International Relations in the Twentieth Century - Essay Example

Name: xxxxxxxxxxx Course: ARTS 1810 International Relations in the Twentieth Century Institution: University of New South Wales Title: International Relations Reflective Learning Journal Date: xxxxxxxxxxx International Relations Learning Journal Week 4 From the very beginning, Dr Shepherd presented the lecture on Who do we think we are? Nations, States and Identities as a conceptual building block of international relations. This was fairly straightforward to understand to me and I was able to anticipate that the concept of state would be particularly useful in future subsequent topics. Having already read ahead from the course’s main textbook by Devetak et al (2007), I had familiarized myself with the origins of the state system at the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. While the thirty years war and the Treaty of Westphalia were not new concepts to me, my comprehension of the distinction between state and nation was not as clear. I was able to grasp the concept of statehood and the difference between state and nation with finality. Although Dr. Shepherd presented three main characteristics or features of the post Westphalian state, I opted to categorize them into four. It was simple to memorize the four fundamental characteristics of the state- sovereignty, territory, population and government (Devetak et al 2007). From the tutorials (the following week), I would project an oversimplified but fairly accurate understanding, that most nations were referred to by their current names in the pre-Westphalia era while nation states or states were created. Unsurprisingly, most of the students had prior knowledge which meant that either the subject was simple to grasp or that they were already as familiar with the concept as I was. As the lectures on Nations, States and Identities in IR progressed, it became increasingly important for students to widen the scope of their reading beyond the materials provided or recommended by Dr. Shepherd in class. I discovered that the reading materials for this topic were recently published books which were easier to read and had interesting features like discussion questions unlike older books which were full of jargon There was competition emerging among students during class discussions and tutorials. The class discussions on sovereignty were particularly animated. Some students challenged the idea of anarchy in the international system using the examples such as the United Nations’ Security Council Resolutions and the European Union’s seemingly well –oiled conflict resolution and disciplinary measures and Dr. Shepherd had to remind students not to get ahead of themselves as such material was to be covered in future. The theories part of the topic was more a bit more technical and challenging. While I was easily able to make a distinction between essentialism and constructivism, it was not as simple to make supporting arguments as I had to make references to actual scholars. The concepts of nationalism were clear. Essentialists argue that nationalism unite people with common characteristics while constructivists approach nationalism from a utilitarian perspective- what is to be gained from giving allegiance to a nation (Anderson 1983). Unlike earlier lectures on the topic, it became imperative to base arguments on works or perspectives of actual scholars such as Zalewski. I found this topic to be particularly useful as a conceptual building block for upcoming and more detailed topics such as theories of international relations. Week 5 I found the topic on liberalism and realism to be the most absorbing so far in this course. These are the two basic and contentious theories or world views of international relations. What made this particular topic interesting for me was the competition between the two diametrically opposing theories. Both theories project the behaviour of states in the international system from the behaviour of the basic components of states- human beings. The basic tenet of liberalism or idealism is that humans are by nature good and well meaning and therefore states also behave in this manner. On the other hand, realists take a more pessimistic view of humanity and state behaviour. They argue that human beings and states alike are selfish and pursue their own respective self and national interests (Devetak et al 2007). The first great debate between realism and liberalism was particularly enlightening and enthralling. In a nutshell, liberalists like former American wartime president Woodrow Wilson believed in the idea of peaceful coexistence and cooperation between states and the possibility of creating a semblance of a world government in an anarchic system. Significantly, they argued that world peace could be achieved through democratic systems as democracies do not wish to wage war against each other. But after the outbreak of World War 1, the premises of liberalism came under attack and realism emerged as a response. Realists such as Hans Morgenthau dismiss the idea of peace through cooperation arguing that states are fuelled primarily by their own interests. They have a bleak outlook for the possibility of ending anarchy and argue that only a balance of power through processes such as an arms race would bring peace. Week 6 The lectures and discussions on liberalist approaches to peace and security were particularly heated and