The Role of Culture, Rights, and Justice - Essay Example

Understanding the Transformation of the International System: The Role of Culture, Rights, and Justice Introduction Culture, rights, and justice are terms that seem to be at odds with the expression of international relations. To bring up these terms is to summon the ingenious abilities of people, to raise, for instance, the integral function of ideas and principles, the rule of artistic statement and language, societies small and grand take part in recreating universal objectives and remake the prospects for a civilized culture (Brown, Bromley, & Athreye 2004). On the contrary, to bring up ‘international relations’ is to raise a generally uninviting image of the human state, to talk about controversy and force, peacekeeping and geopolitics, debts and trade statistics, weapons of mass destruction. It is to mirror arguments about power imbalance and the giving up of universal goal and cultural ingenuity to the allegedly more stable forces of hegemony and survival (Krishna-Hensel 2010). From the deepest points of international order, the concept of culture, rights, and justice embraces an air of triviality. These concepts seems to cite the utopian and idealistic and ideological, the facade of cultured civility that is constantly weakened by the unpleasant existence of international disorder. International relations, as an academic field, has usually disregarded culture, rights, and justice as essential or relevant to its issues. The major areas of research have explored relationships among states that revolve around resources and power. The existing realist perspective of international system is focused on matters of capacities and conflict handled as issues of political economy and defence based on the dominance of self-governing state actors (Neufeld 1995). The central concern of the discipline of international relations is how independent state actors try to realise their goals and serve their interests despite of the nonexistence of law, morality, solidarity, or government at the global arena. Hence, the transformation of the international system is ruled by cultural ingenuity, fights for rights, and struggles for justice by independent state actors (Brown et al. 2004). This essay tries to dispute the claim that culture and ideas of human rights play little role in changing or transforming international order. The Role of Culture, Rights, and Justice in the Transformation of the International System All current efforts to understand the role of culture in transforming the international system is initiated with an ontological idea that seems to be the contrary of the state of nature, that is, they all assert that ‘actors are socially constructed’ (Wendt 1999, 7). International system theories have generally regarded culture a problematic notion to address. Nevertheless, in recent times, it seems as though there is a ‘revival’ of culture in the study of the transformation of international system (Gienow-Hecht & Schumacher 2004). As stated by Krishna-Hensel (2010), conventional theories of international relations seem to be claiming that the distinctive feature between the international and the local is the presence of the government, and the absence of the state. Nevertheless, it becomes clear that the requirement for the formation of government is a certain form of collective ideology or shared values, and the existence of such facilitates the formation of states in the local domain and its nonexistence prevents that same formation in the global arena. It is impossible to build a ‘world state’ if there is ‘no community willing and able to support it’ (Gienow-Hecht & Schumacher 2004, 28). Likewise, for liberal theorists, the international arena is distinguished by “competing codes, rival philosophical traditions, clashing conceptions of morality” (Gienow-Hecht & Schumacher 2004, 28), or “the absence of what might be called an international sense of community” (p. 28). At this point, culture is undoubtedly an essential part of the transformation of the international system. But for a long time, culture did not serve a clear function in international relations theories. Instead of exploring the interaction between cultures and the states of conflict, theories are rooted in another plane underneath culture, that is, the nature of human beings. The subject matter of human nature is characterised by homogeneity, not diversity as in the case of culture (Harrison 2004). In the meantime, for liberal theorists, moral codes for the behaviour of the political sphere of the international arena may be based on a theoretical state of nature; they could be described in relation to individuals’ natural rights (Brown et al. 2004). Hence, according to Wendt (1999), cultural diversity is recognised by liberal and realist scholars as the basic question of the international system to which the answer, though, is situated in nature. Because of its emphasis on the international system’s cultural make-up as the major factor influencing state conduct, the position of disorder or ‘anarchy’ in liberalism diverges basically from the perspectives of institutionalism and neorealism. Liberal theory depends on what constructivism has called a transformational framework of system where in ‘anarchy’ is thought to be possibly susceptible to transformation through modifications in the character, identity and culture of the components that occupy the international