International Order And Its Effect On The World 's The Grand Scheme Of History

I agree with the quote that “Wars between states can be explained by the distribution of power and capabilities in the international system.” Power distribution among all the great powers plays an important role for the stability and economy of the state. I believe that war determines who will govern the international system, and whose interests will be primarily served by the new international order.

Realism is a theory which believes that sovereign states are the primary actors in the international system. It also believes that the international system has always been anarchic due to the nature of states not trusting each other and each state seeking to gain or maximize its own power capability. The Realist approach to the Cold War was also that of an “anarchical constitutive” and had seen the Cold War as something that was not out of the ordinary. The realists believed that states are always competing to maximize their own power, “the basic premise of its understanding is that the Cold War was not historically unique. the Cold War rather reflected in general terms the ongoing logic of inter-state conflict derived from the anarchical constitutive nature of the international system, and the ‘power maximization’ policies of states” R.Saull (2001:7).

World order are the activities and relationship between the world states, and other significant non-state global actors, that occur within a legal, political and economic frame work. The need for world order has arisen due to the past historical conflicts, colonialism, greater interdependence between nations, and the increased impact of the activities of nation states upon other nation states. Legal measures such as the UN, as well as non-legal measures such as the media and Non-governmental organisations, show a mixed effectiveness in response to resolving conflict and working towards world order.

According to the hegemonic stability theory, “a hegemonic power is necessary to support a highly integrated world economy.” (Nau 2007, 280) Nau explains that as long as there is a relative distribution of power, no one power can affect the system as a whole (280). When there are several equally competitive countries, the global economy reaches the model of a perfect market. Each state acts according to their self-interest, and such behavior leads to higher gains for everyone because “competition maximizes efficiency” (Nau 2007, 280) in a perfect market. However, there is no place for violence in a perfect market because a hegemon assures security by deploying a police force (Nau 2007, 280). Since there is usually no such force in the international system, many competitive nations have to fear violence. This is what the realists meant when they stated that in the multipolar world, nations cannot be sure about alliances. In addition, the United States and the Soviet Union were the two great powers after World War II; thus, they developed an example of a bipolar world, in which there are separate and self-governing “half-world” economies that includes very little trade with each other (Nau 2007, 280).

Modern History is littered with Treaties and Peace Agreements… yet we still live in a World dominated by unrest, conflict and ….war.

Ikenberry argues that there are many dilemmas within the organization of the international world order. The liberal order is defined by its openness and its rule based order. Order is maintained in these institutions when states agree to follow the rules set by these institutions. The liberal order has sought to establish its rules in a non-biased system that will not discriminate other states, so that the entire institution can agree on these regulations. However, this has raised many serious dilemmas’. There seems to be concern of how the balance of power operates. Ikenberry argues that the international order has been put into place

As long as different populations have inhabited the Earth there have been continuous struggles for power and the desperate aims to dominate and to be the strongest, the biggest and the most influential. Before the advanced technological development, the authority of a country was determined, to a large extent, by the size of its territory and population. Therefore there was a large interest among the biggest European powers to extend their territories and unify as many ethic groups as possible, to reach population growth. Consequently, it was only a matter of time before one of them would take direct action, and as a result, would cause a conflict.

Gaddis uses the Treaty of Versailles as an example of how justice was more important than stability before World War 2. He points to the breakup of the Austria-Hungry empire and the harsh punishment of Germany as stories of how the search to justice came back to hurt everyone 20 years later. The victors of World War 2 learnt from their mistakes and instead of implementing something similar they simply divided areas of confrontation between the allies down the middle (Germany, Austria, and Korea) in the interest of stability and keeping the USA and USSR happy. Gaddis claims that the modern day system of bipolarity amongst nations is key to peace because it allows for many countries to grow economically but it ensures that the military powers of the world are the same as those at the end of the Second World War. Bipolarity after World War 2 was so methodical that no sophisticated leader from each country is needed in order to maintain it.

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.

Realism has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930’s. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930’s to the end of the cold war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent, a theory of the past.

In addition, the intervention of countries on a domestic level often leads to disturbance in the accepted order of a region or continent.

Realism is one of the main theories within International Relations. It provides the view that all actors within the international system act on their own self-interests to gain power. This essay intends to discuss its usefulness as a theory and the reasons for and against it being used to analyse world affairs. Firstly, it shall discuss how the theory is advantageous as it explains how shifts in the balance of power can lead to conflict however it is unable to explain why the distribution of power changes. Second, it will portray how it is useful because states do not need to be labelled as good or bad to fit the theory although it disregards the idea of Natural law and gives a cynical view of human morality. Finally, it will suggest that as the theory is very parsimonious, it can be applied to multiple situations within the world system. On the other hand, it will be said that it fails to look at individuals within a state and their influence on the actions of the state. These costs and benefits will be conveyed through the current tensions between the USA and North Korea to link the theory in with current world politics.

The Balance of Power is a fiercely debated topic within the realm of international relations. Its true definition has been impossible to pin down and how it manifests itself has been argued over by many academics, in addition to this the idea is divided between the schools of thought that it is a force for preserving peace or a force for tension and war. This essay will look to examine the balance of power using retrospective analysis of historical events, focusing on the lead up to and the outbreak of WWI and its conclusion and the Cold war. Through this it can be hoped to find a clearer definition of the balance of power, whether it is really a balance analogous to a set of scales and whether the balance of power is a way of preserving peace and stability or whether it is on the whole, better termed as the balance of war, creating only tension and instability.

International change takes place when great powers rise and fall and followed by the shift in the balance of power (Jackson and Sorensen, 2003).

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.