International Relations Theories and International Peacekeeping - Coursework Example

International Relations Theories and International Peacekeeping al Introduction There are many debates about violence and war that have dominated the international relations going back to 1920s. These debates are indicative of the generalisations of what peace is or what it should be. It is easy to talk about peace rather than defining what it is. Many people have the general idea of peace as just the mere absence of violence and living with other people in harmony. Even so, it is important to find its real meaning so that discussing measures that bring about peace is made easy. Peace can be defined as the practical elimination of explicit violence and the development of order to a self-sustaining peace level. Anatol Rapoport chose to conceptualize peace in terms of strength, power balance, through the rule of law, revolutionary pacifism and collective security (Michael P 2014. Pp 39-58). Hedley Bull defined peace as the absence of violence in an international community even as it is clear that it as through war that individual states found their sovereignty and survival (Oldrich B. 2007 pp. 407-436). The three orthodox theories of the international relations discipline have been taken to give determinist grand. (i) Realism offers an elite and downbeat concord based on inherency point of view. (ii) Liberalism offers a comprehensive or one-size-fits-all continuous framework for a better life through the elite leadership. Finally, (ii) structuralism provides grassroots liberation from the elite class structures of the international political-financial system via radical politics. The Orthodox international relations theory makes some fundamental assumptions about the issues across its range of views through its problem-solving line of attack (Michael P 2014. Pp 39-58). The human nature essentialist is a common phenomenon. The extension of the state performance from a failed perspective of human nature as being violent makes the assumption that one is the reflection of the other (Oldrich B. 2007 pp 407-436). Further, it assumes that the state is the peg around which power and authority, resources and interest coupled with society’s decisions rotate. Institutional governance controls the system that acts as a monitor all the time. In this manner, international relations are often viewed to be immutable. In other words, the forces that push it and their permanence are viewed as unstoppable. Realism and idealism, on the other hand, are responsible for future peace where individuals and states are free and never living in any fear whatsoever. The idealism and liberalism have opposed realism before on the basis of realism’s inherency orientation. In this time, freedom offered an ethnically oriented but ambitious description of peace via liberal internationalism and governance. It emphasized on its effects on peace conceptualization that later led to the international level ethics discussion and interdependence altogether (Michael P 2014. Pp 39-58). There is a lot of literature that is linked to the international relations theory to Marxist work in which case it directs that Marxism had very little to add to the debate on international relations. That would be very untrue as Marxist though his approach took a different turn, did add a lot to the debate. He chose to approach the discussion from the division that exists between the elite and the poor. From this theory, it clear that the gap will continue to widen as much the capitalist system is being perpetuated by the elite who continue to control almost every sector, political and economic to state the worst (Roland P. 2014 pp 106-122). Constructivism As with liberalism and English School thinking, in addition a balance of identity, ideational tolerance and state cooperation or hegemony promotes a peaceful order moving towards that offered by Critical theory. The Constructivists work in the context of social sciences and further seek to build other theories rather than oppose them. They share in with other ideas concepts like state acts in ideations and material environment. Constructivists believe that material is given meaning socially. Concepts like power, the security dilemma, national interests, and anarchy are all socially constructed. In addition, identities and interests are social constructs rather than structurally determined (Michael P 2014. pp. 39-58). Constructivism is an important theoretical approach used in understanding the actual picture, like collective violence, racial issues, gender issues, social and economic class among others. The correct scrutiny and therefore view of things will enable us realize security and peace. Constructivists hold the fact that when people, groups or nations and events are harmonized and contextualized in a normative and concrete structure, understanding and prediction of the consequent political action (whether conflict or cooperation becomes easier. For instance, in the event of corruption, insecurity, oppressiveness, and injustice by those in power will easily trigger rebellion from citizens especially in poverty-stricken states (Oldrich B. 2007 pp 407-436). The goal of constructivists in their effort in international peacekeeping campaign is to examine the behaviour of people (either cooperative or rebellious) in trying to understand it. Discussion of violent events in relation to other meaning events