Evaluating Potential International Relations Challenges - Essay Example

Evaluating potential international relations challenges Evaluating potential international relations challenges Introduction An international theory of relations is an arranged group principles that describe how the worldwide system works, and they are backed up with tangible evidence. Realism, liberalism, and nationalism are the major examples of international relation theories. These philosophies are built on the concept that countries eternally act in harmony with their state concern, or the concerns of that specific state (Dornelles, 2010). National interests frequently incorporate individual protection, army security, financial affluence, and inspiration of other countries. From time to time, different countries have similar state interests. For instance, two countries might all want to nurture peace and commercial processes. Similarly, countries with different interests will often try to solve the conflicts (Hay, 2002). This paper will assess the potential international relations challenges and apply them to foreign policy. One of the major concerns of international relations is to examine how country behaviors and this can be examined in different levels of analysis (Hay, 2002). The system level of analysis examines states behavior in relation to other countries by looking at the international system. At this point of analysis, the intercontinental system is the source of a state’s behavior is the consequence (Dornelles, 2010). Features of the system make countries act in a given way. Transformation in the system will instigate transformation in government behavior. The main variable in the intercontinental system is the influence of a country within the organization. Some countries are influential, and others are extremely feeble (Hay, 2002). For instance, during the cold war, some countries were powerful and influential. The main cause of cold was that the USSR and U.S. were two influential countries in the region. Currently, other states define the performance of all countries in the region (Dornelles, 2010). Therefore, this level of analysis may rationalize the US involvement in Iraq as a powerful government and only influential government, activating its strength to law enforcement agency of the domain against countries that intimidate them. The states preserve its dominance by destroying all its challenges (Hay, 2002). The state level of analysis looks at a countries’ behavior in relation to its foreign policy. For example, all democratic states have a certain manner of behaving towards other democratic states (Hay, 2002). Other researchers argue that the different conducts of strong or weak countries influence their behavior or foreign policy (Dornelles, 2010). Like countries that live in difficult areas like the Germany or France against countries that exist in more caring nonthreatening to the US. Other researchers noted that the foreign contract of every country is a national characteristic, described by the ancient legacy of the government, the sacred or social customs, or the monetary and physical nature of the country itself as proposed by constructivists (Hay, 2002). This level of analysis might be used to explain the U.S. involvement in Iraq as an affair of US foreign policy mission in Iraq (Dornelles, 2010). As an idealist, the U.S. used their foreign policy to influence other states within the international system (Hay, 2002). The type of their dogmatic system, and the belief that all other countries will be like them in future obliges the U.S. government. Whereby, they have a motive of converting the world to resemble them in future. Their job is not completed if all other countries became democratic and have free markets (Hay, 2002). At the level of organization analysis researchers examines the method used by organizations within a country to control the foreign policy conduct of a given nation. Countries do not establish decisions (Hay, 2002). Governments organize among themselves to develop a foreign policy used by two or more competing nations. This approach looked at the Iraq war and explained the process by inspecting the securities of the military in US, the defense department, the department of state, and the main intelligence intervention. This level also looked at how these organizations established the U.S. foreign policy (Dornelles, 2010). The individual level of analysis looked at how different individuals made decisions within an organization or state (Dornelles, 2010). At this level, the researchers looked at the roles of different leaders. For instance, this level of analysis might be used to explain the role of Hitler in the Second World War. This level might also look at the termination of the cold war by examining the role of Gorbachev. Furthermore, It can be used to recommend that the financial improvements in China, which was an outcome of change from Mao Zedong’s control to Deng Xiaoping’s regime (Dornelles, 2010). At this level, researcher use cognitive theories to explain the development of foreign policy (Dornelles, 2010). International relations theory of relationship According to realism, countries are supposed to enlarge their own influence comparative to that of other countries (Chandler, 2010). They believe that the world is unsympathetic and unsafe residence. The only confidence in the domain is control (Mearsheimer, 2001). An influential country will continuously be in a position to control weaker states. The military of a state is the main reliable form of influence. A country’s main interest is individual identity. Consequently, the country must strive for influence and should always defend the subject from any challenge (Dornelles, 2010). Realist believes that no predominant control can impose global instructions or discipline bad conduct. Moral conduct is very dangerous since it can challenge a country’s ability to defend itself (Chandler, 2010). Through the international organization, a country uses military power to influence weak states (Mearsheimer, 2001). State leaders can be good, but they should not let good concerns influence foreign policy. Finally, realists believe that international governments and rule have no influence or power, and that they only exist as long as countries recognize them. Most researchers viewed the Cold War international relations from the realist point of view. Whereby, the