The Importance Of International Relations

War has been a inseparable part of the human experience. Well for most of our specie’s existence at least. It was always a way to secure your interests when diplomacy hits a brick wall. However throughout the 20th century all that began to change. In this essay I will aim to explain how the perspective of war changed for the individual, the state and globally in the 20th century through reasons such as the democratization, globalization and the rise of more advanced weapons. This research question links with the topic “changing communities” as war affects the smallest community which in my option is the family to the largest which is the global community. The main body paragraphs

Analyzing this source, we should fully embrace the perspective it is portrayed because internationalism allows people to work in less developed countries around the globe offering security, economic stability and many other factors with the rest of the world thus making nations more interconnected with one another. The source states that combining global corporations with a strong effort, we can hope to solve many complex issues that threaten a nation-states safety as well as the well-being of all people. International cooperation To address global issues, would require a need of a strong majority of nation-states that are willing to protect civilians, bring economic stability and as well benefiting the countries both ways. This source is showing that though Conflicts and issues, they can be resolved more effectively with the help of nation-states; to accomplish this we would require nation-states to expand the scope of their interests to include the well being of all people. The source is adapting the ideology of internationalism allows us to help less developed countries with crucial issues as well has benefited by having the country providing aid grow and prosper. A factor that plays a role in international cooperations is foreign policy, foreign policy is best defined as a set of political goals that seek to show how a particular country will interact with other countries of the world. These foreign policies are mainly designed to help protect a country's national

Robert O. Keohane, “From After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy,” in

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,

War is easily explained through the lens of social conflict theory, a sociological theory that suggests society tends toward conflict because it is made up of groups with competing interests and unequal resources. The theory proposes that a

War is not a common phenomenon anymore after the post cold war era. According a research conducted on active armed conflict across the world at the Uppsala University in Sweden, of all the 101 active armed conflicted between the late 80s and mid 90s, only six were actually between two different states (Solenberg &Wallensteen, 1997). These statistics clearly indicates that the conflict in today's world is more internal and ethnic based.

In the world today, ideological differences are the root causes of many conflicts between individuals or nations and if allowed to aggravate, it becomes the brush strokes for a canvas that turn out to be the portrait of an all-out warfare. However, before countries engage in militarism, it is prudent that the leadership takes pragmatic steps towards a peaceable resolution because the misconception among architects of conflict is to further private agenda for their personal benefit. In a blind quest for gratification, these benefits are an opportunity cost for the larger society who is the unfortunate recipient of the ensuing anarchy. Nothing is fair in war; casualties caught up within the crossfire

The most prevalent reasons for states going to war are security, interest, standing, and revenge; of these, I posit that security is the most frequent. For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on warfare occurring since the onset of the 20th century, however many of the core arguments retain efficacy through the countless centuries of human warfare. States don’t trust one another; even the best relationships between states are mired in spycraft with, or in opposition to one another. To summarize Waltz, drive for security is something that all states want, and need, as long as there are multiple states and at least one of them is looking for power.

John Mueller makes a claim even bolder than a decline in war, arguing that war has ceased, or nearly ceased, to exist. He argues that the general decline in inter-state war lies in the changing attitudes towards war. Mueller contends that up until the early 20th century, war was seen in a positive light, but European attitudes changed “profoundly” after WWI, and that shift of opinion was “dramatically reinforced” by WWII. Mueller explains the particular fall in civil wars in the 1990s as a result of improvements in governance and policing in developing countries. Thus these factors in combination explain the recent decline in all wars. Mueller rejects other alternative arguments for the decline of war, including economic interdependence and institutional incentives, on the basis of causality and questionable impact. Critics of his theories point out that the traditional “war” conception they are based on excludes any non-state warfare with under 1000 deaths, and thus explanations of the recent decline do not account for major instances of political violence such as the Rwandan Genocide. However, Mueller refutes these critiques with the view that such political violence is merely opportunistic thugs who are the ‘residual combatants’. Thus, Mueller’s claim that war has “ceased to exist” is qualified, particularly in light of political changes after the cold war.

Foreign Policy is an issue that affects most, if not all, of the people in the United States of America today. Foreign policy, for us, mainly consists of three things in our country. We work with our allies, we help those who share the same values that we hold dear to us, and we fight against terror, tyranny, and hatred among other countries, and even internally within our own. Many people have different ideas of what foreign policy is, but many can agree about the three listed above. Although, many can also agree that our ideology and our actions can be very separate from each other. Sometimes we say we do one thing, and do another thing that can be the polar opposite from the 3 values listed above,

International order, though it may be fleeting in the grand scheme of history, seems to be at least on a continuous track of lingering longer and longer each time before chaos takes over. The Persians, Greeks, and Romans all seemed to enjoy ever-increasing periods of relative peace at the top of their systems of international order before it unraveled. Most of Europe was in good order on the tail of the Industrial Revolution until some arch duke decided to vacation in Sarajevo. After each major conflict, the world re-shuffles itself and order is established again in some form or fashion. The players are bigger and more numerous with greater consequences for conflict but order is still unseated from time to time and the rules of the existing orders seem to change daily. Realism can explain this violent cycle of order and disorder. States and even non-state actors continuously seek to balance regional power in order to secure their survival in a world dominated by fear and uncertainty; if unable to balance that power through violent means, players will seek to form alliances and organizations to at least prevent domination; once a status quo has been created and survival is temporarily assured, players will seek to maintain life within that order; new members thrust the order back into violence and potentially chaos if unable or unwilling to play by those rules. This cycle of power balancing can be illustrated in three phases. International orders are created as

IGOs are voluntary associations of sovereign states established to pursue many objectives for which states want to cooperate through sort of formal structure and to which states are unable to realize by themselves (Miller, 1994). There are hundreds of IGOs in today's world which are significant in their respective fields. They are created by treaties and negotiations which mainly reflect preferences of stronger states. Especially stronger states create IGOs because they need them to protect their interests. By and large, decisions made by IGOs are the product of negotiations among the governmental representatives assigned to them. In general, it is not idealism, but the need of states which tend them to cooperate with other states in the context of IGOs. Therefore, they are part of the Westphalia state system in which IGOs are instruments of nation-states (Miller, 1994: 67). Regarding to the function and the purpose of IGOs, the influence of state as an actor in international relation still remains strong but in a different way, IGOs replace the original ideas of individual states but to identify states which have the same normative behavior and same ambitions to form a cooperate with each other so as to achieve the same goal. Even said so, powerful states are less constrained by the principle of IGOs than those who are relatively weak (Ataman, 2000: 152-167). This suggests that state is the key element in

Martin van Creveld wrote The Transformation of War book in 1991 when he detailed a predictive hypothesis about the changing character of war into what he called ?Nontrinitarian War. There were conflicts arise as intrastate wars and were not based on the simplified version of Clausewitz?s ?remarkable trinity? of government, people and military forces (Van Creveld, 1991, pg. 49). In his book, Van Creveld offers an account of warfare in the previous millennium and suggests what the future might hold. The drive was that major war was draining and the emergence of forms of war ?that are simultaneously old and new? now threatened to create havoc.

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

The international system is a self-help system; states are obliged to look after themselves, because there is no one else to look after them. Waltz does not assume that states are pursuing the increase in their power and the importance of them between others states, necessarily aggressive body, but he does believe that they desire to preserve themselves. This means that they are obliged to be considered with their security, national defence and obliged to regard other states as potential threats (Brown, 2001).