International society and system - Essay Example

An international system or an international society affiliation An international system or an international society The state of international affairs has changed over the years. It is an obvious assumption that the international state of affairs has developed over the years. Major changes such as globalization have influenced the change. In an argument by Stéphane (2004) the modern international environment has changed to incorporate the take and policies from menial stakeholders such as third world countries. The author further points out that, countries have been incorporated in the international system to make it friendlier and objective based (Stéphane, 2004). An example is provided by the explanation of the power of the African Union which was insignificant a century back. This argument creates the terminology international system and international society. In a general explanation, a system refers to a way of lie dictated by laws, policies and mandatory requirements from a ruling body. On the other hand, a society refers to the cluster of persons or bodies which have together directed by the similar goal and objective. In relating to the international state of affairs, an international system is a routine created under specific international laws. In addition, these laws are creation of international leaders such as the United States of the United Kingdom. An international society refers to the ability of countries around the globe to share common wants and dislikes. The need to embrace certain laws and policies is created then countries have a voluntary urge to embrace the policies. In addition, an international society may also refer to the ability of countries to share peaceful relationships without factors such as development and power coming into play. Disregard of under developed countries have made it difficult to transition to a complete international society system. From this definition, one may point out that the two terms differ significantly. However, the most fundamental form international arrangement is determined by the suitability of it achieving international objectives. In this situation, it is obvious that an international society is most fundamental. This is because the globe is transitioning from an international system to an international society. The direction of the trend determines the suitability of the system embraced. Cynthia (2004) provides an example with China and its rise to superiority. The gradual growth of China depicts the nature of the current international system. Such changes minimize the allocation of power and might to only specific nations and continents. In addition, this growth is supported other nations thus creating a society system. In an argument by Hopkins (2004) in an international society, other nationals have realized the global importance of the rise of nations such as China. This paper will determine whether the modern globe exists in an international system or an international society. The analysis will be based on major global changes experienced in the modern century. Additional, the analysis and determination will be done with regards to classical realism and English School. An international system This world order is based on allocation of power to major international powers mostly developed countries. Stuart & Starr (1999) assert that an international system was at its best immediately after the world wars. At this time, the international environment was run under the influence of major players. For instance, after the victory in Hiroshima, the United States took the leadership role in the international environment. With its direction, the international environment was directed to a specific direction to avoid situation that may create events experienced in the First and Second World Wars. In an argument by Buzan (1993) an international system was a mandatory requirement at this point considering that countries had not matured enough to come up with more peaceful means of conflict resolution. For this reason, functional sanctions and policies were created to ensure peace and international order. For instance, the United States banned the use and creation of nuclear weapons. This was a policy created out the interest of the United States. The international system of governance took shape as the United States and other western nations tool the leadership mantels over nations in Africa and North America. From this argument one may point that an international system is a way of governance not a way of life. Nations are not provided with the opportunity of creating laws that govern their international operations. However, Cynthia (2004) points out that the international system can be dodged. The author further points out that this may have serious consequences. For instance, Iran was threatened with sanctions and possible military action if they do not shun from creating nuclear weapons. But should independent nations allowed to make independent decisions? Should international superpowers dictate the international affairs of independent nations? This is possible in an international system as a world order. Criticism of this international order are based on argument that superior nation still maintain on colonial way of ruling. For this reason, countries have realized the negativity of this international order. In the modern century, countries do not value the efforts that are aimed at continuing an international system as an international order. In addition, may nations could claim the power to superiority thus minimizing the allocation of power to a particular nation. In analyzing the change in the international order being embraced, Charlotte (2013) provided as example of China and its development to a significant nation. China was viewed as a menial nation a century back. This is because it had few developments records as well as a ruling regime that did not follow the international governance system. In addition, China never posed a threat to the international leaders as much could be mandated from the Asian nation. However, this perception has since changed. In an argument by Charlotte (2013) China has established itself as a significant nation and a potential world leader. However, the rise of China is being analyzed on whether it would have a peaceful ending. Charlotte (2013) asserts that the rise would only be peaceful if China does not disobey the international system. However, China tends to disregards these requirements as it focuses more of creating relationships with countries with similar wants and objectives. The international system could easily be overruled by nations join together against a certain international policy or a default requirement. In