Examine and assess the view that relationships between states lack order - Essay Example

?Topic: Examine and assess the view that relationships between s lack order Affiliation: Title: Date: The relationship between one state and another or among states occurs in an international context. States collaborate in numerous social, economic or political matters as they identify the need to do so. Independent of one another, states are organized and run through given governance or political systems that the people themselves choose to put in place. The orders of states therefore, vary from one state to another. The most common systems of running states include constitutional democracy, constitutional monarchy and parliamentary system. Different states across the world employ different systems of governance, shaped by the political system that each specific state chooses to adopt. Based on these variant aspects, relationships between states lack order. This is evidenced by international trends through foreign policies in matters that pertain to cultural, social, economic and political aspects. States relate and interrelate on diverse and dynamic grounds. This relationship may be in the form of an international collaboration or it may also involve an action by one state to another, prior to an issue that needs to be addressed. However, international trends in this relationship are characterized by lack of order than its presence. Chapter 7, 8 and 9 presents issues surrounding relationships between states. Chapter 9 specifically draws upon the other two to show how states are ordered and/or disordered. This chapter evaluates relationships between states in the context of an international community, explains power and authority aspects in these relationships and draws relevant inferences with regard to them. With regard to the three chapters, the relationships between states can be evaluated and assessed. Foreign policies provide the primary basis upon which states relate. The formulation and implementation of foreign policies is characterized by the absence of order. Such a process requires adherence to the laws of individual participating states. In this regard, it is expected that each and every state should contribute equally to the process. However, this is not always the case. States with high and significant political power and authority are often influential to “lesser” states (Sieff, 2009, p.118). As a result, the policy making process of all states involved fails to account for universal applicability of laws and order of foreign collaboration. The dominance of super powerful over other states makes these powerful states bypass the actual procedures that govern international relations. Different states have adopted different political systems that further direct the mode of governance in these states. The political and governance set up of different countries around the world is independent of other countries. In this regard, relationships between and among these states in most cases is not accounted for in these systems. State-state relations therefore involve the action of accommodating an external factor in the usual system, a process that is often characterized by inadequate provisions for such actions. The fact that the existing systems fail to provide a procedural order for that relationship makes relationships between states lack order. In fact, most political and governance relationships between states involve a scenario where one state meddles in the affairs of other state. International relationships have in one way or another led to wars and terrorism. States may differ in one or more ways, resulting in conflicts that end up triggering wars and sometimes terrorism activities. In most cases when wars have emerged, there has been no evidence of formal war declarations between states. On the same note, terrorism activities are secretly planned, and the affected states are caught by surprise. While there are formal mechanisms of resolving interstate conflicts, these mechanisms are often ignored or overlooked. Alternative mechanisms adopted for conflict resolution do not in any way depict aspects of order, especially undeclared wars and terrorism activities. Economic performances of states around the world vary, and so are these states’ economic influences in relationships between states. Well performing states in terms of economic performance often rescue poorly and middle performing states. Although in most cases the assistance offered to those states is in form debts that need to be met at a later date, the economic powerful states often tend to control the less performing states. This control takes two forms; direct and indirect. Direct control is observed in the case where states that provide aids to other states influence economic decisions of aid-receiving states. Indirect control on the other hand is characterized by the imposition of economic conditions that force aid receiving states to act to the benefit of the economic powerful states. This is not an economic order between states, but the needs of an economy prior to the assistance of another leads to this realization. Cultural and social settings of states vary from one state to another. International relationships are based on a universal practice that hardly takes this into account. While some states remain traditionally and culturally static, others have embraced diversity and dynamism over time, shaping their social setups differently (Kelsen, 2004, p.248). These differences are evident in relationships between states, and often socio-cultural orders of one state hardly conform to those of other states. Governance and political systems in states have further exacerbated lack of socio-cultural orders in international relations. The role of foreign policy in promoting international cohesion has failed to realize its goals due to socio-cultural