Internationally Challenges Since the Cold War

1. Bargaining is a mixed-motive game. Both parties want an agreement but have differing interests and preferences.

The negotiators in these situations should mainly on the integrative bargaining. It means that negotiator should arrange a face to face meeting for both the parties by motivating them to practice integrative barging so that they can use the conflict strategy management to innovate positive solutions rather than dysfunctional conflicts. The negotiator should focus mainly on problem solving, compromising, smoothing and finding solutions. Motivating both the parties for a face-to-face meet is done so that, they can identify the problem and resolve it by an open discussion. Each team should give up something so that they can come to an agreement. The negotiator should use smoothing technique by reducing the conflicts while stressing common interests between both the teams. By compromising and smoothing both the parties should know about their common interests and goals and should create a shared goal. Once the negotiator make them realize that they need each other for achieving their goals, integrative positions solutions will be obtained instead of dysfunctional

The states are the most important actors in realism. Realism is a broad intellectual tradition that explains international relations in terms of power. More specifically, when states work in an effort to increase their own power in relation to other states. With Realism there are claims made, such as the world is a harsh and dangerous place, and the only certainty in the world is power. If a state is powerful, that state will always outlast its weaker competitors. In addition to this, the most important and reliable form of power is military power. Another claim is a state’s primary interest should be self-preservation, and due to this, a state should seek power and protect itself. Realism has a very defined foundation, and that is dominance. The looking glass of realism sees the world through recognizing the winner and the loser.

Should cause other party to re-evaluate their opening offer and move closer to or beyond their resistance point

bargaining model of war, war is a last result when two states can not reach a peaceful settlement after negotiations and neither state will directly benefit from a war. The

Conflict, whether between states or within states, is costly. Not only is the event itself costly but it is inefficient because oftentimes the same outcome could’ve been reached without conflict. Yet, conflict still occurs in the international system. If both parties knew what the outcome of a particular conflict would be, they could reach an agreement beforehand to avoid conflict’s high cost. However, predicting the future is not yet possible and so to address this issue, James Fearon developed a bargaining model of war that aims to explain why states so often fail to reach peaceful bargains. Building upon this rationalist explanation for war, Benjamin Valentino discusses the use of mass killing as a rational tool for leaders. Both arguments fail to take into account the individual experience – an experience driven and shaped by emotion. The events in Kosovo in the

This essay analyses the reasoning behind the difficulty of solving intra-state conflicts. First, it examines the nature of Intra-State Conflicts, defining their origins and clarifying the different types. The Arab Spring serves as the case in point to elucidate the problem. Furthermore, it is necessary to describe the role of international actors in preventing as well as solving intra-state conflicts. Interventionism, as a conflict management tool will be empirically assessed. This essay argues that there are still imperialist characteristics in the behaviour of Western States, by emphasising upon NATO foreign policy conducted in response to the Arab Uprising. The biased interventions in intra-state conflict by international actors are highlighted as to why such conflicts are so difficult to resolve. Concluding, it is remarked that ethnic, religious and cultural tension within states, as well the friction between whole civilizations are a significant factor for the complicated nature of intra-state conflicts.

Secondly, the motivation for war in pursuit of honor was alleviated through the formalization of international diplomacy and the evolution of beliefs about human rights. Lastly, we reviewed how the pursuit of self-interests, specifically security and resources, continues to serve a motivator for conflict, but primarily between those states operating outside of the current international order. So what are the implications of this argument for the future? The way in which we choose to manage the self-interests of states is of utmost importance. There is either the potential to reduce self-interests as a motivator for war, or the potential to erode the previous reduction of fear as a motivator. The current international order has prevented great-power war for over 70 years. There have been conflicts motivated by self-interests, but they pale in comparison to the death and destruction of the world wars. As threats to security arise and resources are restrained, states have the option to work within the system to meet them or pursue them by other

Why was the there so many challenges to face? Well challenges are to face alone that’s why we have friends to help us. We also have siblings to help us when something goes wrong at school or at the playground they will always help us when we're in trouble.

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

It is a complex social process which already becomes part and parcel of our society.

For centuries, governments dreamed and had an almost universal hope, about the raise of inter-state systems, to preserve peace amongst potentially antagonistic states;

Many would submit that the complexity of international affairs in times past used to be much less daunting and much more black and white. Upon the onset of World War II, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany invaded Poland, there was no question about who the enemy was. The threat was evident and the necessary response was unambiguous. It didn’t take coercion for the United States to rouse the population into backing a war necessary to preserve our freedom, our democracy, and the American way our life. Throughout the Cold War, the assertion of good, the concept and practice of capitalism and democracy, versus evil, the spread of communism, was clearly divided and unequivocal. The World Summary material provided for this course

Policymakers have a range of tools to use in conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction. While varied in breath and effect, the political, economic, and military tools policy makers use ties to traditional methods of conflict resolution. However, as conflicts have evolved to occupy the larger and more public stages following globalization, so have the tools. Globalization not only increased state-to-state awareness of inequalities in wealth and resources, but also within states; increasing tension along ethnic and tribal lines. (Bercovitch and Jackson, 5) The political, economic, and military tools used in conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction present a deeply interconnected method of reshaping a war-torn

Meanwhile in realism, for which international relations are driven by the states’ security and material interests defined in terms of