regards to the international society theory (English School), an international system minimizes the mandate provided to nations to shape the creation of international policies and laws. According to this theory, states should have the mandate of creating international laws and policies. The international order should be a collective responsibility of all nations. For this reason, international laws should be created in respect to the wants and requirements of all nations. In an argument by Bridges (2002) an international system only provides nations with laws that already existing as creations of superior nations. In addition, this is a significant hindrance to international democracy (Buzan, 1993). For this reason, nations across the globe seem to defy the already existing laws such the creation nuclear weapons. The radula rise against the international system order may lead violent confrontations. The international system theory also tends to advocate for activism and solidarity against the systematic international rule. The fight is also joined by humanitarian interventions that defy specific rules created to govern international activities. Additionally, the theory tends to provide power to all nations that would enable them to be considered as significant inclusions in the international order. These efforts are aimed at ending the dominance of the international system as the leading international order. Baylis & Smith (2001) point out that the dominance of the international system only favored particular nations. However, with the rise to superiority by numerous nations, the international system may not favor all the rising superiors. For this reason, the system will collapse and a new world order realized that would be equal and not influenced by the power of specific nations. However, Bridges (2002) points out that the diminishing of the international system may be costly. The author cites that it took two world wars to create this order and it may take the same efforts to realize another significant international order (Mingst & Snyder, 2011). The relationship between inferior and superior nations may be affected by the realization of a new international order. However, it is an obvious assumption that the classical explanation of the international system is a significant tool in ensuring a peaceful globe. The international system is solely responsible for the peace enjoyed in the world after the world wars. What would happen if the international system is replaced by a less stern international order? Will the transition to a new international order be peaceful as expected? How far is the international system of order before being completely replaced? These queries can only be answered with time and the journey towards a new international order. However, the international system clearly favors specific nations but its effectiveness cannot be disregarded. With rising tensions across the globe on the appropriateness of this international order, its replacement may as soon as expected. An international society This international order is different from the international system since it does not have a centralized way of governance. The international order provides an opportunity for all nations to be creative in terms of formulating laws and policies that govern all involved parties. For instance, an international society may require all nations to be part of creation of international laws. In addition, an international society is the collective inclusion of nations with similar goals and objectives. In an argument by (Muller, 2014) an international society recognizes the assumption that each nation is entitled to an opinion in the creation of international laws. The author terms the international order as an agreement to achieve international peace. An example of a functional international society is the African Union. The body is responsible for creation of laws and policies that govern the African continent. Regardless of the executive nature of the body, the laws and policies created are respectable of the nations in the continent. The body recognizes sovereignty of African nations and provides the nations with the opportunity to be part of the law making team. These bodies are not accustomed to misunderstanding due to the fact that all decisions are reached through a delegation. What would be the advantages of the same order being replicated in the international environment? Response to this query is that the international order would be helpful to maintain peace between nations. Mingst & Snyder (2011) points out that this is possible considering the fact that all nations would be on level ground. However, there are critics on this international order. Hopkins (2004) points out that, the full implementation of this world order would require the complete abolishment of the international system order. Providing nations with the dependency to create international laws may be costly. Each nation may have particular needs and wants if provided with the opportunity to be the global leader. For this reason, each nation may create laws that only benefit their requirements. This would be a major hindrance to international peace. It is human nature to have greed to achieve power. The thirst of power may be a negative fuel to achieve international peace. Additionally, the struggle to power may not be peaceful. Critics to this international order also cite the fact that there is no possibility that all nations across the globe may be sharing a common objective. Countries sharing common wants and objectives may generate from same regions or continents. For instance, the rise of China may not be supported by all nations. The rise of China may seem to be supported by nations that may benefit from the trend. For this reason, differences across the globe may be clearly identified which may hinder democratic relations between nations. The same argument is supported by Stuart & Starr (1999) who argue that an international society may create differences created by the differences in the wants and objectives shared by different countries. The author further points out that this may lead to the rise of dynasties and warring partnerships. Another danger of an international society, there would be no governing body that would ensure that general bodies are adhered to. Countries sharing common interests may protect each other as a show of solidarity. Baylis & Smith (2001) provide an example of the shared dislike of the United States by Arab countries. In a situation where China rises to power, the Arab countries may support the new global leader. This is a cause of an international society. For this reason, Baylis & Smith (2001) cite that international society may be a bad international