Postmodern International Relations - Literature review Example

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS - PORTFOLIO By Name Course Instructor Institution City/State Date International Relations - Portfolio Introduction The international relations (IR) study has different theoretical approaches, whereby a number of them originate from the discipline itself and others are borrowed from other disciplines like sociology and economics. Scores of international relations’ theories are contested externally and internally. Despite their diversity, some of the theories are principally differentiated and discernable by the variables they underline, such as ideological beliefs, material interests, or military power. In the international relations, the practice turn concept has generated number criticisms. A number of scholars as cited by Bueger and Gadinger (2015, p.450) have expressed much distrust with the regard to international practice theory. Certainly, practice has progressively surfaced as constructivism core category. For instance, practice was considered some decades ago as the intermediary between structure and agents. Still, much attention must be focused on practice theory, and practice concept must be promoted from a supporting role to the leading role. Discussion In the postmodern IR, countries perceived as attractive are the ones that assist in the framing of issues, whose ideas as well as culture are not far off the predominant global norms, and policies as well as values are used to reinforce its credibility overseas (Melissen, 2005, p.55). The power concept is fundamental to the international relations, but disciplinary debates favour the actor capable of doing what other actors cannot do. Barnett and Duvall (2015, p.40) posit that exhibiting conceptual favouritism, the IR discipline disregards the diverse power forms in the global politics and is unsuccessful in developing far-reaching understandings with regard to how actors are empowered differentially and restrained in establishing their fates and how to produce international outcomes. Power, which is the main global politics’ concept, was refocused after the 9/11 attacks, the Iraq invasion by the United States, and the on-going war on terrorism. Realists consider power as the ability of the actors to utilise their material resources to make other actors do what they were unlikely to do. For instance, the U.S. is utilising its economic and military resources to overcome opposition put forth by non-state and state actors. According to Barnett and Duvall (2015, p.69), free trade is considered to be part of the power politics since they make states that are indoctrinated to assent to new economic relations systems, which introduces them to new exploitation and dependence relations. The powerful states can easily sustain international orders if the dominated states give in to the domination. While the international relations’ scholars continue debating with regard to explanatory significance, role, and nature of power, Barnett and Duvall (2015, p.69) suggest that they must acknowledge the mechanisms of various concepts and integrate them systematically into their research. The concept of national interest has received more criticism that other IR concepts. Although many scholars consider the concept as useless and worthless analytical construct, Rochester (1978, p.48) mentions that the term ‘national interest’ has great value amongst the international politics practitioners and the society at large. Decision-makers use the concept as a convenient catch-phrase to advance the rationalisation as well as legitimization of the decisions made regarding foreign policy. Walt (1998, p.29) posits that academic theorists are normally dismissed by individuals that conduct foreign policy; however, there exists an inexorable connection between real worm of policy as well as the abstract worm of theory. Basically, theories are needed to work out the information blizzard, which bombards people every day. Besides, policymakers dismissing the theories have to depend on their own ideas regarding how the world operates while deciding what they ought to do. Without a doubt, it is not easy to make a good policy when the basic organising principles are unsound and it is also challenging for good theories to be constructed devoid of understanding a great deal regarding the real world. Every person according to Walt (1998, p.29) employs theories and differences attributed to policy normally hinge on more important differences regarding the main forces shaping the international outcomes. Still, there is no specific approach that can completely capture the intricacy related to modern-day world politics. For that reason, we are at an advantage when having different competing ideas instead of one theoretical tenet. The intersubjective power main concept completes the interpretivist as well as sociological turn within the constructivist IR; that is to say, international politics is a social construct the defines as well as constructs identities. In the Foreign Policy Review assignment, I observed how it is important for the U.S. to recognise that achieving efficiency and efficacy depend on the implemented strategies. With undisputable military resource, the U.S. has a lot of allies, but its foreign policy is continually disputed by emerging nations such as China and Russia. The end of the Cold War as stated by constructivists evidenced that the IR world cannot be compared to the natural world because it is not fixed. Although considered anarchical because of no having a central government, the international system rules are formulated as well as reproduced through human practices. Guzzini (2000, p.155) indicates that the intersubjective rules construed from international anarchy or human nature offer the meaning to the international practices. As mentioned earlier, constructivists believe that the social world is shaped by the material world. The military power of a state and the distribution of the military power amongst states do not create an international social structure. Although the international system lacks central governance, Nugroho (2008, p.91) asserts that the system cannot be considered as the ‘competitive security system’. Instead, as neoliberals suggest it can be a ‘cooperative’ or an ‘individualistic’ security system. Importantly, military power distribution and anarchy do not determine the relations and identities of the states. When the military power of a country is considered strong, it can be perceived as a protecting power or threatening power for other countries. Even though power distribution and military capabilities are considered as the intervening factors, Nugroho (2008, p.91) believe that they are less inclined to sufficiently recognise relations between the states. The material military structure is normally used to predict whether two states will become enemies or allies. Furthermore, social structure and identities factors of a state define the relations between states. For instance, states that for many years been allies are inclined to have a cooperative security system while those with the history of conflict are inclined to a create competitive security system. According to Solomon (2014, p.676), the majority of discourse-based studies regarding the terror war led by the U.S. have stressed the enduring poststructuralist themes, like the terrorism productive power discourses. The terror war has been theorised as a social construct, which is contestable and factually contingent. As a social construction, terrorism is considered as a discursive element instead of a material fact. In all states, the main national interest is their survival and national security. While pursuing the national security, states try to accumulate resources. In IR, liberal theorists argue that the domestic policy process is