Morality In International Relations

Hard power and soft power are important factors when it comes to our nation and its role throughout the world. The differences between hard and soft power offer people a better insight when it comes to political power in our nation. Hard power deals with the aspect of changing the actions of others through things such as coercion; whereas, soft power deals with attraction and shaping what others want from a different perspective (Smith-Windsor, 52). These versions of power are crucial when it comes to the theory of international relations. A hypothesis that alliances are founded on calculations of national interest and do not withstand a conflict of those interests is christened “theory” in the current language of political science (Aron,

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.

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

Three levels of analysis, each with its own distinct strength, reveals three different ways of understanding international relations. The first states that all nation-states behave similarly, the second emphasizes the unique internal factors of a nation-state, while the third level of analysis focuses on the individual deciding a state’s course of action. Each level of analysis is useful in the study of international relations. Indeed, used all together, it is not long before arriving at a point where a vast number of explanations for the actions of a country are brought to light. However, to best understand international relations, one level of analysis is more useful than the rest, because it provides the most comprehensive

Nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, not answering the call for help in Rwanda, allowing Germany to take over Czechoslovakia, supporting the creation of the state of Israel, giving out loans (with interest) to developing countries, and the creation of the United Nations are all forms of international interference and cooperation amongst states. When looking at these examples and many more, it begs the question, does morality play a role in international affairs of a state? George Kennan, a prominent Skeptic, would argue that in international politics “other criteria, sadder, more limited, more practical, must be allowed to prevail.”

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no absolute moral standard that is applicable to any person at any place at any given time. It suggests that there are situations in which certain behavior that would normally be considered “wrong” can actually be considered “right”. Moral relativism has played an increasingly significant role in today’s society, particularly regarding the differences between the countries of the world. This essay will summarize and explain both arguments in favor of and against moral relativism. Despite what many relativists believe, the arguments against are not only stronger, but also more accurate.

In regards to international relations, power is influence and control one state has over another. Often times, state power is an indication of economic and military strength. According to Joseph Nye, the concept of using economic and military forces to coerce other political bodies is known as hard power. In contrast,

The balance of power theory is viewed as critical policy in the handling of international relations. To fully comprehend how the balance

The “Balance of Power” was one of the most frequently used words in the international relation; it was the one that relates itself to peace. In another word, if the power becomes unbalanced or destabilized, war will become as unavoidable. However, what exactly is the definition of “balance of power?” According to Dictionary.com, it is “a distribution and opposition of forces among nations such that no single nation is strong enough to assert its will or dominate all the others” ("The Definition of Balance of Power"). So, it can be treated as a policy, one that has a great impact on the power distribution among countries. As such, each country would take their own actions to protect itself from attacks or from being in a disadvantaged situation by maintaining the power equilibrium. To illustrate the importance of “balanced power,” one could recall one of the well-known destructive war-- the First World War, also known as the World War I, has an impartible relation with this “Balance of Power.” World War One, as we know, began in 1914 to 1918 and made its name by the serious consequences it brought. The consequences of World War One had also lead to the World War Two and the cold war. For the major powers involved in this world war, which are —Germany, Great Britain, France, Russia, and Austria-Hungary. This war started locally in Europe between two countries, but soon things got complicated, and it started to come down to a war that the whole world was involved in. From the

Power is a fundamental concept in any conflict. The nature of that power can depend

Contemporary international relations is a complex field. Understanding events and attempting to make sense of them can be a daunting task. There are, however, tools available, which can assist in providing clarity to these complex issues. The first of these tools is historic knowledge. Without historic background of an issue, it is nearly impossible to understand the events driving that issue in modern times. A second tool, the one which will be the focus of this paper, is international relations theory. Theory can be defined as “a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action,” (Merriam-Webster) and can be used “in many cases as a basis of prediction.” (Mingst 56) There are three major theories which we

Have you ever thought about studying international relations? What is international relations? International relations is an interdisciplinary course which encompasses a lot of subjects such as history, economics, politics and sociology. One may argue that it is an intricate course; however, one has to bear in mind that international relations is a gratifying course which has a lot of benefits for those students who study international relations but in this essay only two major ones will be introduced.

Power, morality and ethics, and law are the three categories of activities that mankind has used to achieve this goal. Power is the use of force to accomplish the desired outcome, and when used strategically, it generally is the most proficient way to maintain peace and security. When morals and ethics fail, and international laws are broken, it is the use of power that it used to intervene and stop the violence. The ability to fend off attackers and defend yourself, or to fight for something that is believed to be just with the use of force are clear strengths of power. The United States’ intervention into World War II is a great example of power being used to bring peace. Their aid to the Allied forces helped end the war and also brought one of the most horrific genocides in history to a halt. However, if power is not used in a strategic, controlled manner, it can be very counterproductive. Peacekeeping operations may sometimes be misinterpreted as acts of war and bring more violence to a situation. Also, war and violence do not bid well with many civilians, as they often see death tolls and don’t consider what is to be gained. For example, the United States entered Vietnam with the good intentions of preventing a spread of communist leadership. However, there had been more bloodshed than could have been foreseen, and many Americans opposed the involvement in the war. The US eventually backed out of Vietnam

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.

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.