Relationship of International Government Organizations - Essay Example

Introduction International Relations (IR) is a study of the relationships between different governments, International Government Organizations, Non-Governmental Organizations, and the study formulates foreign policies of any given nation. The discipline of international studies seems to increase with different theories coming from different authors like nine (Dunne et al. 2007) and eleven theories (Burchill et al. 2009) among others. There is a theoretical diversity in relation to international relations similar to other social sciences (Baylis et al. 2013 p. 16). International relations is a political activity, and currently a discreet academic field in political science. The objective of this paper is to affirm that international relationship remains particularly unreceptive to addressing ethical questions. The first part of the essay will address the different theories related to international studies followed by some of the concepts hindering international relations from addressing ethical questions. Lastly, the paper will present some of the steps taken by the international relations, and my personal preference to ensure positive changes in addressing these ethical questions. A study by Campbell (2007 p. 28) shows that International Relations date back to Greek history based on sovereign states. Prior to this, most of the nations used hierarchical religion orders especially from the Roman Empires. However, by 1789, most nations had acquired independence and became sovereign states or nation-states as opposed to former religious and monarchy states. This European system extended to America, Asia, and Africa through colonization in the name of setting standards of civilisation. During the Cold War, decolonization finally established the contemporary international system. However, some post-modern nations have disputed levels of analysis on individual levels, international levels, domestic units, and global level. International relations came after the First World War with IR theories drawing on the work of other social sciences. International relations theories divide into two categories namely the positivists and post-positivist epistemological camps. Positive theories involve the social sciences through analysing the material forces like size of military forces, state interactions, and power balances among others. On the other hand, post-positivists reject the fact that world study happens through objective and value free manner (Halliday 2005 p. 66). This epistemology does not believe in national-choice theory arguing that social world cannot apply social science in its study. The main difference between these two epistemologies is that while positivists have casual explanations on why and how different nations exercise power. The post-positivists argue from constitutive questions like the meaning of power, its components, and reproduction among others. Their approach applies ethics, unlike the positivists. Theoretical Questions A typical start point may include understanding of ethics within a state-nation. Secondly, it is important to understand how far international principles can apply across national boundaries. Some questions to help in this study may include how far people see shared interests amongst people, and how people values each other’s interests. A person may ask how far people view themselves as members of a common community. These vital questions help in ethical discussions meaning that everyone has a role to play, and not just agencies like international relations. However, there are some theories that tend to hinder the compliance of international relations in handling ethical issues. Sovereignty A person may wonder what sovereignty’s effects on international relations. According to Jackson & Sørensen (2012 p. 72), sovereignty is one of the international relations concepts in relation to dependence and interdependence. Sovereignty of a state allows it to have power over other territories based on its obligations towards other countries and individuals. However, some countries like the African countries do not seem to have achieved sovereignty to date despite the independence. The world has diverse moral codes depending on the cultures raising a dispute about what constitutes a moral imperative. Ethical considerations play a vital role in today’s politics because of the profound changes in behaviors, regimes, and maps. The revolutionary actors tend to reshape the international relations depending on certain principles. A good example is France during the French Revolution and the Nazis from Germany (Kuhn 1970 p. 11). After the World Wars that broke down many international systems, different actors tried creating conditions for stability from a combination of political and moral values. The main question remains why these actors have the interest to address global ethics. Two important phenomena characterize the global international systems, and they include the invention of nuclear weapons and economic interdependence. The nuclear invention created formidable insecurities, and most nations feel insecure. Traditional approaches to security are currently a zero-sum game with the super power countries seeming most powerful due to the amount and type of weapons they possess. Economic interdependence, on the other hand, is another important phenomenon in an increasingly integrated global economy. For this reason, the domestic politics and particularly economic and public policies mainly rely on the outside forces. Consequently, only through international cooperation can a nation meet its domestic demands. These two phenomena amount to a huge change in the significance of sovereignty meaning power to cope with external forces, obstacles, and constraints. Additionally, these