factor of importance in international affairs. The world’s superpowers or richest nations are given the most attention as they have the greatest leverage on the global stage. Additionally, it is the national interest that influences state behavior, according to this theory. Realists also maintain that the allocation of power is responsible for deciding international outcomes. Neo realism adds to realism in that it deems that international conflict is the result of the chaotic international system (Tickner & Blaney, 2012). Conversely, in neo realism, the state is not viewed as being superior to the system; which is the case in classical realism. Classical realists tend to distinguish between revisionist powers and status-quo powers whereas neorealism holds that states are unitary actors. Neo-realism advocates try to create a more scientific and rigorous approach to international politics, while classical realism bases its beliefs on subjective estimations of international relations Marxism, the Dependency Theory, and Idealism In international relations, idealism is usually identified as 'Wilsonian idealism' or 'Wilsonianism'. Its has its in the Marxist ideologies. Idealism as a rational theory is not as widely known as other international relations theories. Moreover, some aspects of idealism like the thesis on democratic peace has been acknowledged (Tickner & Blaney, 2012). When used descriptively, scholars will use Marxist theories in describing different situations that are typified by capitalistic exploitation and maintain that this misuse is the motivating force for international relations. Usually, such observations are expressed as critiques, and do not carry recommendations or solutions. The dependency theory, another international theory, was developed in reaction to the concept of modernization. While the modernization advocates affirm that the Third World will ultimately follow the path that was followed by industrialized nations on the way to full fledged development in the past century, dependency theorists believe that this is not remotely possible because of the fact that international trading practices do not favour developing nations. Basically, dependency theorists assert that the superpower dominated international trading system condemns third world nations to a situation where they have to permanently rely on the nations in the developed world. The theory basically originated from Latin America, and its advocates are usually labeled as 'Dependistas.' Discussion In 1955, the Bandung conference marked the beginning of the third world’s political emergence. Two countries with diametrically opposed financial as well as social systems, India and China, through their role in promoting this conference, permanently the dealings between communist and capitalist nations. At first, the United Nations, and even the League of Nations before it, was dominated by mainly European nations. As more third world nations began to get independence, the number of under developed nations sharply rose. With increasing exigency, the issue of underdevelopment grew to be the focus of the debate on many UN conventions. Dependency theorists have asserted in the past that multinational corporations like the world bank and the IMF have played a large role in ensuring that third world nations remain poor and dependent on develoed nations for their economic survival (Shepherd, 2010). The dependency theory, to some extent, has some Marxist ideas in its blame of the capitalist and rich West for the existence if inequality and poverty in the rest of the world. Still, not all third world nations can be said to be following just this theory. There are very different issues that have to be addressed before deciding on the theories that appear to be used in third world nations. In the Arab world today, for instance, populist movements are hoping to establish deep-seated social changes, and not merely a few adjustments to the electoral process. All Arabic nations do not have democratic systems of governance where the people decide their leaders; instead, they have polyarchy, where an elite few at the top are the ones who decide what the majority’s lives will be like. This elite, particularly in Arabic nations, leans towards neo-liberalism, which is a theory that hopes to attain the conditions for the total mobility of financial resources (Lamy, Masker, Smith & Owens, 2012). In the Middle East, the ruling classes maintain that they wish for stability in the monetary policies of government, so that the functions and operations that drive the global economy may be able to function smoothly in their nations. Chinese foreign policy, on the other hand, stresses on the need to embrace a new approach to international relations, which is more reasonable. The acceptance of the Multilateralism is one important aspect in this regard (Dunne, MiljaKurki, & Smith, 2010). For more than three decades, China’s meteoric rise to the top has been the subject of much discussion in te international scene. There are many nations, particularly in Europe, that feel that China's rise to being among the three most powerful nations on earth is something dangerous because it is likely to cause a clash with the ideologies of other powerful nations like the United States. Other even more virulent pessimists have likened the swift rise of China to the rise of Germany prior to both World wars. This points to a naked concern about China’s gowing ability to de-stabilize the international trading system. On the other side, the more optimistic academicians have observed that China's economic rise is based on deepening assimilation into the international system, and have stated that China's foreign policy and interests reflect and signify the status quo. Among the recognized international relations theorists who have examined China’s rise, there is the idea that American as well as European nations are bound to seek ways of curbing China’s economic development while other theorists have observed that China's increasing assimilation into international society miht be something that actually benefits other nations and is not something that should be discouraged. One result of this debate within China has been a re-evaluation of the structural realism theories. Controversies experienced by China from both within and without the nation have prompted the nation to adopt peaceful objectives both with its neighbours and citizens whenever possible (Dallmayr, 2010). Nonetheless, China's longstanding resistance to the hegemony in the international system has caused a reluctance to openly and clearly speak on the obligations of the world’s superpowers in the international community in matters concerning security or peace keeping. Positive claims about the authenticity and kindly allusions to China's almost miraculous rise are not matched by a deeper assessment of what this means for China's function in the international stage. China tends to use a realist approach which is based on variables of the use of measures of constraint and force in not just the preservation of stability, but also in the maintenance of supremacy. For instance, the ruling communist government in China does not allow for any opposition (Baylis, Smith & Owens, 2011). In addition, China has been accused of basing all its overseas operations on self interest and little else. The structure of the Realist Theory, in contrast to liberalism, is based mainly on pessimism. States that favour this model use all valuable resources to generate an international system that is founded on self interest and the competition, with local as well as distant neighbours, for power. This can result in regional tensions as well as conflicts between rival states. Conclusion The growth steps of different Third World nations since the days of their independence in the fifties and sixties have been amazingly diverse—and, therefore, very informative. It is impossible to attribute a singular theory to their present circumstances. There are factors that have contributed to the impoverishment, and thus, subsequent weakening of the positions of third world nations on the international stage. Moreover, their efforts at development even in the midst of adverse weather related circumstances indicate that the only thing that can be guaranteed about the nations that dominate the world stage is change. As more developing nations rush toward development, the world’s nations will have to seek for fairer tactics in dealing with them. References Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (2011). The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. New York: Oxford University Press. Dallmayr, F. (2010). Comparative political theory: An introduction. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.  Dunne, T., MiljaKurki, & Smith, S. (2010). International relations theories: Discipline and diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lamy, S. L., Masker, J.S., Smith, B.S., & Owens, P. (2012). Introduction to global politics, brief edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Shepherd, L. J. (2010). Gender matters in global politics. London: Routledge. Tickner, A. B., & Blaney, D. L. (2012).Thinking international relations differently (WorldingBeyond the West). New York: Routledge Read More