entertaining. Just as there is a chasm in liberal and realist thought, students appeared divided and staunchly defended either theory. The discussions elicited strong emotions and viewpoints. The lectures highlighted the divide between liberals and realists in their views on peace and security. It outlined the failures of the League of Nations to restore world peace and explained why realists are overly skeptical of the ability of international institutions such as the UN to maintain world peace. Realists also dismiss the possibility or practicability of international law to govern states in the international system. The final lecture focused on the contemporary debates between liberals and realists. I observed that students of Asian (Middle East) and American origin were sharply divided especially over the role the United States plays as a sole superpower in a post cold war unipolar system. A review of blogs on the issue also shows that students and scholars alike elsewhere are as sharply divided (The Student Room 2011). During these heated class debates, I noticed that pro-realists tended to be anti-American while pro-liberals were pro-American. The ongoing American and British led NATO intervention in Libya was also discussed with sentiments emerging that Libya may go the Iraq or Afghanistan way (The Student Room 2011). However, it was also argued that the recent uprisings in the Arab world may tilt the scales in favor of liberalism as states become progressively more democratic. In conclusion, I learned that one has to take a world view or a stand in explaining state behaviour in the international system through theories. Dr Richards also demonstrated with surprising accuracy how theories can predict state behaviour. Personally, I found realism to be more potent. A better understanding of liberalism and realism helped to better explain the motivations of state behaviour in the international system. Week 11 As has been the case throughout the course, week 11’s topic was a projection and application of what we had learnt in the previous week. Having broadly discussed neorealism and neoliberalism, the topic seemed to tie up the concepts already discussed in the changing international system such as the new characteristics and patterns of cooperation. The European Union, its history, its evolution and its current relevance were the focus of the lectures in week 11. Unlike previous week’s tutorials and study group discussions, this one ran the risk of becoming “boring” as it involved delving into the specifics and chronology of the EU. As we went through its evolution from the Paris Treaty in 1951 to the Lisbon Treaty of 2007, I sincerely hoped that I wouldn’t have to memorize each and every one of them in their chronological order for a future exam or informal quiz. The readings on the various pillars and institutions of the European Union were also not quite as interesting as compared to readings from previous topics. Fearing that the textbook readings may be dour, I referred to the European Union website as recommended by Dr. Shepherd hoping to find some useful and easy to read downloadable material for the tutorials. As forewarned, I discovered that the EU website was indeed cluttered and very tricky to navigate. The most interesting part of this topic was in the application of various the various strands of liberalism and realism to explain European integration. I prefer contentious and debatable issues and it was intriguing to hear some of the students pick right where they left off in the realism vs. socialism debate. One feature that I found advantageous about this topic was that the required reading material was relatively new. Furthermore, one had to rely on previous notes and topics to validate their arguments instead of reinventing the wheel. Despite the toned-down nature of this topic as compared to the heated realism vs. liberalism debate, I was able to grasp the essence of regional integration in the contemporary international system. Regardless of on one’s theoretical bend,-whether federalist, neo-functionalist, realist inter-governmentalist, liberal inter-governmentalist or social constructivist- it is not in contention that the European Union is representative of the increasing interconnectedness in politics and economics between neighboring states in the international system (Devetak et al 2007). It represents a progressively and incrementally codified framework of relations between states in the modern international system. This particular topic is important since it highlights new developments in the role played by international institutions in a unipolar, post cold war era. It would be interesting to observe the response of realists and neo-realists to regional integration and the potential of such new supranational institutions. References Anderson, B. 1983, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso Books. European Union website http://europa.eu/ Ferreirra, M.F., 2009, Leibniz’s revenge: International Relations between Realism & Idealism… again? Retrieved on May 30, 2011 from Mathews, C., 2011, Nosemonkey’s Eutopia, Why EU superstate conspiracy theories are nonsenseAccessed on June 1, 2011 from R. Devetak, A. Burke and J. George (eds) 2007, An Introduction to International Relations: Australian Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Student Room, 2011, Libya, another Iraq another lie, Accessed on May 31, 2011 at Read More