order. The modern international trend, however, tend to favor the international society order. Modern international arrangements are created with respect to the opinions by all nations. Every continent is presented in international bodies and ensures the interests of all nations are addressed. This ensures equality in the way in which countries are presented. The rise of an international society order is influenced by the creation of numerous activism and humanitarian groups that deter overrule by superior nations. It is also created by the solidarity efforts by nations that share common interests. While reviewing the modern international condition, it is an obvious assumption that common interest reflect in the way in which nations relate to each other. For instance, the relationship between Asia and Africa has increased. This relationship is created with the objective of decreasing the dependency of these two continents on Europe and the United States. Asia has turned to Africa to market its products in order to grow. On the other hand, Africa has turned to Asia for new products and few operation requirements as compared to nations in the west. In addition, the two continents have more than one occasion defied direction in the international system. This uniformity has led to creation of a society that has increased the ability of other continent to develop. The previous international order, the international system, limited growth to only superior nations such the United States. With the international society, all nations are provided with an opportunity to develop. Another advantage of the international society is that disagreements can be easily avoided because all nations are considered in the decision making process. In an argument by Bridges (2002) in an international society the level of understanding and respect between nations is realty improved. With the level of dependency in nations on the increase, the significance of international superiors is decreasing. This has led to the increases of call to implement the international society as an international order. An international society is responsible for the growth of nations such as China. It is an obvious assumption that an international society system provides a success opportunity for all nations. If the international order is fully implemented, the results would be exceptionally in regards to the growth of countries. Where do we live? In the modern society, the two international orders have roles to play. In an argument by Muller (2014) the modern day international arrangement requires both order in order to survive. As much as the society requires dependency, the need of governance still overshadows this requirement. This is because as countries gain dependency, animosity between conflicting nations also increases. If the efforts to dependency are not governed world wars may occur. The same argument is supported by Bridges (2002) who points out that an international system is required to ensure the peaceful transition in international orders. The rising tension between countries is proof enough. The rise in nations disregarding international policies is risky to global peace. In a recent case, Russia has defied international calls to shun the pursuit of Crimea. However, the nation has not respected these calls as it possess as a international power whose decisions cannot be flaunted by threats. However, the reaction to this situation would have been different if the country involved held less significance in the globe. This is proof that the international system of governance is being replaced by international society order. The main query is whether the transition would be peaceful and how lo would it take? The rise of the use an international society order is significant. The diminishing of the classical international system is evident as even global superiors cannot control major challenges of global peace. Critics have been created to shun this trend but this has not changed the direction of the trend. The trend, however, has negative effects that would a major hindrance of global peace. With proper management, an international society order would be much important. This is after consideration of the fact that nations will rise to a position that nations would be perceived with equal regard. As much the international system order is being replaced, the significance of international bodies cannot be diminished. For instance, the role of the U.N remains a system that cannot be changed. The UN is responsible for the creation of laws that govern the way in which nations conduct its activities internally as well in the international environment. For instance, most conflicts across the globe have been solved by the efforts of the UN. This is evidence that some aspect of the international system cannot be replaced or completely withdrawn from the international arrangements (Baylis & Smith, 2001). From the paper, it is an obvious assumption that the international society and the international system order have similar importance in regards to the period they run. However, it is also clear that the international system order is gradually being replaced by the international society order. The greatest hindrance to this transition is the fear to deter global peace from prevailing. With proper management of the transition, an international society would be the most appropriate international order. This order is respectable to human rights, sovereignty and the ability of nations to make global decisions. References Baylis, J. & Smith, S. 2001.The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Bridges, G. 2002. "Grounding Globalization: The Prospects and Perils of Linking Economic Processes of Globalization to Environmental Outcomes". Economic Geography 78 (3): 361–386. Buzan, B. 1993. From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School. International Organization, 47(3) 327-352. Charlotte, H. 2013. "Masculinities, IR and the Gender Variable: A Cost-Benefit Analysis for (Sympathetic) Gender Sceptics." International Studies 25.3: 475-491. Cynthia, E. 2004. "Gender Is Not Enough: The Need for a Feminist Consciousness." International Affairs, 80.1: 95-97. Hopkins, A.G. (ed.). 2004. Globalization in World History. London: Norton. Mingst, A. & Snyder, L. 2011. Essential Readings in World Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Muller, G.H. 2014. The new world reader. Orlando, FL: Houghton Mifflin. Stéphane Beaulac: “The Westphalian Model in defining International Law: Challenging the Myth”, Australian Journal of Legal History Vol. 9 (2004), Stuart, D. & Starr, H.1999. "The Inherent Bad Faith Model Reconsidered: Dulles, Kennedy, and Kissinger". Political Psychology, 3 (3/4): 1–33. Read More