Essay on Structural Realism and Non-State Actors

Although global actors can sometimes have considerable power over states, the extent of this power ultimately depends on the relative power and influence of the state in question. Large developed states, such as the US, are extremely powerful compared to most other global actors and are not often influenced by their actions. However, small and undeveloped states are not always completely powerless. To determine whether states are indeed the most powerful global actors, we must look at the relative powers of trans-national corporations (TNCs), non-government organisations (NGOs) and some of the institutions of global governance.

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

All these important questions about terror and insecurity are a considerable part of the subject of international politics. In this regard, scholars have dedicated decades for understanding the relations between states in political, economic, social, and other

In addition to the reasons provided by the authors, the prevalence of terrorism today can also be linked to globalization. As societies become interconnected, the greater the influence of powerful states will be. Civil wars are not new, however, intervention in these conflicts have become more common now than at any other point in history. With globalization, major powers now have a stake in the outcome of these civil wars. As such, they often try to intervene militarily with troops or arms. These organizations then respond using terrorism, insurgency, or guerilla warfare to discourage foreign intervention because they are unable to defeat the opposing force in a conventional war. The various successes of past groups serve to encourage these organizations and strengthen their belief that terrorism can be used to overthrow major powers. Irregular warfare may increasingly become a substitute for war, for radical organizations with limited resources who are fighting for influence. What is clear is that these are not temporary conditions. Conflict has been constant in history and as Colin Gray asserts, when there is an asymmetrical balance of power, groups will result to irregular forms of warfare to accomplish their political

The authors also address the issues related to advent of terrorism. The authors of the three books also take time to elucidate the changing face of terrorism and how the United States emerged as a super power following the global imbalance caused by the fall of the Soviet Union. Readers are able to understand and contextualize the trends in modern forms of terrorism and how the United States is making attempts to respond to the increasing threat of terrorism. They also examine the roots of terrorism and the emergence of the Islamic revolutions. The authors provide details on the trends of revolution in Afghanistan and Iran. The authors insightfully expound on the historical crises that were witnessed in Iran and Afghanistan and how they attracted the involvement of the United States. However, unlike Morrilo and Sterns, Bulliet spends time to analyze the Asian transformation from a more insightful perspective. Factors, such as, industrial revolution and growth are attributed to the widespread economic growth and development that was

In the current 21st century, Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO’s) have arisen in abundance throughout the world. These organizations do not only wreak havoc in their own region, but they proceed to terrorize the lives of civilians and political figures in foreign nations as well. An organization that the United States could consider a terroristic threat may not be considered a threat to another nation; this international dilemma generally correlates with the nation in questions definition of terrorism, based off of the social context and the social construct (the way people view reality) in that particular nations region at the time. A social context can be described as “the historical, political and criminological circumstances at a

While all perspectives are present, liberalism and constructivism influenced this proposal the most. The objectives were deliberately organized to employ more elements of constructivism as the proposal developed. The constructivist perspective was important to this national security challenge because it emphasizes norms, ideas, and that international actors create their own context.6 The case of terrorism in South Asia is a culmination of different norms and ideas that each have a history of their own. The realist perspective focuses on security and state interactions to quell anarchy.6 However, terrorism is not a traditional state and has not operated under the values that are consistent with traditional U.S ideas. Consequently, the liberalist perspective focuses on international organizations, economics, and the spread of democracy.6 Once again, this cannot fully explain the international focus on human rights and how cultural values have presented challenges to mutual exchange. A focus on cultural interactions transcends the liberalist economic focused view. With shortfalls in every IR perspective, the constructivist view provides the most flexible means to view this dynamic situation. This paradigm is also helpful in relating the actors’ different motivations, which are defined best by their ideas and historical context. To explore this further, I will discuss the different perspectives in the context of each strategic

Our “War on Terror” has caused incredibly strained relations with Middle Eastern countries. This war against terrorism actually acted as an ideology of repression and fear, which created enemies and promoted violence instead of preventing acts of terror and strengthening our security. The campaign has become an excuse for governments to repress opposition groups and to disregard civil liberties and international law. Our government should be addressing the issues with terrorism with an international cooperation, respect of civil liberties and human rights, and use of international law. It should address the root causes of this long-standing crisis, which are most notably state-sponsored violence, poverty, and political alienation due to

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.

Failed and weak states are posing greater security threats to the world than it were ever imagined. The collapse of autonomy and sovereignty among states is therefore a susceptible situation in the modern world. Developed states like the United States and other notable security sensitive nations are focusing their security efforts towards the failed states. This is mainly because these weak states have become breeding sites for criminal activities, and terrorist groups have established strong bases in such countries. The challenges posed by these failed states on security issues are far-reaching, and reliable measures have to be taken in order to safeguard the safety of the global population. Many forms of transnational security threats

A number of researchers, especially realists, believe that the anarchy does exist in contemporary international politics, since there are “no hierarchy of authority exists in international relations” (Pease, 2008:51). International anarchy does not always mean chaos or disorder, however, it urges each state to arm itself for self-defence, and it may also fraught with serious military conflict. Although the Preamble of the United Nations (UN) Charter states that one of the duties of the UN is to “maintain international peace and security”, it is not widely regarded as international government, which exercises its authority all over the world. Still, millions of people believe that the international organisations, especially the United Nations play crucial roles in preventing and resolving military conflict between states. In this essay, I will examine whether the international organisation, especially the United Nations contributes to prevent or détente international disputes caused wholly or partly by the elements of ‘international anarchy’, or not.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 ushered in an era of dramatic change for foreign policy and the international system. Most obviously, the United States’ sense of invulnerability eroded as an acute awareness to the perils of terrorism gripped the American public. In American foreign policy, the dominant paradigms evolved. Whereas the Cold War notion of the centrality of powerful nation-states had helped order the Bush administration’s outlook before the attacks, the new paradigms explicitly accounted for the importance of non-state actors and rogue regimes as the salient elements of American foreign policy. In emphasizing rogue states, President George W. Bush focused on regime change in

As a direct consequence of September 11, a number of substantial challenges lie ahead in the area of counter-terrorism..   The most prominent of these is the changing nature of the terrorism phenomenon.  In past years, when terrorism was largely the product of direct state sponsorship, policymakers were able to diminish prospects for the United States becoming a target using a combination of diplomatic and military instruments to deter potential state sponsors.  Today, however, many terrorist organizations and individuals act independently from former and present state sponsors, shifting to other sources of support, including the development of transnational networks.

This paper will examine the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, perpetrated by the self-proclaimed Islamic State. This paper will analyze and discuss the implications that the events in Paris will have on the international community’s course of action on the current turmoil in Syria and Iraq. As a result of this further analysis, this paper argues three main points. First, the severity of the attack will demand a fundamental shift in the level of aggressiveness that Western powers are willing to show against a pseudo-state actor like ISIS. Second, France’s recent invocation of the Mutual Defense clause of the European Union Constitution signals a possible shift in the role of large scale international organizations in their treatment of member states. Finally, this paper will argue that these attacks signal a negative shift in the international debate over resolving the humanitarian crisis in Syria, resulting in stricter immigration policies within Western countries.

Over the years there have been significant changes in how terrorism is carried out. With the changes in how terrorism is carried out there have also been dramatic changes in how countries counter terrorist attacks. The modifications in the way a country counters these terrorist attacks affects international relations of these countries. These issues bring about the question of how have counter terrorism methods affected international relations. To answer this question several things must be addressed which are, methodology, history of terrorism, and a literature review of multiple authors that have discussed this subject.