brings more meaning to the former. They state that structures bare explanations to events. Constructivists are, therefore, more interested in the meaning (understanding an event) more rather than explanation. They believe that actors are stimulated or motivated by the socio-cultural environment in which they live. Rebellion and violence will be particularly rampant in corrupt, insensitive, oppressive and unjust type of government as opposed to transparent, accountable and human-rights conscious form of government where citizen cooperation is widespread (Roland P. 2014 pp 106-122). Constructivists not only restrict their argument to the effects of socio-cultural factors on individual behaviours, but also determines the reason the socio-cultural factors might have had varied effects on different actors. They strive to understand the influence of international socio-cultural factors on local state policies. For instance, they would want to understand how global norms and social structures that are engineered to facilitate peacekeeping influence local states’ plans. Studies have indicated that human rights presence, type of regime or government and civil war affect the degree to which the norms of international human rights care complied with by the States (Alex et al. 2013 pp 245-266). Directing Constructivists’ ideas towards political change are the norm of the model. They believe that it involves a process of learning that facilitate the occurrence of change as opposed to the notion that new ideas are brought about by those in power. Change id realized when individuals and society need to make their environment better. In other words, when the old order of doing things fails in its purpose, individuals, groups and society at large assume new ideas to realize the desired effects. In this case, peacekeeping could be viewed as the process of introducing change (or security, in our case) at individual, group or community levels following violence. Peacekeeping process should first clear the mindset that pushed the individuals to lose their trust in their socio-cultural and socio-political environment. Peacekeeping efforts should focus on combating cultural and social sources of conflict. These efforts should not overemphasize on the political structure rather balance with the normative integrity of people and society at large as it does not work primarily in war-prone countries. International systems have failed consistently in reconstructing social fabric in war-stricken societies and communities. The explanation of this failure is due to the assumption that economic reconstruction can automatically foster sustained peace. Cultural integrity and identity, social empowerment, dialogue among ethnic groups and collective intentions are vital conditions for realizing human peace and security. Reconciliatory mechanisms are the undoubted pillars of ideas, norms and identities. Realist Theory of International Relations A victor’s peace, or a negative peace, derived from a negative epistemology of peace, arises through security dilemmas, the balance of power between states, and an inherent ontology of violence and fear. The absence of interstate war is enough to denote peace through imperial hegemony based upon victory would be an optimum version of peace. Contracts between states and between states and citizens rest upon fear, but for as long as such contracts survive this can be called peace. Conflict management is the best that can be in this environment (Michael P 2014. Pp 39-58). Realists view the causes of violence and the peace conditions as central questions. Going by the Classical Realists, a central authority absence is responsible for settling disputes is the genesis of the security dilemma. In such a system, self-help, a nation’s search for security usually leaves current adversaries insecure, and it can act as an incentive for various hostile interactions. Classical realists argue that conflict is a naturally occurring state of affairs and not the result of past mistakes as bad leaders, weak socio-political systems and inadequate education and international misunderstanding (Roland P. 2014 pp 106-122). The state is a single actor. A state’s actions are usually a response to global (external) forces rather than internal political forces. Classical realists use local politics, in particular, the areas that the public is not consulted as a residual category in their bid to explain deviations from rational policies. Among the rest of the international relations theories, Realism has been the most dominant in the past six decades. This dominance has been due to its ability to provide useful frameworks employed in understanding the failure of the post-World War I order. . Classic realism has however received its fair pack of criticism. Critics of realist theory agree with its basic framework, but find it hard to come to terms with about four aspects that are quite insufficient in rigor and precision (Alex et al. 2013 pp 245-266). Classical realism is either theological or secular version according to the Pessimistic Theory of the nature of humans. Egocentric behaviours are not only in few wicked leaders but to homo politicus, therefore it is a core realist theory component. Human nature is a constant rather than a variable according to the realist theory and cannot be used to explain the entire international human relations. For instance, if human nature is used to explain the violence