phenomena bring about the problem of change following the customary logic of conflict and competition in this diversified group of actors. Many states have tried achieving planned change both at home and abroad. They have tried changing the welfare at home and agreements among different superpowers. These nations have equally tried establishing international regimes among others. Political ethics in international relations is all about a good state. However, it is hard to analyse a good state because the superpowers providing grants will always be the best states. Philosophically, questions of moral ethics appear vexing. Moral theories assume that moral reasoning can persuade individuals from different cultures they are fundamentally not reconcilable. Power Power is another major hindrance for the international relations on addressing various ethical questions. This power relates to the degree of resources, capabilities, and influence on international affairs. Political theorists take usage of power as an inherent goal of the state and its citizens. However, political scientists use power to exercise influence over the other players in the international relations. Nau (2012 p. 51) argues that they use cooperation, coerciveness, attraction or competition as influence. On the other hand, they may use diplomacy, force, cultural, and economic exchange as mechanisms for influence. The international relations can equally use power as security mainly through military victories. Power comes from strength, and it has capacities to direct decisions over other people. National Interest National interest may equally deter the international relations from addressing some ethical questions. Sometimes nations will act in a manner to gain advantage over the other nations whether aspirational or operational. Different nations may need to defend different interests such as ideologies. These ideologies include religions, economics, politics, and cultures among others. However, the states may be willing to compromise some of their peripherals. A good example is the Middle East that will do anything to protect their religion. After 9/11, most Muslims became subjected to suspicions, with some ideologies wanting to ban their dress codes. However, they were ready to fight for their religion and culture. This made it difficult for international relations because the Muslims would not bend their beliefs. Changes in International Relations The international relations is at the height of improving these communication issues through some special systematic tools. Many of the past communication tools seem to fail according to Gilpin (1985 p. 35), and, therefore, international relations seem to adapt diplomacy as its main practice of communication. Every country has its professional diplomatic representatives to represent them during international relations meetings. Some of the negotiations requiring diplomacy include force, sanctions, and adjusting of trade regulations, and great tools in interest of leveraging and negotiations. In addition, the international representatives currently apply sanctions in cases where diplomacy fails to work. There are different types of sanctions including diplomatic, economic, military and sports sanctions. The international relations can opt to remove diplomatic ties like the embassies from governments they disagree with. They can also ban trades in some sectors like armanents although there are some exemptions for medicine and food (Holsti 2004 p. 46). In addition, the international relations can ban the countries’ citizens from participating in international sports or other events. Lastly, the international relations can apply military intervention where needed. This approach means that the international intervention can use force or war as the ultimate tool for resolving conflict. This type of war may not necessarily use military, but can also include new financial wars. International relations has gone a step further and introduced the mobilisation of international shame. Through naming and shaming through media, the world can identify the events happening in different nations. A study by Moore and Farrands (2010) shows that economic news, politics, and other vital news help in analysing a nation’s wellbeing. In areas of conflict like Iraq, the international relations make has a duty to notify the public in every event and its causes. This way, the people can tell who is to blame for these events. NGO’s like the Human Amnesty does most of the shaming and a good example was in Guantanamo Bay where it called it Gulag. The Human Rights Watch is another body used by the international relations to name and shame the difficult nations. The U. N commissions of Human Rights 1235 procedure are responsible for exposing any country with human violations. Lastly, in the event of improving ethical issues, the international relations apply allotment of both economic and diplomatic benefits, and European Union remains a good example. The Union’s enlargement of policies allows candidate countries to enter the EU only after fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria. Through a single market, the EU uses standardised law-systems, and has a role in external relations and defense. Personal Suggestions My personal suggestions regarding ethical dimensions of foreign policies start by recognising today’s nations do not seem ready for honourable ritual suicide. Most nations believe they are good, and statehood plays a vital role in every individual’s hopes. Consequently, sovereignty is more of a value than reality despite its much leakage. As a result, it may take a long time for ethics to establish the required nirvana for this world. Nevertheless, it can aim at changing national behaviours especially in relation to morals on one hand. On the other hand, it can