The Levels Of Analysis Model

Although the indications were present well before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world was not completely ready for the end of the Cold War. The US was left alone without any major balancing opponents. Furthermore, after the dissolution of the Soviets the numbers of newly established independent states have increased significantly. All these new states were lacking of self-governing capabilities and also the Western vision, which was the victorious ideology of the Cold war. Moreover, some

In summary, the author, James Rosenau, suggests that the world has changed from the previous Cold War era. There is no longer a threat of nuclear holocaust that was so prevalent in previous years. Rosenau suggests, “the global economy may have replaced the battlefield as the site of competition among international actors…the emergent global order will be relatively free of strategic underpinnings.” Governance for Rosenau is supposed to be more informal, varied, and elaborate than that of the Cold War period. People have become smarter, technology has spread, and there is a greater involvement of citizens. As shown through the absence of a hegemon, and centralizing- decentralizing tensions, power is shifting in international affairs. Issues

The United States developed into a world super power following World War II. Many of the Allies were deeply affected by the war financially and were struggling, thus leaving a vacuum that needed to be filled. The United States was thrust into the position of “policing” and assisting nations around the world. The Cold War was in many ways a psychological illusion however there were many factors that led to this illusion which were well founded. The Cold War stemmed from a multitude of factors, the difficult war against Nazi’s and Japan, Stalin behaviors were not trustworthy, Berlin blockade, Poland puppet government, the fall of China, the build up of arms and the birth nuclear weapons all fed fear-based anti-communist policies. In

The collapse of the communist Soviet Union ultimately led to the end of the cold war. The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 left the United States as the sole superpower. Thus highlighting the inferiority of communism and the superiority of western capitalism. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, however, was a result of both domestic and international factors including policies established by both the US and the Soviet leaders, most importantly Gorbachev’s ‘New Thinking’ reforms combined with the hard-line approach of Ronald Reagan. It has also been argued that the collapse of communism in eastern Europe was inevitable due to its moral bankruptcy, as well as the growing economic pressures which ultimately forced the Soviet Union to

After WWII, the USA and the Soviet Union faced a conflict as they competed for global power. Neighboring countries, like Afghanistan, were dragged into the conflict causing millions of people to die. Due in part to the high cost of waging this war the Soviet Union fell only four years after the conflict.

There are quite a few numbers of influences involved in international relation that contribute to the

In December of 1991, the Soviet Union separated into fifteen distinctive countries. Its collapse was enthusiastically greeted by the west as a triumph for freedom. This is a victory of democracy over totalitarianism. The US celebrated as its dreadful enemy defeated, thereafter ending the Cold War, which had fought between two superpowers, America and Soviet Union, since the end of World War II. Cory Booker says, “If you look at great human civilizations, from the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union, you will see that most do not fail simply due to external threats but because of internal weakness, corruption, or a failure to manifest the values and ideals they espouse”. In reality, the disintegration of the Soviet Union

Stephanie Liang WR98 C1 Prof.Michaud Essay 1-Final states”(103). Had he not used these constructions and instead stopped at “drama”, the readers would not be able to understand the various relationships during Cold War. These succinct constructions allow a straight-forward understanding of the essay and help gain readers’ agreement. In addition of short phrases, the author contrasts the global atmosphere during Cold War period to that at present in separate paragraphs but with highly identical structures. For example, he utilizes the features of “division” and “wall” (102) to serve as a foil to the “integration” and “web” (102) concepts of globalization system by including detailed description of the better-being in the latter system, and in doing so, makes it obvious to readers that two systems possess different nature and that the new one is favored. Another structure technique Friedman uses is parallelism, which illustrates the divergent communication phenomena of two systems: “In the cold war we reached for the hotline, which was a symbol that we were all divided but at least two people were in charge…In the globalization system we reach for the Internet, which is a symbol that we are all connected and nobody is quite in charge” (103). This equal paragraph distribution of two discussed subjects enables readers to

