Early Approaches to Interantional Relations

European states ended the Thirty Years’ War with the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which laid the foundations for a system of independent, competing states. They also mutually recognized their rights to organize their domestic and religious affairs and agreed that political and diplomatic affairs were to be conducted by states acting in their own interests.

Promptly after the First World War had ended there were many debates about who or what caused the war. Historians such as Fritz Fischer argued that Germany was the to blame for the entirety of the war but there have been many more ideas of what was the cause of the war and therefore causing peace to fail. The main ideas amongst historians for the underlying causes of the war are the different balance in power due the formation of alliances, imperialism, militarism and also the July Crisis of 1914. This essay will argue that the alliances were the main cause of peace failing as with the constant conflict of interests and increasing tension it made it almost impossible to create peace in Europe in 1914.

The first view will be through the current predominant school of thought in international relations, realism. Although there are several different forms of realism the core ideas are that states are the central actors in international politics rather than individuals

In “Finding the Peripheries: Sovereignty and Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century International Law,” Antony Anghie discusses the concept of sovereignty and membership. He uses the term “family nations” to illustrate the relations of states. Anghie seeks to find the answer to how “new” Europe deal with the task of “how order is created among sovereign state.” To which he asserts that “special doctrine” of shared norms and values have been devised for purpose of determining states’ sovereignty. Hence, states have resorted to the development of an international law to help them govern and set out the criteria that are required in order to be acknowledged as a sovereign state. Anghie subsequently put forth that this “international law applied only to the sovereign states that composed the civilized “Family Nations.” This definition excluded third world countries who were deemed as being “non-civilized states” such as “non-European states.” This definition is problematic as it a very biased perception. The term sovereign state is arguably a social construct made by European as it is mainly of a Western European origin. Anghie acknowledges that states could be formally considered “sovereign” only if “they satisfied the criteria [for] membership in the civilized international society, they lacked the comprehensive range of power enjoyed by the European sovereigns.”

In recent years this post-Fischer consensus has in turn been revised. Historians have returned to the arguments of the interwar years, focusing for example on Russia’s and France’s role in the outbreak of war,[4] or asking if Britain’s government really did all it could to try and avert war in 1914. Germany’s and Austria-Hungary’s roles are deemphasised, and it is stressed that there were decision-makers in all the major capital cities who considered a general European war in August 1914 to be a risk worth taking. After 100 years of debate, every conceivable interpretation seems to have been advanced. In some of the most recent publications, even seeking to attribute responsibility, as had so confidently been done at Versailles, is now eschewed.[5]

Many philosophers have debated and looked into different forms of government and states to see which of these have the best results for the majority, but in particular Jean Bodin will be much looked at in this paper. Jean Bodin’s origins lie in France from the time period of the 1500’s, he is an excellent source for his knowledge on sovereign authority, and that is why he has been chosen for deciphering. It is necessary to understand that because there is approximately a five-century gap between the development of the Six Books of the Commonwealth by Jean Bodin and this paper, there is much to discuss on whether his claims are still valid. Some may argue against him in this era whether or not his conception of monarchy is still coherent with

In order to properly put the diplomatic actions leading up to World War 1 in perspective, this essay will examine the diplomatic tendencies after the Napoleonic Era. The period approximately between 1815 and 1900 is pinned as a century of peace. However, this is not the case, and in fact, it could be argued that the diplomacy during this time period was a major cause of World War 1. Although this time period did not contain a massive geographic battle spanning across several continents, it contained many smaller scale wars. These wars were “managed” by the larger powers. Prominent figures during this time period such as Otto von Bismarck and Metternich, never shyed away from war. Instead, their diplomacy was coupled with that of their respected military. Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian general and military philosopher, famously stated that “war is not merely a political act but a

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

World War I saw the nations involved rallied into two major alliances in order to curb German’s increasing power. It is evident that German amassing too much power poses a threat to the security of its counterparts in an anarchic system. As a result, other countries were willing to use various means not only to mitigate the risks but also maintain their independence in the world’s political structure. The balance of power theory focuses on how countries can achieve a balance and international order. The causes of World War one can be attributed to the balance of power mechanisms used by the countries involved.

There has been some recent argument against the current understanding of the place of relationships in psychotherapy. While most theories argue that relationships are important or even essential to good mental health, other theorists claim that the way relationships are conceptualized in these theories is insufficient (Slife & Wiggins, 2009). Most of these theories conceptualize the individuals first, and then talk about the way these individuals relate. Relationships are often understood as two or more independent self-contained individuals interacting (Slife & Wiggins, 2009). An alternative way to look at relationships is offered by relational psychoanalysts and other theorists, though again it should be noted that

     After the tragedies of World War II, European leaders have made striving efforts to prevent such a catastrophic event from occurring on their continent again. The best solution seemed to be highly mechanized cooperation among the highest European powers to assure that future conflict, and perhaps war, could not arise between them. If all the states ran themselves in a manner cooperating with their neighbors, conflict could be avoided. To prevent other nations from not cooperating, treaties and institutions would have to be designed for each area of international interest such as trade, communications, security, and so forth. As the century progressed, more organizations, institutions and associations were

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

The question that then must be asked is what caused people, rulers, philosophers and scholars to begin to think about power and rule in terms of state and sovereignty? Since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the state has been regarded and accepted as the basic unit of international politics and the concept of the sovereignty of states was formally recognised. But the ideas of state and sovereignty had been slowly emerging in Europe in the centuries preceding 1648. The concept of the state emerged out of the collapse of the feudal system (Nossal

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

This assignment will be discussed about two theories of international relations ‎which are Realism the most important in international relations. Liberalism is the ‎second theory will be considered. The aim of this essay to compare between these ‎two theories. ‎