Challenges of International Relations

The defining characteristic of the state is the ability to wield power. The use of power, both inside and outside of one’s border, directly speaks to the sovereignty of the nation. If a nation is incapable of disciplining or punishing its citizens it will invariably become a failed state. Moreover if a country isn’t recognized as powerful in the global political arena, that country stands a very good chance of being dominated by a nation who has the capacity to enforce its own will. The use, or at least the perception, of power is so fundamental in nationhood that those who wield the most power can easily dictate world events.

Globalization is the process by which the markets of different countries become integrated due to the exchange of goods, services, technology, and capital. Globalization depends on social, economic, and political factors, and continuously alters the way that the world works. All the vital components of the evolving global, political, economic and social institutions being examined seem to constantly converge and to perpetually intertwine during the day to day administration of global affairs. Diplomacy is employed to keep a measured balance between conflict and cooperation. The global guarantees of international law are placed in sharp contrast to the grim reality of human rights on daily basis and policy is dictated by the scales of political power and the urgent priorities of economic necessity. To understand how the globe functioned in the past and how it wishes to function in the future, we must study each factor separately and observe its inevitable interactivity with the other factors that occur. It is important to note that none of the dynamics can be given greater weight in comparison to the other crucial instrumentalities.

Friedman explains the diplomacy of the twenty-first century in the following: "The world has become an increasingly, interwoven place, and today, whether you are a company or a country, your threats and opportunities increasingly derive from who you are connected to" (392). Ever since the invention of such advanced systems, it has indeed become easier to enforce power and priority over individuals and nations of lesser power, and it is now possible to engage in war against powerful rivals to a horrific degree. The consistent and credible threat of a nuclear warfare is not too difficult to uphold, despite the distance or the size of the nation. Friedman also mentions the rise of new superpowers such as the global market thanks to the Internet, an easy accessible network with the entire world. With the global market, any company or individual who utilizes this invention is able to easily manipulate the flow of the economy very similarly to how a nation does. Therefore, the potential of a smaller group of people or even an individual can match that of an entire nation. His closing remark introduces a fate which discourages the presence of security which the United States, a nation which gained its independence and security from other national

The era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

Over time the United States has had many different presidents, each serving one or two terms in office and that same tradition still continues today. Once elected the president spends the majority of his time in the White House with his family while serving the people of his country, and when his presidency is over, he goes back to living his normal life. While in office presidents deal with more than their share of problems and conflicts of interest whether they are domestic or international. To alleviate these situations, the president with the help of his administration comes up with solutions for these problems whether they are deals, treaties, or presidential doctrines. Presidents create presidential doctrines because of the conflicts of interest that arise, relationships that exist among each other, and provide the solution to the conflict.

With nation-state is on the down trod, the process of globalization has further rendered the realist perceptions as anachronistic, diminishing the capacity of policy making autonomy of state. Since states are not been able to function within its own capacity because they are having compulsory interdependence between each other, its self-decision making is greatly affected, inevitably compromising all social, political and economic regulations. Also the massive proliferation of people (refugees) across different borders, undermines security balance and renders it sometimes ineffective, stating the terrorism attack on Germany Dec 2016 as a reminder of the catastrophe that a de-territorialized state can encounter..

All things considered, the contradictions over outside arrangements between the US and different nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, alongside differences over staging, and disconnectedness of power and tact have partitioned the nation of America itself with the neighbouring nations and have broken associations between social orders for at any rate the previous two decades if not more. Internationalists, solely marked liberal internationalists, have as far back as anyone can remember accepted that remote arrangement is to a great extent a matter of goodwill, understanding, and determined participation with different states to accomplish normal and aggressive points of multilateral choice making, financial globalization, non-expansion,