system (Krishna-Hensel 2010). Nevertheless, liberalism goes above this prevailing argument by laying down a group of decisive sociological and historical mechanisms that reinforce the occurrence and continuation of this pattern. Anarchy, specifically, may possess a self-transforming character, according to Huntley. Thus, Huntley suggests that an analysis of Kant’s ideas that puts emphasis solely on the local roots of ‘democratic peace’— democratic countries do not enter into conflict with each other--ignores the contribution of anarchy to its formation and expansion (Harrison 2004, 37). As argued by Kant, over time, the consequences of socialisation, rivalry, and conflict within the international system promote assimilation/integration and consolidation within the liberal world and hence the growth of the liberal pacific association. Within these perspectives, the ‘democratic peace’ shifts into a balanced state within which the international system will slowly, but surely, approaches (Harrison 2004, 37). Hence even though liberalism espouses the same mechanisms (e.g. equilibrium, socialisation, conflict, and rivalry) of transformation at the international sphere proposed by neorealism, it interprets these features in quite distinct ways (Neufeld 1995). The idea that anarchy could have procreative effects of a transformative sense poses major issues about the way the processes and structure of the international system are understood. Liberalism argues that the international system is working through continuous mechanisms of cultural selection. For that reason, anarchy is interpreted as having spontaneity where in states incorporate cultural attributes through the demands of socialisation produced by the international system (Gienow-Hecht & Schumacher 2004). The international system’s transformation can be seen as being caused by both deliberate and unintentional outcomes of interaction. With regard to unintentional outcomes, Huntley argues that throughout long-standing rivalry liberal states will have a tendency to do better than non-liberal states. Likewise, within an anarchic setting, the unique ability of liberal states to be relied upon obscures the future that unintentionally assimilates them to the democratic peace (Harrison 2004). Nevertheless, the most distinguishing characteristic of a liberal perspective of the international system is its emphasis on the impact of ‘cultural transformation’ on the mechanism of socialisation and rivalry. Cultural transformation, not like the unintentional outcomes of anarchy, requires the use of voluntary action. States will eagerly decide to enter the democratic domain of peace, thus strengthening its further growth. By itself, cultural transformation is specifically vital at the peripheries of expansion within the international system (Brown et al. 2004). Over time, the deliberate decisions of states bolstered the unintentional outcomes of cultural selection by global anarchy. According to Alexander Wendt (1999), states could assimilate the principles of a Kantian tradition to various extents. They could be forced into abiding by its principles, or espouse them purposively because they understand the practical or material benefits of doing so. Likewise, states could follow a Kantian tradition for the economic gains this provides, for instance as regards to investment and participation in international trade from the liberal centre. Those that are not able to follow prevailing principles of the system will lag behind others with regard to general performance and disqualification as major actors (Freeman 2011). Usually this process of guaranteeing conformity to international standards has been viewed as shaky due to the lack of strong policing in the international system. Nevertheless, in a Kantian tradition the strongest states will already have assimilated a largely liberal character. The democratic peace’s cultural standards will thus have attained an insignificant position among the leading components (Krishna-Hensel 2010). States could stand firm against the processes of selection. However, ironically, the more forceful the possible defiance a state could create to the centre, the more controlled by the system it is going to be. So as to sustain the premium performance needed to sustain top power position, actors will be subjected to great forces to take on the behavioural norms of the centre (Krishna-Hensel 2010). Thus, there are dominant underlying forces in the international system pushing states to abide by the democratic peace principles. Meanwhile, the communal right to independence or self-government could be drawn from democratic principles. As stated by the democratic theory, the government’s authority draws from the citizens’ choice. A nation’s independence is, for that reason, comparable to democracy. Because democratic independence is a ‘collective’ matter, the theory of democracy could be more appropriate than liberal independence to explain a communal right to self-government (Freeman 2011, 145). In addition, a communal right to national self-government can be drawn from ‘communitarian’ principles. Proponents of communitarianism oppose the argument of Beran that citizenship is discretional. Communitarians claim that the right to national self-government should be a communal right (Freeman 2011, 145). As argued by Margalit and Raz, “individuals flourish through culture; culture is maintained by groups; the prosperity of