enlarge the cosmopolitan sphere of international affairs through regimes and interstate institutions by establishing a transparent and transnational society (Smith et al 2008 p. 35). Despite the limited opportunities for moral actions, there is still an existing margin of action. Just like other spheres of humanity, the mother of morality is necessity. The fear of an economic collapse and unnecessary deaths are similar to the death by hanging in the international relations. The two types of fear enhance essentials sometimes from learning of the dangers of unstoppable wars and the Great Depression. However, there are some preconditions to moral action starting with awareness that morality plays a vital role in public policy. According to Viotti and Kauppi (2009 p. 22), people should understand that moral awareness exists and is present although not consciously included in the actors’ calculations. People are aware of these moral obligations in their personal and domestic political lives. However, they are unaware in relation to foreign policy making due to the absence of a global community, and partly due to their realist traditions. In spite of that, our moral decisions directly affect other people, and although sometimes based on consideration of prudence and expediency, they turnout different. They may base on underlying conception of good an implicit theory that determines our definite description of good. For this reason, every citizen and political leader should have a moral vision. Morality cannot measure through a cost-benefit analysis nor can it accommodate all claims. This approach means that a person can only listen to all claims, but a final judgment determines right from wrong. While political strategy may require prudence in dealing with wrong claims, moral strategy demands such judgment. Therefore, the government leaders and their citizens need to start with a moral conception while applying some principles considering their consequences. In addition, political awareness equally is vital hence the need for transforming strategies. Conclusion International relations is vital and the study shows that every citizen has a role to play in order to enhance ethical relationships. Sovereignty, power, and national interest are among the concepts that affect the slow response to international relations. However, the international relations continue changing through introduction of some communication tools. The use of professional diplomats has highly helped in bringing peace among nations. However, in case of its failure, the international relations may use sanctions like banning trades, sports, economic and diplomatic ties as a means of resolving a situation. Nevertheless, it is clear that they have no right to ban any trades related to food and medicines. Globalization plays a vital role in international relations, and study shows that the introduction of nuclear weapons and economic interdependence are the two main phenomena in international relation. References BAYLIS, J., SMITH, S., & OWENS, P. (2013). The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. BURCHILL, S. LINKLATER, A. DEVETAK, R. DONNELLY, J. NARDIN, T. PATERSON, M. REUS-SMIT, C. AND TRUE, J. (2009). Theories of International Relations, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan CAMPBELL, D. (2007). ‘Poststructuralism’, In Dunne, T. Kurki, M. and Smith, S. (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, New York: Oxford University Press. COOLEY, A., & SPRUYT, H. (2009). Contracting states: sovereign transfers in international relations. Princeton, N.J, Princeton Univ. Press. DUNNE, T., KURKI, M., & SMITH, S. (2013). International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford [etc.], Oxford University Press. DADDOW, O. J. (2013). International relations theory: the essentials. London, SAGE. FIERKE, K.M. (2007). ‘Constructivism’, In Dunne, T. Kurki, M. and Smith, S. (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, New York: Oxford University Press. GILPIN, R. (1985). War and change in world politics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. HALLIDAY, F. (2005). The Middle East in international relations: power, politics and ideology. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press. HOLSTI, K. J. (2004). Taming the sovereigns: institutional change in international politics. New York [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press. JACKSON, R. H., & SØRENSEN, G. (2012). Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford, Oxford University Press. JACKSON, R. H. (1990). Quasi-states: sovereignty, international relations, and the Third World. Cambridge [England], Cambridge University Press. KUHN, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: Chicago University Press KURKI, M. AND WIGHT, C. (2007). ‘International Relations and Social Science’, In Dunne, T. Kurki, M. and Smith, S. (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, New York: Oxford University Press. LINKLATER, A. (2009). ‘Marxism’, In Burchill, S. Linklater, A. Devetak, R. Donnelly, J. Nardin, T. Paterson, M. Reus-Smit, C. and True, J. Theories of International Relations, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan MOORE, C., & FARRANDS, C. (2010). International relations theory and philosophy: interpretive dialogues. London, Routledge. NAU, H. R. (2012). Perspectives on international relations: power, institutions, ideas. Washington, DC, CQ Press. SMITH, S. BAYLIS, J. AND OWENS, P. (2008). ‘Introduction’, In Baylis, J. Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press VIOTTI, P.R. AND KAUPPI, M.V. (eds.). (2009). International Relations Theory, Pearson Education (US) WIGHT, C. (1996). ‘Incommensurability and Cross-Paradigm Communication in International Relations Theory: ‘What’s the frequency Kenneth?’, Millennium Read More