U. S and the USSR liked and trusted one another, and they all sought friends to defend the subject and enlarge its partisan and soldierly influence out of the country or in a foreign country (Mearsheimer, 2001). According to realist, countries are independent and therefore, self-governing of each other. The states do not have an intrinsic structure or association can appear or exist to organize relations between states (Chandler, 2010). They further claim that for a state to survive they must have a main objective of survival. Foreign intrusion and occupation threatens the state armed forces. All domestic interests, cultural practices and national interests determine the states behavior of foreign policy. Aggressive realists maintained that in order to confirm states survival, countries will work to exploit their effect relative to other states (Chandler, 2010). Realists suppose aspects of international principles to be just epiphenomenal in that they replicate the balance of influence, but they do not oblige or effect state conduct. In a radical organization with no ranked authority, they claim that regulation can only be imposed through government power (Chandler, 2010). Therefore, countries may generate international regulation and universal organizations, and can impose the policies they organize. However, the rules developed do not determine the reasons why a country acts in a given way. The rule instead presents areas of interests and areas of influence. Therefore, the international system is a sign of sates behavior and not the reason of the behavior (Mearsheimer, 2001). Ancient realist believed that all states aimed at gaining power so as to influence other countries (Weber, 2004). Seeking to have power is the first and last principle of all countries, and in turn this motivates their behavior to foreign policy. Countries strive to enlarge their influence; they strive to cut the influence of their opponents or rivals and all the activities associated with them (Weber, 2004). They practice the distribution of amassing influence. Countries view other influential countries as competitors because if they cannot influence others they are weak (Weber, 2004). Citizens are materialistic, unconfident, and violent. Therefore, the circumstances they rule will have similar behavior (Chandler, 2010). However, this behavior does not signify conflict, but they influence peace within the country. The istituitioinsnist theorist shares the same ideologies as the realist. They believe that nations are self-directed with rational individuals who aim at existing while increasing their own material gains (Chandler, 2010). They believe so much on microeconomic theory and radical theory to arrive at radical conclusions about international laws, which states that corporation between countries, is possible (Mearsheimer, 2001). For instance, if two countries can take part in commercial activities when they reduce their taxes, and this is usually challenging because no county accepts to lower its tariffs it the other country fails to lower their tariffs (Mearsheimer, 2001). These theorists further argue that organizations they defined as agreed of systems, norms, exercises and decision-making techniques that shape beliefs can overcome the indecision that challenges country (Chandler, 2010). Institutions usually prolong the time prospect of communications, designing a restated game instead of a single sequence. Whereby, states agreeing on informal duties may indeed gain from deceiving their neighbor in the first stage negotiations (Richmond, 2011). However, states that understand must cooperate with the their partners recurrently within a group will have enticements to obey the contracts in an agreed process so that both states may continue to get the profits of co-operation after long term relationship(Chandler, 2010). Institutionalisms claimed that institutions add information concerning state conduct. Similarly, realist believed that corporation among countries can be sustained through proper negotiations and agreements (Richmond, 2011). Different institutions collect information about a state’s behavior and make decisions concerning its compliance or non-compliance behavior (Chandler, 2010). Different institutions can increase efficiency because it is usually difficult for countries to negotiate on difficult tariffs (Weber, 2004). Therefore, institutions can be used to reduce business costs by providing a central area where different states can meet (Richmond, 2011). They also provide rules that govern business transactions between different countries. Therefore, these theorists tend to provide explanations grounded on the same hypothetical norms stipulated by the realist to be unconvinced of international regulation and organizations (Richmond, 2011). Liberalism believed that comprehensive ties between countries have made it problematic to describe national significance and reduced the worth of military influence, and theorist started it because they believed realism was outdated (Weber, 2004). Increase in technology motivated the increase in international trade between states (Chandler, 2010). Liberal methodologies to international relationships are described as philosophies of difficult interdependence because they believed that the earth was inhospitable and unsafe residence, but the effects of using military influence often overshadow the advantages (Weber, 2004). International assistance is an interest of every country. They also believed that the power of the military is not the only type of influence. Social factors, economic factors influence the relationship between states (Richmond, 2011). Richmond (2011) states that idealism was a detailed school of thought derived from liberalism who emphases the need for countries to follow moral objectives and to behave morally in the global area. Idealists consider that conduct considered morally wrong on a social level is also morally wrong in foreign procedure (Weber, 2004). Thus, idealists claim that deceitfulness, deception, and aggression should be avoided. It is associated with the democratic system in the States from the start of the First World War (Weber, 2004). Security, identity, and economic issues that challenges the US interests National security is important for proper economic development of the U.S. National security was developed after the Second World War (Chandler, 2010). Initially, it