Essay on Structural Realism and Non-State Actors

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.

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.

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.

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

As a preliminary to assess the appropriate place of terrorism in our politics of security, this essay therefore deems it necessary to account for the theoretical approach underlying the forthcoming arguments. Scholars belonging to orthodox terrorism studies have long been striving to agree upon an objective definition of terrorism, what which they consider an indispensable prerequisite for dealing with the issue as such (Ganor, 2002:287). Depending on the author in question, the definition of terrorism can range from including political violence to domestic violence and child abuse (Lum et.al, 2006:11). Though more narrowly defining terrorism can be considered beneficial in terms of making research and strategy development more straight-forward, the inherent value-based notion in such definitions results in it being seemingly impossible to reach consensus. Additionally, the tendency of attempting to reach a definition of terrorism based on single case studies leads orthodox terrorism studies to neglect the historical and contextual processes that can lead to terrorism (Jackson, Gunning & Smyth, 2007:7). This essay seeks to adopt a critical approach so as to place greater focus on which measures states can take in order to avoid the creation of conditions where terrorism can occur. Though one might argue that the term terrorism is

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

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

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

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

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.

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,

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.

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.

The contemporary international system is one of multipolarity, leaning towards non-polarity. The conclusion of the Cold War saw the international system shift from one motivated by ideology to one motivated by strategy — an underlying feature of multipolarity. A multipolar system exhibits a ‘balance of power’ mechanism, in which many states ally to maintain power, without a single force dominating. The current international system exhibits all of the key characteristics of a multipolar system — multiple nation-states of influence, alliances which shift on the basis of power and stability, and international decisions made primarily for strategic terms. Facilitated by the advent of globalisation, non-state actors possess an unprecedented level of economic, military, and cultural influence. Their expanded influence in the international system has helped shift it from the bipolarity of the Cold War era. The advent of globalisation has also introduced a real-time effect into international relations which has permanently altered the interactions between state and non-state actors, and the influence they have on the world.

Kegley and Raymond stated: “The shape of the world’s future will be determined not only by changes in the objective conditions of world politics, but also by the meanings people ascribe to these conditions.” Terrorism is presently a major factor in international relations and has impacted the world to change in many significant ways. Terrorism is a political ideology that has been problematic in defining definitely because of its various interpretations around the world, as well as the fact that it is constantly evolving. Since the terrorist events of 9/11, the lives of many have been changed forever. A small group of individuals, which are a mere fraction of the population of the world, have managed to impact and shape the way international and domestic relations are looked at and handled. People question how secure and safe they feel due to uncertainty of public safety because of events such as 9/11. The war on terrorism in the 21st century has certainly and inevitably changed the landscape for global politics. However, the relationship between terrorism and global politics is troublesome and in ways problematic to describe accurately. Both terrorism and global politics individually are complicated phenomenon. It is erroneous to propose that one is responsible for the other or vice versa, but they are inextricably and inevitably linked. In the study of international relations, there are multiple theories and theoretical perspectives. In this essay, realism and liberalism