and conflict, nothing will explain peace and cooperation. For this reason, current classic realists are now relying on the structure of the international system to explain the state behaviour. Moreover, critics have realized the absence of precision in the manner classical realists use such concepts as power balance, rational interests and power. They have observed a possibility of confusion between the central descriptive and prescriptive elements of realism. Leaders and nations act as dictated by their interests that they define as power on one end and the other end; they practice prudence and self-control as well as being considerate of other nation’s interests. Being legitimate of other countries interest’s alleys conflict hence, violence is kept to a minimum if any (Alex et al. 2013 pp 245-266). Classical realists have looked for insights and evidence in history and other political sciences for insights and evidence of working international relations. Today the avenue of choice is the economics from where modern realists borrow concepts such as rational choice, firm theories, utilities and markets. The search for precision has given rise to real theories and models, and empirical applications; although not much of the practical applications. Robert Gilpin has shared the fundamental assumptions of modern realism in his work of War and Change in World Politics, which focuses on the change of the system. He drew from both the economic and sociological theories from where he developed five fundamental propositions. The first one states that if there is no state that believes it will not benefit from changing the international system, and then the international system is in equilibrium. Second, if the states cost of changing the international system is less than the benefit, and then a state can attempt to change it. A state will seek change until the net benefits of further development become equivalent or less than the cost. The fourth is that, equilibrium realization is possible when there is no powerful state that holds the belief that a system change would give rise to more net benefits. Lastly, in the event that disequilibrium between the international system of existing governance and the power redistribution remains unresolved, the system will change. Then, a new equilibrium that reflects the distribution of relative capabilities will be recognized (Roland P. 2014 pp 106-122). Waltz uses his Theory of Oligopoly to deduce the fundamental characteristics of international relations. These include some non-obvious propositions about the contemporary international system. For example, with respect to system stability he concludes that, because a bipolar system reduces uncertainty, it is more stable than alternative structures. Furthermore, he contends that because interdependence has declined rather than increased during the twentieth century, hence, nation’s stability. He argues that the proliferation of nuclear weapons may contribute to rather than erode system stability. Waltzs effort to bring rigor and parsimony to realism has stimulated a good deal of further research, but it has not escaped controversy and criticism (Michael P. 2013 pp 104-112). Institutionalism It refers to the positive epistemology of peace, but more guarded upon ontological grounds than idealism with respect to its reflection of the inherency of violence in human nature. Proper social and political conditions need to be established to achieve a positive peace through standardised democratic governance. Governance that depends on the capacity of states and their organisations to determine the appropriate mixture of freedom and constraint required to promote and police an active, liberal form of peace. Peace is constructed through liberal peacekeeping and represents an absence of physical and structural violence for the majority in each state (Alex et al. 2013 pp 245-266). Institutionalism depicts an achievable general order derived from international institutions and organisations representing universal agreements and norms. A basis for individualism, and social, political and economic rights and responsibilities, based upon high levels of justice and consent. Injustice, secessionism, terrorism, or guerrilla warfare perpetrated by marginalised actors prevents peace that does not accept the norms and frameworks engendered in such universal agreements (Roland P. 2014 pp 106-122). Therefore, the norms represent a form of order that is believed to be plausible, achievable though often geographically limited by boundaries that exclude actors who do not conform to such a view of what is essentially an international society. Peace in this framework is constructed by actors with the necessary knowledge and resources, probably resembling a Kantian Perpetual Peace. The resulting type of peace rests upon sovereignty, the balance of power, or domination, perceptions of threat, and the glorification of national interest in relation to military might (Alex et al. 2013 pp 245-266). There are many Institutionalism theories. The focus on international and national problems facing states has been vigorous in the last century. The present day attention on war and peace issues in by no means misplaced, according to supporters of this model. However, the welfare and environment concerns are not less potent motivation and action sources today. More importantly, any possibility of cooperation from citizens solely lies