Liberal Theory Of International Organizations

Basing itself on the fact that one of the fundamental purposes of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security and to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace.( See attachment 1).

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

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.

The process of reforming the United Nations (UN) has been a highly debatable issue among the international community. Since the initial signing of the UN Charter in 1945, the world has changed dramatically as the UN is trying to regulate a forum that assesses and deals with global issues while also struggling to unite all 193 member states of the UN when some states have been seen to have conflicting ideas and personal agendas (Teng, 2003, pp. 2-3). This essay is targeted to highlight what I feel are the most pressing arguments for UN reform amongst the international community. This will be done by highlighting the problems and ongoing issues surrounding the lack of representation and P5 power of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC),

In this essay, I shall be discussing whether the UN Security Council (hereafter referred to as the Security Council) is fit for purpose in the 21st Century. The approach I will be taking is more of a generic outlook; examining which fragments of the Security Council requires reformation.

In regards to how states deal with institutions and how much power certain institutions hold. One must realize just as the realists suggests that institutions do not always hold much power. However, with this being said it is also important for one to acknowledge that institutions such as the UN do set certain rules and procedures which may make it easier for states to interact and conduct business with one another. With that being said it is still important for one to know that not all states abide by the rules

In his article, “The Future of the Liberal World Order”, John Inkenberry discusses what he sees as a global shift in power, from the Western and Northern powers such as the United States and Great Britain to the more Eastern and Southern developing states like China, India and Brazil. This potential shift in power has sparked a fear in many people. This fear, as the global power switches from West to East and North to South, stems from the thinking that these new nations that are coming to power will abolish the liberal world order that we all know. I however believe that instead of challenging the United States for power and changing the world order to more reflect their ideologies, these emerging nations will instead seek a greater position of leadership in the already existing world order. Firstly, I will provide an argument of Inkenberry’s main arguments and why realists’ have started to worry. Second, I will show how China is rising to threaten the United States superpower position in today’s world order, and finally I will illustrate ways which show that China is not challenging the Liberal World Order and why.

As a result, institutions assume an important role in facilitating and structuring cooperation, thereby reshaping the role of anarchy in the international system by imposing some form of order (Jervis 1999, 53). Both neoliberals and defensive realists believe that conflict is not always necessary for states to achieve their goals. However, defensive realists argue that institutions are established only when states believe that participation confers direct benefits to the state itself (Jervis 1999, 63). Therefore, institutions are merely tools of statecraft and a reflection of self-interest (Jervis 1999,63). In contrast, neoliberal institutionalists argue that institutions can be greater than the sum of their parts (i.e., member states) and can confer benefits to a wider number of states or even the international system, as a whole. Consequently, institutions are not instruments of statecraft but international players in and of themselves. When analyzing a power transition neoliberals stress the importance of the nature of the rising state’s regime and the degree of dissatisfaction with the existent world order (Ikenberry 2008, 26). Arguably, even more important is the state of the international order itself, as conditions could either entice a rising state to

The authors go on to explain the concept of international organizations, and their importance in terms of international relations, from a historical perspective. As Yi-chong and Weller

While nation-states are not the only actors, they are the primary ones and form the structure of the international system.

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

Social humanitarian sciences focus on studying global political processes and the object of its research are social phenomena, which are defined as “international relations” in the world we know. International relations are comprised of many different categories, such as foreign policy, international politics or world politics. However, the central issue of international politics is the international relations. The term “international relations” has been first used by English philosopher J. Bentham at the end of 18th century. It is important to note that it is not accidentally that the term appeared at that particular time, as the border line of 18-19th centuries is marked by evolution of the international relations’

Japan firmly believes we need to take action to reform the Security Council before it loses its legitimacy and efficiency as an essential tool for the maintenance of peace and security. Japan is ready to discuss, with a flexible and realistic viewpoint, different options, which will lead the way for the expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories. Japan is working proactively to increase both the permanent and non-permanent membership of the council. Japan is the second largest contributor to the UN, behind the United States and is the world's largest donor of official development assistance. Japan's commitment to the United Nations, supported by its national strength should allow the nation to assume greater global responsibility through the efforts of the Security Council.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the six chapters assigned for this week. First, in Weiss et al.’s first chapter entitled The Theory of UN Collective Security, the authors elaborate on the foundation and purpose of the United Nations serves on a global scale by means of collectivity. Second, chapter four entitled Evolving Security Operations: Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Lebanon, Sudan, Cote d’Ivoire, Libya, and Syria, provides specific examples of relations between the United Nations and individual nation-states, the progress the UN has made in developing countries, and how the resistance the UN faces affect the organization as well as the population they serve. Third, chapter ten of Weiss et al.’s book, Sustainable Development as Process: UN Organizations and Norms focuses on the humanitarian efforts of the UN, especially in the focus of establishing self-sufficiency in developing countries. Then the three chapters in Pease’s book, Security, The Environment, and Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues, focus on three key issues facing the international organizations today.

International relations theories are the study of international relations from a ‎theoretical perspective. Such as, realism, liberalism, maximise, socialism ‎