As a result, the U.S is beginning to decline its influence, especially with deprioritizing some of its longest allies. The United States is starting to afoot its decision by retrenching in frontier region, as Grygiel and Mitchell state, “U.S. retrenchment from these regions creates a permissive environment for rising or reassertive powers” this can potentially be a problem for smaller states because, once the U.S. decides to leave the area unattended, provisional powers like China will try to assert its influence and Grygiel and Mitchell talk about low-cost revision, in which rising powers try to have marginal gains by not moving in too aggressively than what their ability allows them for. Furthermore, once the United States leaves, there will not be a global power that restrains these emerging rising powers from attempting to allocated themselves as leading power. The reason why the U.S. influence is declining, is due to technology, budget cuts and geographic location which all have major play with the U.S. deprioritization of alliances. Consequently, the U.S. has reached a certain point in which it cannot have a smooth transition from departing away from its alliance, especially since it has kindred them for so long. Commitment to its alliances does

During the course of this paper we will examine whether or not U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century has either, fundamentally changed, or if the U.S. is using the same policies it has been using for centuries. First we will discover that much is new in the realm of U.S. foreign policy and lastly we will explore the aspect of globalization. Next we will examine the new approaches the U.S. has used in the 21st century to address the new issues on foreign policy and how they have greatly changed, from President Bush’s focuses on the use of unilateralism and primacy to President Obama’s separation from Bush’s policies and embracing the use of multilateralism and ‘smart’ power. Finally, while we examine a few resolute aspects of the current global stage we can then come to the conclusion that while much is new on the world stage in the 21st century, some aspects of the current foreign policies have remained the same, and will probably stay that way in the future.

State is commonly referred to either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity, such as a nation or a province. The state itself consists of the society, government as well as the people living there. Before the Second World War, State is often seen as the main actor in international Relations as it can declare states of wars, control most of the economic influence within the region and larger states often dominant the role of international relations within the region or even in the globe. However, after the Second World War, the impacts on state influence as an actor has become less important than before, regarding to this point, there is

The current international system is fragmenting rapidly since the end of the Cold War. A lot of regions in the world are still trying to find the balance of power in the international system, which the U.S. often intervenes to provide its brand of “global leadership”. Some countries like China are emerging as a global power since a few years ago. Subsequently, this will lead to a major threat to the U.S. status as a global major power. The rise of power by China in the international scene signifies the unpredictable nature of the international system. I would argue that the three most critical challenges for the U.S. arising out of this environment are the future world globalization that will cause a conflict between its domestic and foreign policy, the rise of China as a global power, and the ever globalization of terrorism. I believe that the U.S. should be pragmatic in handling its foreign policy and handle each situation independently without a fix doctrine in order to minimize the unintended consequences produced by the globalization of the world.

Revisionist states are seen as “challengers” who wants a “new place or share for themselves in global society” proportionate with their power. Revisionist states are generally unsatisfied with their position in the international society. They have a wish to modify the rules by which affairs among countries work. Robert Gilpin who is amid pragmatist scholars, offers possibly the most precise discussion of revisionist and status quo positioning. He simplifies by breaking down the rules of the game into rather more operationalizable components: the distribution of power, the chain of command of status, rights and norms that oversee relations among states.

Kegley and Raymond stated: “The shape of the world’s future will be determined not only by changes in the objective conditions of world politics, but also by the meanings people ascribe to these conditions.” Terrorism is presently a major factor in international relations and has impacted the world to change in many significant ways. Terrorism is a political ideology that has been problematic in defining definitely because of its various interpretations around the world, as well as the fact that it is constantly evolving. Since the terrorist events of 9/11, the lives of many have been changed forever. A small group of individuals, which are a mere fraction of the population of the world, have managed to impact and shape the way international and domestic relations are looked at and handled. People question how secure and safe they feel due to uncertainty of public safety because of events such as 9/11. The war on terrorism in the 21st century has certainly and inevitably changed the landscape for global politics. However, the relationship between terrorism and global politics is troublesome and in ways problematic to describe accurately. Both terrorism and global politics individually are complicated phenomenon. It is erroneous to propose that one is responsible for the other or vice versa, but they are inextricably and inevitably linked. In the study of international relations, there are multiple theories and theoretical perspectives. In this essay, realism and liberalism

This essay will describe the characteristics of the modern nation-state, explain how the United States fits the criteria of and functions as a modern nation-state, discuss the European Union as a transnational entity, analyze how nation-states and transnational entities engage on foreign policy to achieve their interests, and the consequences of this interaction for international politics.