with their self-interest and not from the respect or fear they have for state leaders (Oliver et al. 2011 pp 309-339). Knowledge diffusion and technology improvements coupled with communication networks around the globe have extensively increased expectations. The demand that results from this has overgrown the available resources and nations ability to cope with them, the ability to cope with these demands results in institution building and interdependence. The issues range from immigration problems, terrorism, environmental threats, and from AIDS to new tuberculosis strains (Roland P. 2014 pp 106-122). Expansion actors whose actions or behaviours can have an impact beyond their boundaries accompany the critical issues above. The collective effects of their actions can have significant repercussions for the international system. States are considered the biggest actors in international relations despite the fact that they have a declining ability to control destinies of their own. Non-state actors multiple actions can result in significant effects that go past political boundaries. The non-states can be powerful organizations e.g. Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries or Exxon and malicious one like Al Qaida group that has claimed the lives of many of terror attacks. The LI model appreciates the fact that international behaviour results from a multiple of motivations and not from the systemic power balances (Michael P. 2013 pp 104-112). Marxism Model Marxist-inspired structuralism insights into peace represent it as resting on social justice, equality, and an equitable system of international trade, where states and actors are not hierarchically organised according to socio-economic class indicators. Peace in these terms is achievable, but probably only after massive, and perhaps revolutionary, upheaval in the international political economy and a traditional class and economic hierarchies and systems. In this manner, states will reorder in the international level in a way that better represents the interests of workers and society, rather than wealthy elites (Alex et al. 2013 pp 245-266). The Marxist model is based on the idea that international relationships are based on the world division along economic status as opposed to political motivations. Marxists view this system of world division along commercial lines as the architect of the rich to ensure that they continue becoming rich even long after they are dead. This premise gave birth to two international theories: the dependency theory and the world systems theory (Michael P. 2013 pp 104-112). Through the world-systems theory, the world is sub-divided into core countries and further into the periphery and semi-periphery countries. The core countries are charged with the responsibility for higher-skill work and the production of the most of the capital. The periphery and semi-periphery countries are the poverty-stricken areas of the world. They mostly provide physical labour and mostly, the raw material to be used in the core countries. Individual states are not static. The weak ones can become a core state and vice versa. The dependency theory of international relations Marxism is similar, but there are differences as well. Like Wallenstein’s theory, dependency theory focuses on the redistribution of raw materials from poor countries to the wealthier countries of the world. The resource redistribution benefits for the more affluent, core countries deprive of the poor countries their resources (Alex et al. 2013 pp 245-266).  Other models state that the periphery countries are only in the starting points of development, dependency theories think otherwise. Dependency theories have a structure of their own. They are fully dependent on developed ones for survival (Peter W. 2011 pp 55-98). This model challenges the realism stand on war and peace realise state-centred features. Instead of focusing on peace international relations, Marxist emphasizes on differences in economic and resource endowment in different states that he has grouped into underdeveloped and developed. Marxists believe that in any analysis of violence or war that is done, the conditions of economic differences among or between the conflicting nations must be highlighted (Oliver et al. 2011 pp 309-339). They believe that these conditions are the reason a state would rise against another in war or conflict. Adherents of this model have also stated that capitalism right from the nineteenth to the twenty-first century has aggravated the interstate and intrastate conflicts. They believe that there is a gaping gap between the core countries and the periphery countries in relation to labour division in a capitalist system. The periphery countries are responsible for collecting the raw materials and human energy mobilization to do the hard, hands-on jobs while those in core countries responsibility is to appropriate the world economys entire surplus. This system only perpetuates a widening gap that exists between the wealthy and the poor. The core buys the raw materials at low prices and sells the final products back to the poor people at high prices. This disequilibrium in the market balance only makes the poor to be dependent on the core. This type of relationship is unhealthy and makes the periphery countries unable to cut loose from the system. Marxists have had their fair portion of the criticism in the past. Wallenstein asserts that the state