Diverse Cultures And Various Political Systems Fuel The Complicated Relationship Between States

Intra-cultural relations are historically filled with conflict; and to deal with this conflict: Gloria Anzaldua’s concepts of opposing cultures and language barriers, John Locke’s Equality theory, and Kwame Anthony Appiah’s global citizenship theory explores the issue and works towards better relations. According to Anzaldua, people are not of one culture, but in several cases, several clashing, distinct cultures. Anzaldua argues that language is part of our identity, and it is a barrier between cultures, sometimes even our own. While Locke argues, we are all created equal, we may not be treated equal. Once society can deal with these problems, it can move forward towards Kwame Anthony Appiah’s global citizenship theory.

Analyzing this source, we should fully embrace the perspective it is portrayed because internationalism allows people to work in less developed countries around the globe offering security, economic stability and many other factors with the rest of the world thus making nations more interconnected with one another. The source states that combining global corporations with a strong effort, we can hope to solve many complex issues that threaten a nation-states safety as well as the well-being of all people. International cooperation To address global issues, would require a need of a strong majority of nation-states that are willing to protect civilians, bring economic stability and as well benefiting the countries both ways. This source is showing that though Conflicts and issues, they can be resolved more effectively with the help of nation-states; to accomplish this we would require nation-states to expand the scope of their interests to include the well being of all people. The source is adapting the ideology of internationalism allows us to help less developed countries with crucial issues as well has benefited by having the country providing aid grow and prosper. A factor that plays a role in international cooperations is foreign policy, foreign policy is best defined as a set of political goals that seek to show how a particular country will interact with other countries of the world. These foreign policies are mainly designed to help protect a country's national

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

According to constructivism “The world of international relations is not just the world of material capabilities and materialistic opportunities it is also a social world”. Constructivists believe that actor states are occupied with both normative and material factors. They do not deny that the material world shapes their structure, but they believe that through reflections and discourse, actor states are malleable and influenced by each other. Constructivism thus deals with the process through which principled ideals become social norms. In being so, constructivism becomes a critical component for the international recognition of a state. This becomes crucial for actors, as the internationalization of social norms will ensure compliance over external pressure. Thus, democracy promotion can be subsumed under the socialization and internalization by actors. The persistence of democratic international institutions after the cold war as well as the mass identification of states as democracies and the absence of a strong alternative political ideology have contributed to a process of socialization promoting democratic cooperation. Therefore, after the Cold

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,

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.

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

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

Firstly, anarchy leads to International cooperation. Under anarchical status, states feeling unsafe due to no supreme authority. Thus, they tend to set up regime regulating states’ behavior to prevent defection. In this case, states are willing, though not able to cooperate with others. Regarding the unit of analysis, neoliberalism believed states are important, but other actors such as IOs, NGOs, non-state actors are also worth discussing since many issues under globalization cannot be merely solved by the states and military power.

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.

Kenneth Waltz’s key argument is that states have little choice but to compete with each other for power as there exists no higher authority that they can turn to in times of crisis. After all, stronger states are less likely to be attacked than weaker states. Therefore, to survive, their main goal should be to ensure that other states do not gain power at their expense. Waltz emphasizes that “the first concern of states is not to maximize power, but to maintain their positions in the system.” Neo-realism’s principal departure from classical realism is the “idea that international politics can be thought of as a system with a precisely defined structure.” It also breaks with classical realism

According to Jackson and Sorensen (2003), the leading contemporary neorealist thinker is undoubtedly Kenneth Waltz (1979). His starting point is taken from some elements of classical and neoclassical, such as independent state existing and performing in an anarchical international system. Waltz’s Theory of international Politics (1979) seeks to provide a scientific explanation of the international political system. A scientific theory of international relations leads us to expect the certain pattern that states to behave in predictable ways. In Waltz’s view the

In examining Kenneth Waltz 's “Structural Realism after the Cold War,”1 and Andrew Moravcsik 's “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,”2 it is clear that theories presented in each (Realism and Liberalism) are at odds with one another in many ways. But why did the authors reach the conclusions they did about the way that states behave in the international system? This paper seeks to answer that question.

That is not to say, however, that they are entirely devoid of the former. Indeed, this essay has acknowledged the extent to which both theories overlap, citing their shared beliefs that an anarchical system is at play and international cooperation between states can be difficult, particularly in the face of a lack of knowledge about the motives of other states, for example. However, this essay has also touched upon fundamental points of contention, namely the idea that neo-realists and neoliberals hold differing views of anarchy: the latter assert that it can be weak or strong, unlike neo-realists who state that, by its very nature anarchy is all-encompassing. Moreover, Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism are at odds over the possibilities for cooperation between states: whereas neo-realists consider it virtually impossible, neoliberals argue that, difficult though it may be to overcome the obstacles to cooperation, it is achievable. Thus, it is plain to see from the evidence presented throughout this essay that although neo-realists and neoliberals share common ground, taken together there are far more differences in their underlying assumptions than there are similarities, from which the conclusion can be drawn that it is wrong to claim that Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism have far more similarities than