International Cooperation and National Security

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 realist theory has developed as a theory of state autonomy, emphasizing individual state survival, as a consequence of the perceptions of theorists about the nature of states and progress in the global system. Robert Powell define this perception, reasoning that “if one state can turn a relative gain to its advantage and the disadvantage of others, then [the system’s constraints] will induce a concern for the relative gains and this may impede cooperation absent any superior authority to ensure that these gains not be used in this way” (Powell qtd. Ordershook 213). This emphasizes the concept that states are chiefly concerned with the relative gains that they are capable of achieving, and [states] are acutely aware that other states intend to take advantage of any relative gain that they are capable of achieving in order to further protect their security and sovereignty.

In studying International Relations, I have realized that, the nature of International politics can be likened to anarchy. This is because in International relations there seems to be no supreme or overriding authority which establishes and maintains rules or laws in international affairs. All States appear to behave in their own interests.

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

The most prevalent reasons for states going to war are security, interest, standing, and revenge; of these, I posit that security is the most frequent. For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on warfare occurring since the onset of the 20th century, however many of the core arguments retain efficacy through the countless centuries of human warfare. States don’t trust one another; even the best relationships between states are mired in spycraft with, or in opposition to one another. To summarize Waltz, drive for security is something that all states want, and need, as long as there are multiple states and at least one of them is looking for power.

Furthermore, according to realist, it is not possible for “rival powers [to] cooperate on…security issues of common interest” (Kegley, 28). In fact, cooperation among states is rare because the distribution of relative gains deriving

General Dempsey articulated the United States military is the premier global military with a decisive military advantage but dominance just doesn’t happen necessitating the United States military to maintain the decisive edge. Dempsey’s statement is the catalyst for the premise of Joint Force 2025 in which the United States military embarks upon a transition and rebalance to address a wide continuum of emerging threats to our nation’s national interests in the foreseeable future. Dempsey correctly states that adaptation and innovation are essential to the Joint Force 2025 as ‘we have to out-learn and out-think our adversaries.’ This essay will recommend general capabilities of Joint Force 2025 which are necessary to transition and rebalance the force based on strategic guidance and the global security environment which provides the combatant commander with right-sized capabilities in support of the nation’s strategic interests. Utilization of national strategic guidance will lay the foundation for the assessment of each service’s general capabilities in support of Joint Force 2025 while also appraising risk implications in the foreseeable global security environment.

These institutions are not central governments that rule above the states and it will not stop states to wage war against one another. Cheating and relative gains prevents states from cooperation and it will be the cause of the downfall of the neo-liberal order (Grieco, 1988).

Art and Jarvis bring up the idea that there is a state of anarchy when it comes to international affairs. I will argue that there actually is quite a lot of government in international organization that prevents it from being this anarchic. I will start by giving the reasons why Art and Jarvis believe that international politics features of state of anarchy. The following paragraphs will start to explain why I believe they are wrong in their interpretation of international politics, using Jackson and Rosenberg’s “Concept of Statehood”. I will conclude by summarizing previous thoughts and prove my thesis.

Despite the high costs of war both in monetary value and in terms of potential life and infrastructure lost states and their actors despite their supposed rationality still seek war at times. Sometimes war is unavoidable given the situations that actors find themselves in. States prior to war will attempt several options such as bargaining and it is that failure in bargaining that tends to result in conflict or war. Especially following the events of the Cold War numerous scholars have given their reasons as to why conflict is sometimes beyond prevention.

Most of the developing countries are mired deeply in economical obstacles, which prevent them from development significantly. In order to overcome those embarrassments world’s society struggles to find the efficient solution for poor countries’ economies. Historically, developed countries undertook policy of giving aid to their colonies, afterwards by the end of The Second World War the United States and United Nations embarked the global sponsorship to the developing countries and countries of the Third World due to humanitarian considerations. Since then many other countries have joined in the effort to provide financial aid to lesser developed or poverty ridden countries. But none of those countries that received an aid had experienced a prosperity phase and rapid economic growth.

ne of the central problems of international politics is that of cooperation or lack of cooperation. Though, cooperation is not always possible or a welcome idea when it comes to states making decisions.

Some scholars have remarked that the rise of globalism and international non-state actors has ushered in an age where the traditional tools of international relations are no longer necessary. Rather than states competing with each other with the preverbal sticks, whether it be military force, economic sanctions, partnering with other nations to deter potential aggressors, the new Post-cold war world will be dominated with carrots. States will engage each other in positive-sum relations of trade and cooperation. This however was only able to flourished because of the unrivaled military supremacy of the United States. Without the United States as a global hegemony, traditional political instruments will not see a decline but rather an

Minor role of military force: As military resources are getting more and more costly, and as particularly among industrialized, pluralist countries the perceived margin of safety has widened.

The security dilemma is a fundamental concept in IR originate in John Herz’s writing provided the definition of security dilemma back in 1951 “a structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security needs tend, regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity to others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and measures of others as potentially threatening” (Herz, 1950: 157) which is a classic definition heavily associates with realism. In international system, where there are no world governments or police to provide security for states as a result state exist in an anarchy and the only way to ensure their own security is through self-help. In short, security dilemmas caused by anarchy, however, in this essay,