Anarchy Is A State Of Lawlessness Essay

Thesis: Although they established America’s independence from England during the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers are in actuality another elite class who persuaded the other classes to support them during the war in order to keep control. Thus, like how England had tyranny over the Colonies, the Founding Fathers took over as tyrants to suit their needs.

The international system is anarchic. It is very important to notice that anarchy, according to Mearsheimer, does not mean chaos or disorder, but absence of centralized authority, that stands above states and protects

The Constitution was created so one person or group wasn’t able to get too much power. At first, the Articles of Confederation was made. The Articles of Confederation was not working because the central government didn’t have enough power to protect the nation. The Constitution was made in order to hold the states together and the people together, and make sure the government doesn’t gain too much power. The Constitution guards against tyranny. Tyranny is “The accumulation of all powers…in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many” (Federalism Paper #47). The Constitution guards against tyranny by separation of powers, creating federalism, and having checks and balances.

We talked about anarchy means no central authority and there is no world police force. In class we talked about anarchy and how it related to International Relations. In the real world every country feel insecure and the only way for surviving is relying on themselves; self-help. We said in class, it is difficult to trust anyone because everyone is looking for self-interest in the anarchy system. As a result, that led to security dilemma that is actions taken by countries in order to secure themselves from other countries. Increasing its military strength or making alliances, for instance. The book talked about anarchy in general and how countries such as USA, Germany, and China would interact with one another under anarchy system. On the other hand, the book talked about how diplomatic communications can lessen or inflame tensions between countries or actors as well as clarify or obscure a county’s intentions. So not only military can help you to protect yourself but also

Equality 7-2521, the courageous narrator of Anthem, lives in a very inhumane totalitarian society. The dictator determines every persons occupation, thoughts, living arrangements, and even their ego. This environment of people are brainwashed to believe that every human is equal. They are prohibited to refer to themselves as "I" or "me." Instead, they refer themselves as "we," because individuality is completely nonexistent. The reader perceives that there is logical reasoning behind the way the dictatorial leaders conduct this societies cruel living arrangements.

When founding the United States, the founding fathers sought to avoid the tyrannical rule they thought Great Britain exemplified. In order to do this, the founding fathers looked to history, specifically, the failed democracies of Ancient Greece and Rome, to model their country after. Now, the United States is regarded as a nation being founded upon and one that upholds the principles of democracy and liberty. Due to the United States’ association with liberty and democracy, it has become the common assumption that tyrannical rule could never occur here. However, recent occurrences of authoritarianism in Europe throughout the twentieth century, show that there is not much of a difference between Americans today and

Kant assumed that states would act in self-interested ways and that repeated interactions would eventually lead to an expanding zone of peace – for example NATO. Like Kant’s theory, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is a model that posed that after continued repeated interactions, states would realize that it’s in their best interest to cooperate. Economic interdependency, also known as functionalism, proposes that states take cooperative ventures in nonpolitical areas such as the economy and security. This in turn will lead to greater interdependence and eventually, greater peace. Functionalism is a means to achieve peace now, starting with economic interdependence through international organizations such as the European Community. It is also a strategy in which international organizations, including the United Nations, use to promote interdependency and thus, maintain peace. Consequently, functionalism is most successful under a democratic government. Liberals

Liberalism was previously a projection of how international relations ought to be; now, liberalism is a modern theory towards peace attained with a state’s ambition for dominance. “Self-interest” has two definitions in accordance to liberalism and realism. Liberalism considers the measure of power within states through stable economies, the possibility of peace and cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms (human rights). Realism believes states are driven by competitive self-interest; international organizations hold little to no real influence because states are self-preserved. International relations is governed by states acting in their self-interest through liberalism; states act in their self-interest by cooperating with one another through international organizations, transnational advocacy networks, and non-governmental organizations. International organizations, normative values, and terrorism are all examples of how international relations is progressing into liberalism.

Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the

In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst

In a world where the drive for power and the will to dominate are held to be fundamental aspects of human nature as the Classical Realists would argue, the necessity for International Organizations cannot be dismissed as some liberalists argue. According to Iriye 2002, IGO’s consists of institutions that come into existence through formal agreements among nations and represent their corresponding governments (Iriye 2002, Pg. 12-14). With that in mind, some liberalists argue that joining international organizations and institutions like the United Nations socializes some leaders so that their motivations are more benign (Dunne 2011, Pg. 103). I am convinced to a certain extent with this idea as I feel that even though classical realists argue that every man has within him the desire to rule or the desire for power (Dunne and Schmidt 2011, Pg. 90). When several leaders come together all from different IR theoretical backgrounds (liberalists, realists, constructivists) each decision they make comes collectively thus not leaving too much room for their individual biases based on their theoretical perspectives to impact important international relations issues "negatively". Although I highly doubt if anything can be done to control the human desire for power accumulation as a classical realist would say, a part of the psyche of man, I do believe the liberalists argument to be of substance.

When trying to comprehend international politics, current events, or historical context, having a firm grasp on the various international relations theories is essential to understanding patterns when looking at interstate affairs. Realism, liberalism, constructivism, and marxist radical theory are used to provide a framework by which we can dissect international relations.

In the current anarchic world, The United States acts as the global hegemon. However, China’s recent rise to power has lead international relations experts, Ikenberry, Mearsheimer, Subramanian, and Friedberg, to predict an upcoming power shift in the international system. China’s increasing control over the Asia-Pacific region has threatened U.S. power. According to Waltz, the realism paradigm interprets the anarchic structure of the international community, as a constant power struggle. Although each country may be different, to survive, they must all strive for power. Under the liberalism paradigm, the system is still anarchical but cooperation may be achieved by shared norms, and aligned political and economical interests.

To define any perspective in International Relations, one must understand its’ origin and primary authors, including the context in which they were writing in. Liberalism is one of the more loosely defined perspectives as it has had a number of authors throughout history. Primarily, liberalism relies on the positive aspects of human nature. One of the most prominent liberal authors was Kant- who often wrote of the anarchical nature of international relations- referring to it as “the lawless state of savagery.” He also wrote of three primary routes to obtaining peace within this system, namely treating all aspects of human life with humanity, allowing for a federation of states and

Rule of law in simplest terms means law rules, that is, law is supreme. The term “Rule of law‟ is derived from the French phrase “la principle de legalite” (the principle of legality) which means a government on principle of law and not of men. Rule of Law is a viable and dynamic concept and, like many other concepts, is not capable of any exact definition. It is used in contradistinction to rule of man. Sir Edward Coke, the Chief Justice in King James I‟s reign is said to be the originator of this principle. However, concrete shape was given to it by Professor A.V. Dicey, for the first time in his book “Law of the Constitution” (1885) in the form of three principles.