influenced by numerous actors, such as economic and social interest groups, the executive, the legislature, and political parties (Flemes & Wojczewski, 2010, p.9). Currently, Australia is facing a lot of external pressures because it is geostrategically positioned. The China rise has become the overriding theme in the modern-day international affairs studies; therefore, Australia is straddling a challenging chasm attributed to its increased security relationship with the United States and the improving economic relationship with China. Although Australia’s bordering neighbours appear to be somehow weak, McLean (2012, p.2) posit that the regional powers such as India are presenting some concerns. In the “Australian Foreign Policy” assignment, I observed that a number of states are claiming the middle power state with the aim of participating in the global issues. Kevin Rudd utilised this technique to gain an opportunity for Australia at the power table. The significance of embracing this approach exhibits that Australia actively considers the moral values, norms and rules that bind countries together. I also observed that Australia’s defence policy is great and it is delivered by principles that bring about stability and mandate the country’s defence system foundations. Arguably, scores of scholars, both continentalists as well as internationalists have examined the defence system potentiality and have observed the need for the defence policy to be improved. In the ‘Never-ending Extreme Poverty’ assignment, extreme poverty was defined as global issues that have led to problems in the society. I noted that there was a great connection between and vulnerability to transmittable disease like HIV/AIDS, increased use of drugs and alcohol, as well as high crime rates. If unchecked, poverty can lead to economic instability and increased terrorism. I established that extreme poverty can be reduced by facilitating the domestic resource mobilization, capitalizing on technology; and promoting self-reliance through the implementation of social and economic policies. Chandler (2015, p.1) points out that international desires should be expanded so as to govern, regulate as well as secure the problematic associated with the conflict-poverty nexus. The issues of poverty and conflict have turned out to be de-securitised as well as de-politicised, and are increasingly perceived as the opportunities for coping, and not motives for social transformation. The Asian political-security area have led to concerns that consequently influenced the trade of arms within the Asia-Pacific region. Such concerns include modernization issues, doctrinal issues, as well as insecurity perceptions. Across the region, militaries in most Southeast Asian countries have refocused their security concerns to external threats instead of threats. The modernisation of the Chinese military has forced the neighbouring countries to upgrade their military powers. While determining why Asian countries are rapidly modernising their armed forces, I observed that the objective is protecting themselves from states perceived as more powerful and to become autonomous in case a power struggle between two countries arises. Multiculturalism has become an important concept in the IR. In social contexts that are culturally diverse, Berry (2016, p.7) posit that intercultural contact is experienced by almost every person on a day-to-day basis. A number of countries have policies in place that seek to accommodate and manage diversity. These policies are accompanied by programs that support cultural diversity; however, programs and policies unaccompanied cannot adequately facilitate the realisation of a multicultural society. While comparing and contrasting the Canadian and Australian multiculturalism policies, I observed huge gaps between the two countries in terms of how multiculturalism is practiced. I noted that multiculturalism has been embraced in Canada for many years while in Australia it was adopted as a form of damage control considering that Australia was in the past marred with marginalization as well as racial discrimination of the minority groups such as the Aboriginals. Still, multicultural policies in both Canada and Australia have continued to promote socio-political integration. Multiculturalism policies as pointed out by Berry (2016, p.12) increase civil participation since the people’s sense of belonging is tremendously improved. Still, in spite of the positive outcomes associated with multicultural policies, people have continually misinterpreted multicultural policies as exclusionary and considered aggressive and intimidating by individuals from the dominant groups. There is an on-going debate between the intrinsic worth of multiculturalism as opposed to colour-blind policies and ideologies. Contrary to the multiculturalism tenets that reveal a positive accommodation as well as recognition of diversity, colour-blind policies and ideologies disregard group differences. Conclusion In conclusion, although scores of international relations theories are contested aggressively, it is generally wrong to consider them as competitors with regards to the universal facts concerning the world politics. Instead, every theory relies on certain epistemologies as well as assumptions and pursues its own systematic objective. Although a number of theories can result in relatively convincing inferences regarding the international relations, not a single theory is conclusively ‘wrong’ or ‘right’. Instead, all of them have some tools, which are normally utilised by scholars to analyse and examine multi-causal and rich phenomena. Clearly, the future of IR theories and practices rely on the vitality of that unending debate. As mentioned in the essay, the powerful states can force other states to do what they had not planned to do because of their military and economic resources. The rise of China has increased tensions across the globe and has resulted in the modernisation of the military, especially in the Asian countries. References Barnett, M. & Duvall, R., 2015. Power in International Politics. International Organization, vol. 59, pp.39-75. Berry, J., 2016. Special issue "Multiculturalism and intercultural relations: comparative analysis". Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, vol. 9, no. 1, pp.1-20. Bueger, C. & Gadinger, F., 2015. The Play of IThe Play of International Practicenternational Practice. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 59, pp.449–60. Chandler, D., 2015. Rethinking the Conflict-Poverty Nexus: From Securitising Intervention to Resilience. Stability: International Journal of Security & Development, vol. 4, no. 1, pp.1-14. Flemes, D. & Wojczewski, T., 2010. Contested Leadership in International Relations: Power Politics in South America, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. GIGA Working Papers. Hamburg: GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies. Guzzini, S., 2000. A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.147–82. McLean, W., 2012. Power and Ideas in Australian Foreign Policy. In Australian Political Science Association Conference., 2012. Melissen, J., 2005. The New Public Diplomacy Soft Power in International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Nugroho, G., 2008. Constructivism and International Relations Theories. Global & Strategis, vol. II, no. 1, pp.85-98. Rochester, J., 1978. The Paradigm Debate in International Relations and Its Implications for Foreign Policy Making: Toward a Redefinition of the "National Interest". Western Political Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 1, pp.48-58. Solomon, T., 2014. Time and Subjectivity in World Politics. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 58, pp.671–81. Walt, S.M., 1998. International Relations: One World, Many Theories. Foreign Policy, no. 110, pp.29-56. Read More