Hard Core Hypothesis - Assignment Example

POLITICAL SCIENCEHard core/Auxiliary HypothesisIt is vital to note that the above terms revolve around the tendency of states to make sound decisions about a war or an alliance. On this regard, a realist identifies hardcore as the interstate resolution on issues such as conflict over resources. This is by applying respective power capabilities of the states while ensuring that conditions such as preferences and perceptions are kept constant (Keohane 18). This has been of great significance to the day-to-day operations of most states as it has provided considerable realist shift, which includes the auxiliary hypothesis.

In essence, auxiliary hypothesis has laid major emphasis on the role of geographical propinquity and self-protective military technological innovations. Hence, this has played a significant role in the provision of quality international relations (Dunne, et. al. 105). ReductionismIn simple terms, reductionism refers to the earlier realist explanations, which dwelt on features or characteristics of individual states along with their leaders (Mearsheimer 130). In this sense, reductionism embraces the fact that we can deepen our comprehension of a complex international political system by dividing it into simple sub-units and then study the behavioural characteristics each of them in isolation.

The sub units can include features such as states, firms or the preference of the cabinet members. In general, reductionism is of great significance particularly in the development of a theory related to international political economy (Waltz 120). StructuralismResearch indicates that structuralism entails the twist to realistic international relations. This is characterized by instability, war and poor constitutional structures of countries. The result of this is, significant rise of the levels of corruption in the affected states.

It is essential to acknowledge that structuralism has played a significant role in the existence of a more stable, bipolar or multipolar system of government. Furthermore, the idea of structuralism has provided significant assists between the respective structuralists particularly on microeconomic theories related to imperfect competition (Dunne, et. al. 105).TheoryIn simple terms, theory refers to a well-organized set of universal statements that bring together or combine features relating to logical truth and to predictive accuracy (Gilpin 88).

Logical truth signifies that some of the assumptions (statements) rationally imply the other statements. On the other hand, predictive accuracy indicates that the statements at hand can be cast in way that appear as falsifiable statements as regards to the real world. On this basis, theory is very essential in ensuring that quality international relation forums are put into use between different states (Mearsheimer 130). RationalityRationality engrosses the commitment to the notion that an individual or state’s values, objectives and dealings are chosen and validated by a well-strategized thought process.

This has been a very crucial subject of concern in international relations. Research indicates that the day-to-day actions by different states can be categorized as rational only and only if they adhere to and respect the culture, norms and identity of the other states. In this sense, rationality is very important in promoting state friendly international relations (Keohane 27). Balance of powerThis is a crucial principle of the neorealist and classical theory. It focuses on clarifying the tenets behind formation of an alliance (Waltz 104).

Based on the notion of anarchism, states have to guarantee survival by increasing their scales of power. As stipulated by the founder of Neorealism, the success of balance of power depends on ensuring that two crucial requirements are met (Keohane 20). That is by ensuring that the order at hand is anarchic and is populated by elements that aspire to survive. The subject of balance of power is of great significance as it plays significant role in empowering member states on different perspectives such as economic stability and military strength (Lebow 70).

BibliographyDunne, et. al., International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford [etc.]: Oxford University Press, 2013.Gilpin, Robert. War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.Keohane, Robert O. Neorealism and its critics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.Lebow, Richard. A Cultural Theory of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.Mearsheimer, John. Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics.

NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2011.Waltz, Kenneth. Man, the state, and war a theoretical analysis. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.