Kosovo War 1999 and International Relations - Case Study Example

Case Study Kosovo war 1999 Abstract Folker looks into the Kosovo war of 1999 between the Serbs and the Albanians the work of four different authors and in the theories that they brought forward to explain international relations will be reviewed in this paper. The paper seeks to find what theory of international relations best explains the events that happened in the Kosovo war of 1999. The paper will more over review the key points that various authors brought out on various theories of international relations. The authors each look into a different theory of international relations in a bid to understand how the whole international system works (David A 74). International relations are the basic manner in which different states of the world relate with each other. It is important to note that, there are different positions that the countries of the world each hold. This is why there are super powers of the world and third countries need to relate with each other. There are more needs, to be sanity maintained in the world thus the need for power and co-operation among the states. It is almost obvious, that those in power are also the ones the ones who have the large chunk of the world's material wealth in their possession. The realism theory as explained by Jeffrey Taliaferro in his book, “Neoclassical Realism: The Psychology of Great Power Intervention” is in two broad parts; neorealist and classical realism. Neoclassical realism is basically a theory of international relations that seeks to explain the relationship between various countries. This theory posits that, any action that a state undertake, can be explained using various system variables: these are, the distribution of power abilities and capabilities among states, the perception that there are system pressures, the threats and intentions of other states is also an important variable in this theory and last but not least is the domestic variables used to quantify it, these are, the elite, state institutions and those who hold power and control decision making in the various countries (David 78). Taliaferro argues that, classical realism and neorealist both posit that, the actions of a state are predictable and can be understood by the virtue of the power that they hold in relation to other states in the foreign system. Thus neoclassical realism according to Taliaferro, application of the traditional realism theory in that it brings together a state’s need for power and that for security with probability predictions about how a state will respond to systematic imperatives. Thus in the Kosovo war of 1999, the Serbs and Albanians were fighting one for security and the other to gain material power of the state (David A 45). The English School, as explained by Tony Knudson, looks at the existence of foreign society in terms of its basis and nature and more so the importance of its key elements. The key elements of the foreign society in according to this theory are morals, co-operation and order. According to Knudson, some kind of orderliness exists in a foreign society and is quite wide and portrays the international society as loosely defined. Using this theory, it would thus be right to argue that the Serbs and Albanians lacked order, co-operation and morality thus bringing about the war in 1999 (David 145). Sean Kay explains the liberal approach of international relations, more so the liberalism approaches. This theory posits that states should first of all above anything be concerned with absolute gains as compared to relative gains to other states. The neoliberal approach is the most contemporary of international relation theories along with the neoclassical realism (David 156). According to Rosemary Shinko, the post modernism theory of international relations posits that regardless of the various ways of thinking the most important part of this theory is that it brings about a distrust of human life which argues that it has access to the truth. This theory has however often been criticized as it is seen to place too much emphasis of theories and does not provide much empirical evidence (David 250). The historical materialism approach of international relations as brought forward by Annette Freberg-Inan, gives priority to the explanation of economic and non-economic phenomena and is at times referred to as an economic interpretation of history or a material conception of history. The author refers to materialism as the understanding between states on the definition of what is material, that is, matter and energy. According to this theory, people must therefore produce things that they need to survive or reproduce (David A375). Marc Lynch looked into the critical theory of international relations which is basically a collection of various theories. These theories primarily lay criticism on other theories which are Meta theoretical, political and theoretical theories of international relations. These schools tend to differ from the other theories in terms of epistemology and ontology. They are not however very common and are not taken very seriously and more over they look at international relations very lightly in theoretical terms. Francine D’Amico used a feminism approach in a field that was flooded with liberal and realism theories. In the 1960’s Marxist, oriented theories and constructivist-oriented theories brought about a new way of looking into international relations, soon after which the feminism theory came up. The author argues that this theory is pre dominantly feminist and follows the usual feminist critique. The feminist critique seeks to answer the question whether gender makes the world go round. The author also sought to identify how many women groups are in the foreign system. It more over involves looking at the effects of international politics on both genders and how core concepts like war and security are employed in international relations and at how gender shapes the international system as a whole. Many scholars of this theory argue that the foreign system is inherently male dominated (David 278). Matthew Hoffman argues that in the constructivist theory of international relations, the important parts or rather aspects of international relations are contingent, both in a social and historical context rather than being an inevitable aftermath from the characteristics of politics of the world or human nature. Neo-liberalism and neoclassical realism are the most contemporary of all the theories of international relations. In this paper however, Neo classical realism is the theory that is considered to be the best in explaining the conflict in Kosovo. It is considered the best theory as it tries to explain the actions of a state in the international system. According to Gideon Rose, any country's foreign policy is a slave to two main factors; the position of the country in the foreign system and its capabilities in terms of material wealth in comparison to the other countries in the international system. In essence, the policies that are adopted by a given state are driven by the country's position in the international system. This theory recognizes also that political leaders are crucial in the making decisions pertaining foreign policies. However, it is also important to note that there is no relation whatsoever in a country's material wealth in comparison to the rest of the world and the world's foreign policies. More so, the context in which an international policy gets implemented requires close examination in order to see the link between the policy and power. Neoclassical realism looks at foreign policy outcomes as the dependent variable which in turn results from power sharing in the international system and the internal factors like local perceptions of the system and local motivations (David 569). There are several critiques to this theory as a theory cannot be perfect and without flaws. This theory looks at international society as being anarchic. this is not the case as The first critique is that this theory relies on anarchy as an implicit .This theory has four main propositions of the international society; it argues that the international system is anarchic. In the sense that, there is no one is in power and can regulate the international system. It further argues that. Each state must be in a position to control their own policies in terms of relations with other states. It further argues that states do not need dictation of relations with other states coming from a higher power. It is however very important to have control, order and power and not everyone can be a leader. If each state is left to come up with their own regulations regarding international relations, the international system will end up being in chaos with various regulations from different countries. This theory also looks at states as a united front. This is not the case as each state will look into developing itself and dealing with its personal interests. An individual state will thus look at getting as many resources as it can before it can unite with the other countries of the world to come up with a united front. The theory also looks at the core importance of any state as survival, which is why each state will set up a military in a bid to promote the security of its citizens. This brings about a security dilemma as each country's military works under the rules of that state. This is why there is need for some country's to be more powerful than others in the international system so that others can maintain order and co-operation among the states. Thus this theory is basically an analysis of power coming from an international sense. In conclusion thus, the Serbs and Albanians were fighting each other either looking for security or power as the above theory posits. It is therefore right to say tahgt5 states fight each due mainly due to the two reasons, looking for security and or power. It is also of great importance to note that there must be standard rules in the international system if there is to be any unity, order, co-operation and discipline in this system (David A 600). Works Cited David , Baldwin. Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.1933. Print Read More