focused on the military, but with technological advancement, it now includes several aspects of the states (Weber, 2004). The government should consider economic security, environmental security and social security when protecting their needs (Richmond, 2011). This security can be maintained through effective armed forces, and implementation of civil defense within the community (Weber, 2004). Identity issues include the differences between national values, objectives, faiths, traditional units, and administrative or non-governmental organizations (Richmond, 2011). States economic programs aimed at providing programs to reduce expensive local interruptions related to import antagonism and foreign power of resources (Richmond, 2011). As domestic and national economic factors interweaved, national interests in difficulties foreign matters increasingly corresponded to traditional government choices concerning financial growth and national welfare (Richmond, 2011). State authorities started direct promoting of international matters, leading to harmonizing and conflictual state positions (Chandler, 2010). As the U.S. changes to a mutually dependent economy, an innovative international aspect will be improved to federal relations. Public and state administrators must shape creative instruments to adapt different domestic diplomatic and financial needs while applying positive guidance in international financial forums (Richmond, 2011). Recommendations Currently, the U.S. enjoys military power and enormous economic and diplomatic influence in that they make use of their power to press for independent improvement (Chandler, 2010). Therefore, the government should develop equilibrium of influence that supports individual freedom: circumstances in which all countries and all citizens can select for themselves the returns and problems of radical and economic freedom (Weber, 2004). In a group that is protected and protect individuals will be in a position to work freely as well as improve their lives (Chandler, 2010). The federal state should always aim at providing protection of its subject because initially enemies needed strong armies to attack the U.S. However, with improved technologies terrorist are penetrating in the county attacking them with a lot of ease (Chandler, 2010). To overcome this challenge they use several tools like military influence, better home defenses, regulation implementation, communication, and dynamic efforts to reduce terrorist support (Weber, 2004). National securities can be heightened by studying foreign limits, weighing differing groups of countries, and measuring business strength. This can be achieved effectively by involving several stakeholders in the government (Chandler, 2010). School of thought The best school of thought to apply in this situation is realism because realists believe that a powerful country like the U.S will always influence other states that are not very powerful. Whereby, they aim at protecting their state identity (Chandler, 2010). They believe that moral behavior is very critical and can influence the identity of the government. Several ties among states in the U.S. have made it challenging the U.S. to define their national interests. Military power, economic and political powers influence national interests (Chandler, 2010). Liberalism theorist adds morals into the equality of a state. It is usually known as idealism (Chandler, 2010). This is a country’s level principle, which claims that cooperation should be implemented all over the world, and not as a type rivalry (Chandler, 2010). Countries do not compete or get concerned about their influence (Chandler, 2010). Countries make efforts of constructing a better structure in the continent. They usually create a world by discovering that in instances teamwork is considered a good approach than having states conflict (Chandler, 2010). Countries attempt to generate enforceable universal laws. Circumstances are ongoing services for societal righteousness (Richmond, 2011). For instance, they might examine the cold war and explain the oppressive and draining description of the Soviet government as the source of animosity between the Unites States and the Soviet states(Richmond, 2011). Expected outcome Several international organizations can influence the states national interests, and they are international organizations as well as the international non-governmental organizations (Weber, 2004). These organizations assist in controlling the explosion of conformist and nuclear missiles, supervising business, supporting military associations, stopping world malnutrition, and nurturing the spread of democratic system and goodwill (Weber, 2004). States are expected to develop agreements with other states to change their behavior towards foreign policy. This agreement will influence them and reduce conflicts among states(Weber, 2004). These global agreements are agreements contracted by several states that start global systems of behavior (Weber, 2004). Some contracts center on particular issues, while others include several parts. Hypothetically, international contracts benefit the countries that contract them. Countries that fail to follow the international rules are frequently handled with suspicion by the other international states around the globe (Weber, 2004). Conclusion It is important to consider that states not only interact with individuals they control but with other regimes. This interaction can either be through trade relationships or by sharing experiences to solve societal challenges affecting them in terms of technological development. Theories of international relationships can be used to avoid future challenges affecting states when they take part in business activities as well as other social interactions. References Chandler, D. (2010). International Statebuilding - The Rise of the Post-Liberal Paradigm. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Dornelles, F.K. (2010), Postmodernism and IR: From Disparate Critiques to a Coherent Theory of Global Politics, Global Politics Network available at http://asrudiancenter.files.wordpress.com Hay, C. (2002) Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Richmond, O. (2011). A Post-Liberal Peace. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Weber, C. (2004) International Relations Theory. A Critical Introduction, 2nd edition, Boston: Taylor & Francis. Read More