variations. This is due to the fact that socio-cultural factors shape the rights and freedoms framework that states adopt for their people. Relationships between states are tailored towards upholding these rights and freedoms, but state variations in the same aspects challenge international conformity in socio-cultural orders. It is therefore hard to claim that relationships between states are orders in regard to socio-cultural aspects. The operationalization of international organisations takes into account individual state characteristics in every state that they are set up in. This means that they operate in variant legal grounds as provided for by the legal systems of different countries. In order to do this, they are required to conform to individual country-specific legal procedures of establishment and operation. This implies that although international organizations are subject to international regulations, laws and procedures, these provisions are limited when it comes to state-specific situations. The international aspect of international organizations is therefore crippled to encompass the specific state conditions, in every state that these organizations operate in. Therefore, there lacks a formal universal order or protocol that international organizations are subjected to in their international operations in different states. Take the example of multinational corporations or even the United Nations. Multinational corporations must adhere to country-specific laws, failure to which they are penalized in accordance to domestic legal provisions. Their international aspect therefore does not realize full independence off state provisions. International organizations relate states, and the lack of conformity to legal provisions in their operations reflects an aspect of the relationship between states in the wider scope. Security is a critical concern for all states in the world. The different states of the world address security concerns differently, according to the magnitude of threats they face. Security-based relations between states face one of the greatest magnitudes of lack of order. Over time, states keep advancing their security measures as significant threats keep rising around the world. In the current time, some states have gone a step ahead to make nuclear weapons in a bid to address their security concerns (Bonafe, 2009, p.43). This does not necessarily mean that such states are preparing to engage in war with other states, but it is rather an implementation of security measures. This among other security concerns has resulted in relationships between states that are mainly tailored towards opposing their bid to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Although it is rightful for a state to undertake security measures that are considered suitable under its legal provisions, the influence of other states in such undertakings still counts. The security orders of different states vary and there lacks a uniform security measure to conform to in international relations. The meddling of one state in the security mechanisms of another state lacks order in the sense that the move is not welcome. Such meddling has resulted in international conflicts between states. There are states that feel that they stand a chance to influence the legal grounds of the activities of other states in security matters. An example of this is the interference of the U.S in the making of nuclear weapons in Korea and Russia. In addressing the underlying matter, there are no formal procedures or organized actions that are taken. Rather, power and authority of one state against another is employed, a situation that is characteristic of lack of order. The state is responsible over the welfare of the society it serves. The people, who make up the society, also have a role to play in the roles of the state. The functionality of the state is primarily based on the accountability of its people. Social, economic and political orders of a state encompass resource allocation and use for the benefit of the society. It is the people to ensure that they play their role in governance. There are laws to observe at all the three levels; social, economic and political. Accountability of the people enhances the performance of the state. Reforming the state takes the form of making and remaking a state (Castells, 2011, p.284) to ensure that the state is responsible and transparent as it should be. It is the role of the people to reform the state when need be. However, this aspect has no position in international relations. People from one state can hardly play a reforming role on another state, unless in circumstances where strict measures are imposed or force is applied, a scenario which does not constitute international orders. In conclusion, the relationships between states are diverse and dynamic over time. The above analysis presents a scenario where it is hard to establish an internationally accepted order. States therefore collaborate under foreign policy provisions. However, it is evident that state power and authority plays a significant role in influencing international relations. Some states in one way or another seem to dominate and control others in an environment that lacks organization, protocol or procedure, and the relationships between states therefore is characterized by lack of order. References Bonafe, B, (2009), The Relationship Between State and Individual Responsibility for International Crimes, London: BRILL. Castells, M, (2011), The Power of Identity: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture, Volume 2, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kelsen, H, (2004), General Theory of Law & State, London: Transaction Publishers. Sieff, M, (2009), Shifting Superpowers: The New and Emerging Relationship between the United States, China, and India, Washington: Cato Institute. Read More