International Relations and Global Politics Are Different - Term Paper Example

What does it mean to say that international relations and global politics are different? How does the difference express something different about the two in the history of the study of the subject? Introduction In the time and age of today, it is a very good omen to have international relations amongst the different nations the world since this has meant having more peace amongst countries than indulging in war practice which is always a very uncalled for proposition. International relations require of nations to manifest their relationships and linkages with countries that would eventually foster help and development in a number of different areas that would eventually assist the global scenario in the long run. However understanding the global politics might just be a little different here. Global political domains take into perspective the exact ways and means through which nations are trying to play political games with one another and thus have their own ways whilst trying to make their respective positions superior (Gilbert 1999). What this means is that the international relations and global politics are two different perspectives which need a great deal of attention within the length of this paper. There has been historic basis tied in with the difference that essentially exists between the two since both have their own individual issues and plus points that need expansion in the following paragraphs. Moving on, it is always a very difficult scenario to build upon the international relations that exist among countries on a global level. There are wars going on, tensions emanating from even the smallest of disputes, and then there are the good times too, when the pertinent nations have felt that it is in their best interest to shake hands and move forward. This indeed is one scenario that has meant more and more nations are now ready and willing to go he extra distance in order to bring about a major difference within their international relations regimes. At the same time, they might be playing a game on the political front as well (Sullivan 1997). Then is the time when the global political representations creep in, and requires a great deal of significance here by the nations which represent these political affiliations. For instance, two nations might want to go at war on a political move which has meant killing of hundreds of people on a warfront yet the same two nations would also be playing a soccer match in a neutral territory. This is a classic example of fighting and being compatriots at the same time. The reason why these nations are going on a warfront is because these countries feel that they need to solve a long standing issue which can only get resolved after one of them fights out the issue in a head on manner (Zehfuss 2002). And the reason why they are playing a soccer match on a national level is because the governments feel that the game would help foster understanding amongst the publics within the two countries and thus would be a part of the cultural exchange program that essentially exists. Thus one can feel an element which is a missing link, however the bottom line is apparent – one has to move forward come what may, and same is the case with nations on a global level as well. If these nations keep on getting edgy over different matters and start fighting on different courses, there would be no point in their existence at all (Burley 1993). They need to have a back door diplomacy channel which would take care of their issues as well as problems. However this can be a possible entity that the international relations regimes make the global political representations somewhat apt and hence the tension could be decreased considerably with the passage of time. Dialogue is indeed the key whenever the nations find themselves in serious problems with one another. This comes out as the best possible line of action in order to curb the menace of fighting for the sake of achieving nothing but killing each other’s soldiers and civilian lives (Shuja 2001). It is an obvious given that killing would not bring about sanity within the realms of a nation, so it is best advisable to involve one’s self within dialogue to achieve productive results – results that are of a long term nature and mean immense significance within the global contexts. Moving on, it is important that the international relations amongst nations are enhanced and improved as these embody the basis of living with one another come what may. The testing times are sometimes completed with the facilitation of the good times as well. There are occasions when the nations feel that they need to make do with each other so that their respective positions could be saved (Lieb 2004). And one shall believe this is an apt scenario considering that fighting is not a very appreciable proposition at all. What is even worse is the fact that engaging in a war will eventually lead to a number of problems, both at the domestic as well as global levels, and any nation would direly require of its own self to keep away from wars which can have serious consequences upon their own people in the long term scheme of things. Furthermore, international relations and global politics are different because these represent the need for understanding how the two work alongside each other yet remain subdued from one another’s company, all at the same time. One must fathom that the international relations ranks are usually filled with examples which involve of nations to have cultural exchange programs, confidence building measures and mechanisms, and so on. While the global politics is usually more bent upon having its own say on the international level, for instance winning the much coveted seat within a committee of the United Nations or any other world’s top bodies, there is a good amount of evidence which suggests that nations might just go selfish whilst pursuing their respective political agendas on the global levels. There are occasions when it is best to have a single line of action on the part of the nations so that these could achieve results which are of a long term nature and could mean serious implications for their own regimes in the coming times. The politics of showing power and control is indeed the exact way why nations go about fighting with one another (Chatfield 1997). This power game means that the nations need to show their muscle in order to win more favors from the world’s supreme bodies as well as to gain an edge within the international fraternity. However when one thinks about the international relations domains, there is a totally different perspective altogether. The fact that international relations takes care of the relations of countries on a more personalized level is something that differentiates the two concepts of international relations and global politics. However one can be literally amazed to find out that the two concepts have many things in common, yet the eventual results are astoundingly different, and there is