cultural groups is therefore necessary to the well-being of their members; and self-determination is necessary for the protection of groups” (Freeman 2011, 145). Violations of human rights are unneeded to defend the right to national self-government. Nevertheless, taking into account the fact that the right of groups to self-government is more powerless will more likely result in the abuse of the rights either of outsiders or of members of the groups themselves (Harrison 2004). Hence, according to Neufeld (1995), the communitarian right to self-government is dependent on liberal circumstances. Miller claims that nations are moral societies and states are the best consolidating machinery for nations. As a result, nation-states are the paramount agent of social justice, and this presents the rationalisation for national self-government. Realistic discourses of self-government are more related to international system than to human rights (Linklater 2007, 34). According to some scholars, in order to realise its objective of international stability and peace, the international system should set equilibrium between the ideals of states’ territorial strength and the interests of distressed nations, and that there must be international bodies with the power to resolve self-government conflicts according to the law rather than force. This suggestion attempts to merge ideals with practicality, yet could be quite idealised to be agreeable for stronger states, and quite practice to meet the demands of justice (Linklater 2007, 34-35). This demonstrates how complicated it is to enforce people’s rights to freedom in an international system of states. The above discussion illustrates the historical materialism principle with its general picture of an international community of equal and liberal producers, its descriptive paradigm, which claimed that the ‘internationalisation of capitalist social relations of production and exchange’ (Linklater 2007, 33) would wipe out the restrictions on the development of cosmopolitanism, and its idea that proletarian internationalism, with the help of radical national mobilisations, would attain the greater liberating potentials inherent within capitalist society (p. 33). However, neither Marx nor Kant presents a lot more than insight or description in the current setting. According to Freeman (2011), the basic sociology of development logics in the international system by Kant demonstrates the issues of another period. With regard to Marxism, the argument that historical materialism presents the basis for a liberating politics reveals several of the dilemmas that have yet to be addressed by a critical theory of the international system; foremost is the best way to develop a post-Marxist critical theory that considers the tough and rigid features of individual states (Neufeld 1995, 18). The justification for universal ethics and the growth of international community as an essential political objective needs to be revived (Neufeld 1995, 18-19). The sociology of the different arguments that could reinforce or hinder the growth of community should be re-evaluated to take into account the entirety of issues that have consumed the major theories of the transformation of the international system. Conclusions A paradigm of the transformation of the international system is already decisively founded. Both the damaging possibilities of global conflict as a way of resolving disagreements and the increasing interrelations among states implies that national governments will keep on pursuing for alliance, and national autonomy or self-determination will keep on weakening. Hence, the issues to be dealt with are whether the presently developing paradigm is adequate and whether it needs additional adjustment. The important distinction from earlier periods is that the modern international order is less focused and oriented on states. Current foundational systems and cultural norms face an international stream of powerful forces affecting the entire humanity. Human rights violations, cultural disintegration, and other matters have an effect on the entire world, not just on individual nation-states. International concerns demand international answers which require the participation of an international community. As interrelatedness and interdependence creates concerns within the international system globalisation keeps on building a union of goals and aspirations. And as globalisation prevails, issues of culture, rights, and justice begin to gain more and more importance in the field of international relations. References Brown, W., Bromley, S., & Athreye, S. (2004) Ordering the International: History, Change and Transformation. UK: Pluto Press. Freeman, M. (2011) Human Rights: An Interdisciplinary Approach. UK: Polity. Gienow-Hecht, J. & Schumacher, F. (2004) Culture and International History. London: Berghahn Books. Harrison, E. (2004) The Post-Cold War International System: Strategies, Institutions, and Reflexivity. London: Routledge. Krishna-Hensel, S. (2010) Order and Disorder in the International System. London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Linklater, A. (2007) Critical Theory and World Politics: Citizenship, Sovereignty and Humanity. London: Routledge. Neufeld, M. (1995) The Restructuring of International Relations Theory. London: Cambridge University Press. Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. UK: Cambridge University Press. Read More