Normative Theory : The Pros And Cons Of The Normative Theory

The English School (ES) of international studies is a modern and unique spectrum to the study of international relations (IR), because it is prominent, relevant and inclusive of the main elements in the other IR theories such as classical Realism, Neorealism, Marxism, Liberalism (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009), Globalization (Buzan, 2004), Humanitarianism and Positivism IR theories (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009, p.2-3). The ES of IR is built on the notion of “international society”, in which the states are the primary actors, engaging, co-operating and conversing to produce joint strategies, interventions and arrangements which help to maintain their inter-relations and shared interests to resolve matters (Cornelia Navari, p. 1). The ES embraces the social aspect through dialogue between players on the international politics arena with recognition of sovereignty, solidarity, level of power and leverage, self-interests and competitiveness each state holds in the international realm. It is therefore not a system like most other IR theories but the methodology for contemporary international conversation (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009 p. 3) between two or more states when necessary within the global framework of laws, international institutions and customary aspects (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009, pp.3-4). In the 1984 publication ‘The Expansion of International Society’, the classic ES definition is

The foreign, military and economic policies of states, the intersections of these policies in areas of change or dispute, and the general structure of relations which they create, are all analysed in terms of aspirations to achieve national and/or international security. Security is most commonly associated with the alleviation of threats to cherished values (Williams; 2008). However this is a definition that is undesirably vague and a reflection of the inherent nature of security as an ‘essentially contested concept’ (Gallie; 1962). Security in the modern day context has many key concepts associated with it: uncertainty, war, terrorism, genocide and mass killing, ethnic conflict, coercion,

According to constructivism “The world of international relations is not just the world of material capabilities and materialistic opportunities it is also a social world”. Constructivists believe that actor states are occupied with both normative and material factors. They do not deny that the material world shapes their structure, but they believe that through reflections and discourse, actor states are malleable and influenced by each other. Constructivism thus deals with the process through which principled ideals become social norms. In being so, constructivism becomes a critical component for the international recognition of a state. This becomes crucial for actors, as the internationalization of social norms will ensure compliance over external pressure. Thus, democracy promotion can be subsumed under the socialization and internalization by actors. The persistence of democratic international institutions after the cold war as well as the mass identification of states as democracies and the absence of a strong alternative political ideology have contributed to a process of socialization promoting democratic cooperation. Therefore, after the Cold

The historical process of state and the modern state is compiled by the issues that arose in order to overthrow old rules and norms to then replace them with new ones better suited and accepted (O’neil 36). The state is a “monopoly of force over a given territory but also a set of political institutions that help create and implement policy to resolve conflict”

The U.S. military response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 signifies the most extensive use of force by any state since the Persian Gulf War more than two decades ago. Following these operations, many commentators have suggested that there has been a notable transformation in international law regarding state responsibility for terrorist acts. This essay aims to argue that such change has been significant and it has satisfactorily countenanced states’ response to terrorism by presenting evidence of new state practice plus opinio juris in this area. To do so, this essay will first discuss the controversial concept of terrorism and its relevance to the legal framework for the use of armed force in international law. From here, it will move to explicate the principles of and grounds for state responsibility as well as to debate that the act of providing a safe haven for terrorist non-state actors should be considered as a revolutionary factor to the concept of attribution. Lastly, this essay will examine the recent changes occurred in customary law on state responsibility in the light of the application and interpretation of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter after the events of September 11. All these aspects will demonstrate that not only has the law on state responsibility had noticeably developed and consequently provided states with adequate legality to react to the challenges posed by contemporary terrorism, but it has also begun to inaugurate binding

In a growing westernized society built on the principles of freedom, it important to note that the rest of the world is not as privileged as civilization has not always been this way. The idea of state sovereignty, the legal authority of a government over its population, has evolved and adapted throughout history. Post World War II, the world was is an utter shock of what humanity was capable of. Moving forward, a variety of political institutions and documents were created in order to protect global human rights. However many of these institutions were mostly composed of western ideologies and European norms, that by imposing them on the rest of the world can be seen as cultural imperialism (Calhoun, p.15-17). Due to different social, political,

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

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

The term ambition is almost always considered as a negative characteristic. Being ambitious seems to be linked to greed and a more similar meaning to being a non-conformist is left aside, something that may be very necessary and act as the engine of a business activity. Because ambition is not only restricted to the desire to accumulate wealth or power, it can be found in the desire to be better every day, to seek new challenges and fight for them, without having to trample others or not have scruples to reach your goals.

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

However, the core of realism theory, with its understanding of world politics remains the same – uncompromising struggle between states for power and influence, and not moral and legal principles that define the foreign policy of a state. One of the baselines for political realism is the clause of the anarchic nature of international relations. From this point of view, the anarchic nature of relations

Norms are expectations of behaviour and a vital part of the international community (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998, 887). In the anarchic system of international politics, norms can provide stability and unity due to certain expectations, as well as implement change when norm shifts restructure the international community (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998, 894). Therefore, the process that enables a norm to be accepted internationally is an important one to analyze and understand. In order for a norm to become international, the most important factors are shared moral assessment and hegemonic acceptance of the norm.

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.

“It needs to be noted that the circulation of policy ideas often takes place against the backdrop of a range of international and regional settlements, both formal and informal. These settlements are expressed in terms of consensus and conventions, and involve agreements and commitments that expose national policy practices to external dictates and scrutiny” (p. 86).

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.