reason enough to believe this premise nonetheless. The international relations domains are somewhat having a very tilting stance, since the nations have realized that it is in their good to have relations which are based on favors from both sides (Kung 1998). The strengths of one nation can seriously play a very important role at igniting the trust and confidence that another country is looking forward to enjoying, at least as far as the international relations realms are concerned. However this is not always true and there are some serious exceptions on and off. The age of globalization is something that needs to be properly understood within the ideology of the international relations as well as that of global politics. Since globalization is a trend that is on the rise more and more, and with each passing day there are newer inventions happening on the global front that tie in the nations even more closer, the global political domains also seem to follow this pattern of globalization. For example, if a nation believes that it has a strong basis for manufacturing a particular kind of product it would ask the world’s leading industries to come and invest within its domains (Eschle 2005). The skilled labor force working at a lower cost than the normal would mean that some nations would get interested within its fore and thus the globalization regimes would start getting in shape. What this will do is to build upon the premise of having positive international relations and thus the countries would look forward to having platforms that are built upon mutual interest and shared goals. The fact that globalization is a binding force has been shown with the passage of time and the international relations domains cannot deny the very same (Birdsall 2003). The global manifestations have also come about with the understanding that more and more nations are starting to trust and show confidence within one another’s regimes and this is a very enticing proposition especially for the business markets of present times. However if these international relations are not upheld, then there could be serious implications for the business regimes that are up and running within such nations. The fact that global politics can play its dirty game here is also important to comprehend since this is a stark reality. Globalization thus brings out both the good and the bad that is present within the nations and it is only natural to understand how the two could be worked hand in hand with one another to reap the best possible results in the very end. The need is to showcase how one country’s strengths could have serious implications for the other one and how people of one country would mean more benefits for the industrial manifestations within another nation. This indeed is a time where serious developments are taking place and absolutely no one can deny this fact nonetheless. The history of the subjects of international relations and global politics suggest that the two have never worked hand in hand with each other as these are two phenomena that have required of nations to go about in different directions, all at the same time. This is a very enticing proposition and more so for the people since they believe that they can connect well with the people from a different nation yet it is only their political basis which has issues with the rest of the nations, if only these have any issues and problems so to speak. At times, there are good international relations amongst countries where people are literally not bothered to know about the citizens hailing from different countries, and this is what makes it very unique in the end (Hooper 2001). One must understand the exact basis of international relations and global politics before considering which one to study in detail so as to find out a link, if any there is possible in entirety. Interestingly enough, the international relations will seem to have a more positive ideology than the global political domains since the latter are banking on a self-centered route of gaining more through letting the other nations down in the long run (Patomaki 2002). It is only natural to believe that nations require of their own selves to feel empowered and resilient, whilst letting the other ones down in order to feel privileged and superior. Conclusion This paper formed a comparative link between the international relations and global politics and proved that the two are entirely different, as their roles get highlighted in unique ways, which is always a discernible proposition. It would be wise to suggest here that both international relations and global politics should be analyzed and understood in different realms as these are varied in their contexts. It would make the whole exercise look very apt and in line with the needs and wishes of the people who actually run the show, as far as the political domains are concerned (Fonseca 1999). The power politics can have a negative effect on the people but it must not mean that their relations with other people hailing from different nations shall be affected at all. If this does happen, it would be something that goes against the norms of the international relations realms. Proper efforts should therefore be made to counter any such negativities and the role of the respective governments of the time is immensely important. Bibliography Birdsall, N. (2003). Asymmetric Globalization: Global Markets Require Good Global Politics. Brookings Review, Vol. 21, Spring Burley, Anne-Marie (1993). “International Law and International Relations Theory: a Dual Agenda”. American Journal of International Law 87 Chatfield, C. (1997). Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity beyond the State. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Eschle, C. (2005). Critical Theories, International Relations, and "The Anti-Globalisation Movement": The Politics of Global Resistance. New York: Routledge. Fonseca, Gelson (Winter 1999). “Can Academic Study and Research Contribute to the Conduct of International Relations?” UN Chronicle 36 Gilbert, A. (1999). Must Global Politics Constrain Democracy? Great-Power Realism, Democratic Peace, and Democratic Internationalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hooper, C. (2001). Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations, and Gender Politics. New York: Columbia University Press. Kung, H. (1998). A Global Ethic for Global Politics and Economics. New York: Oxford University Press. Lieb, Doug (2004). “The Limits of Neorealism: Marginal States and International Relations Theory”. Harvard International Review 26 Patomaki, H. (2002). After International Relations: Critical Realism and the (Re)Construction of World Politics. London: Routledge. Shuja, Sharif (February 2001). “Post-Cold War International Relations: Trends and Portents”. Contemporary Review 278 Sullivan, Michael (1997). “Nationalism and International Relations Theory”. The Australian Journal of Politics and History 43 Zehfuss, M. (2002). Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Word Count: 2,086 Read More