Security Dillemma & Ethnic Conflict Essay

Schmidt and Williams use the elements of the neoconservative Bush Doctrine to show the direct contrast between realists and neoconservatives. The authors use the Bush Doctrine as an anchor to demonstrate realists’ anti-war views as the Bush Doctrine “provided the key rationale for the Iraq War.” This is the main theme of the paper and the authors express this throughout the paper in a fascinating, enthralling

Realists’ belief that, “war is unavoidable and natural part of world affairs.” According to Bova, there are over 200 sovereign states, and they all interest to gain power to defend themselves. As a result, state’s feeling of insecurity causes it to take any means to feel secure whether it is through the formation of ally with another powerful state or accumulation of military and economic power. Such action threatens other states provoke them take similar actions. This cycle applies to all states, and the feeling of threat and desire to survive is innate in humans In understanding International Relations, McNamara’s lesson is useful in the regards that actions that state takes to protect itself causes the complexity and conflicts of foreign policies that human beings are incapable of

Each government is different of other in the way of dealing with the security issues according to capital and resources, but in the end the main motive of every country is to survive independently. One state is always skeptic of other nation’s intentions, this distrust and disbelief causes the country to boost and enlarge their own security. The stage of fear emerging from the security dilemma can be explained by the “Offensive Defensive Theory” of defensive realism. The triumph of the country USA in World War I is often regarded as a result of defensive measures taken by the country. If the country would have taken the offensive stance, realist contends that the country wouldn’t have been secure. Defensive realism can be concluded in a way that under certain circumstances a state can avoid the security

For realists the international system is anarchical, war is an ever present threat and the survival of a state is never guaranteed. This is why security is the main focus of most realists. States are forever seeking greater amounts of security, in a never ending search.

Even though realism finds itself deeply rooted in a utilitarian moral framework, critics arise as to such an outlook remains immoral (it is wrong to apply) at best. A major opponent theory is liberalism. Dismissing that conflicts are inevitable, liberals uphold that the spread of legitimate domestic political orders will eventually bring an end to international conflicts.[ Scott Burchill, “Liberalism” in Theories of International Relations, ed. Scott Burchill (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 35.] This approach involves embedding notions of democracy, human rights, and free trade. As a result, states will avoid ideology clashes and a universal state will emerge. Liberals might repudiate realism on its utilitarian ground: its consequential nature and lack of universal moral code. In this section, I will defend realism against some liberal criticism.

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.

A previous study examines minority police officer’s contribution to police-ethnic minority conflict management. This study talks about communications between police and citizens with migration background are prone to conflict. Police services are staffed with officers that have a family migration background so that way it will be easier to reach out to those types of families to let them know that they are not alone and that there are police officers willing to help them through anything. “Minority police officer’s conflict intensification can be framed as being a point of friction. We conclude that minority police officers are beneficial to police-ethnic minority conflict management and suggest continuous monitoring of minority police officers ' roles by police authorities.” This study has shown that police officers with an ethnic minority background significantly contribute to intercultural conflict resolution (Decker, C., & Kersten, J. 2014). These results from this study will show me the true significance of having minorities on the police force and what they will contribute to law enforcement and society.

Even today, divisions in groups have been as a result of continued differences among the uniting groups. Humans have a tendency to incline towards the protection of their interest’s aid favors of their perceived groups. Such favourism makes them advocate fully for their interests posing a challenging opposing side to the interests of their unperceived groups. Many nations today are faced with such opposing groups having differing interests and ideals. People advocating for similar ideals tend to create strong ties of

Realists’ argue, “Relations amongst human groups revolve around conflict” (Sens & Stoett, 2014, p.14). In America’s stance, this has been true to a certain extent. For example, the Libyan revolution would not have been possible without U.S. intervention.

Taking realism as the security argument that deals directly with state security, it is accepted that nation states have valid concerns in protecting their borders and populations within from external threats, be they military force or manifestations of problems stemming from

While advocacy of federalism as a tool for managing ethnic conflict continues to grow with respect to a diverse set of cases, its proponents and opponents point to different cases of federal success and failure. However, supposed benefits and no-benefits of federalism have been challenged by both those who argue that federalism exacerbates or mitigates ethnic conflict. This debate about the merits and demerits of post-conflict federalism has reached a deadlock, largely as a consequence of

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

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.

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.

First, the Theory of UN Collective Security briefly summarizes why the UN was established after WWII and how it has served the global community as a method to avoid war and conflict through collective security. Collective security is introduced as a principle that allows nation-states to be interconnected in a way that no only prevents war and conflict, but also provides methods that can be