security dilemmas, nationalism, and other related problems only exist in Marxist theoretical poor countries. He argues that Capitalism was from the beginning a world affair and not of a state economy. Marxists also take a long historical approach to a current matter instead of focusing on the current contemporary issues (Peter W. 2011 pp. 55-98). Structuralism Structural frameworks such as capitalism and class block peace as social/economic justice for individuals. Peace represents progressive emancipation (Peter W. 2011 pp 55-98). Ontologically, a classless, socially just peace is plausible, given the correct methodology, upon discovery of which it eventually becomes inevitable even if the revolutionary change is the only way it can occur. However, it is also assumed that structural and physical violence occurs in the interaction between classes, leading eventually to revolution via which an emancipator peace emerges (Alex et al. 201 pp. 46-89). Idealism Positive epistemology of peace offers a utopian ontology of ethical balance; depends upon disarmament, pacifism internationalism, international institutions, carried out by social movements and states. Peace represents an absence of any form of violence (Michael P 2014. Pp 39-58). Post- Structuralism This theory offers an active epistemology of the post-sovereign ontology of peace through a pluralist, textual/ genealogical examination of the broad range of issues and dynamics that lead to or constitute identity difference, and hybridism (Alex et al. 201 pp 46-89). Normative theory According to normative theory, peace lies in the recognition of universal normative system and individuals as ends in themselves, reflected in either in cosmopolitan or communitarian institutions and norms. A positive epistemology of peace depends upon toleration, recognition, and recognition of the dangers of unethical behaviour (Peter W. 2011 pp. 55-98). Environmental Theory Environmental theory offers a radical critique of state-centric international relations theory, often drawing on critical approaches to international relations theory; a concept of peace that requires the structural prioritisation of the environment and its preservation for future generations. Only in these terms is an environmental ontology of peace possible (Alex et al. 201 pp 46-89). Critical Theory Critical theory offers a positive epistemology of an emancipator peace resting upon empathy and possibly active care, and a concern with both institutions and everyday life. A post-Westphalia, emancipatory peace may arise through discourse ethics (Alex et al. 2013 pp. 245-266). Pluralism According to the theory of pluralism, peace is found in a transnational world society, which represents a positive epistemology of peace derived from an ontology determined by human needs. The positive entomology is developed through conflict resolution approaches. Peace represents a distribution of human needs adequate for all (Alex et al. 201 pp 46-89). Conclusion The study of peace and international relations is an eclectic task mainly because it involves extensive and broad borrowing from various disciplines. The overall differences today in the analysis of this topic lie between two approaches. The first school of thought focus on the structure of the international system, and mainly derive its ideas from economics and analogies. On the other hand, the second group tend to borrow psychology and social psychology as they focus on internal political processes. The second class of scholars’ goal is to understand the limits of information analysis and how it affects decision-making. In most cases, both approaches are used complementarily. Most international relations theories, however have failed to forecast the end of the Cold War (Roland P. 2014 pp 106-122). A series of dramatic events have posed a significant challenge to many theories of system level. However, the liberal institutionalism theories scored better than any other structural realism or various Marxist theories (Oliver et al. 2011 pp 309-339). References Alex J. Bellamy and Paul D. Williams, Understanding Peacekeeping (2nd ed.), Cambridge: Polity, 2010. Pp 45-89 Alex J. Bellamy and Paul D. Williams (eds.), Providing Peacekeepers: The Politics, Challenges, and Future of United Nations Peacekeeping Contributions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.pp 245-266 Michael Pugh, Peacekeeping and critical theory, International Peacekeeping, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2014, pp. 39-58. Michael Pugh, Peacekeeping and IR Theory Phantom of the Opera? International Peacekeeping, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2013, pp. 104-112. Oldrich Bures, Wanted: A Mid-Range Theory of International Peacekeeping, International Studies Review, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2007, pp. 407-436 Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse, & Hugh Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution, (3rd ed), Cambridge: Polity, 2011 pp 309-339. Oliver P. Richmond, Peace in International Relations, London: Rutledge, 2008. Oliver P. Richmond, Reclaiming Peace in International Relations, Millennium  Journal of International Studies, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 439-470.  Peter Wallenstein, Peace Research: Theory and Practice. London, Rutledge, 2011 pp 55-98. Roland Paris, At War’s End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Read More