Systems are comprised of different actors (states or governments), which interact in a way that can be characterized as a whole. Certain actors in these systems can develop economically and militarily. The actors may be categorized under multipolar, bipolar or unipolar systems. Multipolarity presents itself as multiple countries, typically 3 or more, which have comparable amount of military and economic power. Bipolarity occurs when two countries have equal economic and military capabilities. Unipolarity exists when one powerful entity dominates the rest. The stability of these systems may depend on the category of polarity. A system is considered stable when no more than 10% of a state’s power is reduced after a war. Looking at Chinese/Greek

While these two theories are not alone in the domestic level of analysis, they are the most comprehensive. The next-best level of analysis would be the systemic level. According to Copeland, the systemic level of analysis is the, “external situational factors inherently outside of the executive and/or state,” (Copeland Lecture). These external factors can take numerous forms, such as the distribution and trend of power or the perception of offense or defense dominance. The various facets of game theory also deal with the systemic level, as strategic interaction within a system. Systems can be unipolar, with one hegemonic power, bipolar, with two hegemonic powers, or multipolar, with numerous powers in a given system. As with the other levels of analysis, there are numerous theories within the level, such as the cult of the offensive or dynamic differentials theory. Cult of the offensive refers to the belief of the states in a system that offensive policies are stronger and superior to defensive policies (van Evera 58). Dynamic differentials theory draws on the trends in the balance of power in a system, where the declining power recognizes that not only are they declining, but that another state is rising, so the declining dominant state initiates preventive war in order to try and prevent the other power from overtaking them (Copeland Lecture). Both of these theories, as well as much of this level of analysis deal with the security dilemma.

The next category is the nation public law- which involves the judicial process, civil rights, liberties and the importance of such terms as equal opportunity and due process in the United States. The following category is Comparative government which raises the same questions of politics, administration and law about other countries. Moreover, it also moves towards conclusion based on comparison between them. Finally, International politics deals with relations between the states and other international actors, such as multinational corporations, the United Nations and with the fundamental realities of power based on resources, wealth, military care and national security. All these may directly and indirectly affect our lives as citizens.

Thus the first step in achieving a paradigm, he states Chase Dunn's suggestion that the empirical denominations of the world system theory's assumptions must be developed. Hall emphasizes other points that should be incorporated in a new methodology, which are not already present to the world systems theory by Wallenstein. One aspect is that each of system's units works in relation to the whole system; they do not develop on their own. Another is that each system is a world within itself; that its internal factors are just as important in its progress as the external factors affecting it. Other points that must be realized to achieve better understanding of past political social interaction, is to learn the positive aspects of expansion and incorporation and the role of peripheral and semi peripheral states, as well as the ramifications of incorporation on the system.

“One primary reason is that the trust created by hard work and mutual effort in ending the Cold War has collapsed and without such a trust the international relations in today’s globalized world are inconceivable”. (Gorbachev) As the last leader of Soviet Union Gorbachev gives us his point of view of what the end of the Cold War supposed to bring, it was just simple as we think a safer world order by building new European Security Institutions but he thinks that instead of this the West – particularly the US- declared victory by letting the euphoria and triumphalism take the Western leaders heads. “Taking advantage of the Russia’s weaknesses and the lack of a counterweight, the West refused to heed warnings agonist claiming a monopoly on global leadership”. (Gorbachev)

Stephen D. Krasner, defined International Regimes as “Implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations.” International regimes have the ability to change the nature of state interactions as well as providing solutions to intra-state wars. An international regimes ability to do this varies based on several different factors. These factors are influenced by the regimes foreign policy and their standing in the international community, as well as binding international treaties, such as NATO and the EU. A regimes military strength can also play a role in their ability to influence their ability to change the nature of states’ interactions, as well as provide a solution to intra-state wars. The United Nations (UN) also plays a crucial role in the communication between states. The most powerful nations within the UN arguably have the greater capacity to command a strong global presence and have greater ability to interact and affect outcomes in intra-state wars.

International security studies offer several concepts to facilitate comprehension of the complex international order. Transnational identities, balance of power and international institutions and law are the most applicable concepts to describe the international security system. They best reflect the thinking of political leaders even in contrary forms of governments in different parts of the world, in sum, they consider the most dominant paradigms in the study of world politics and they supplement each other in executing a variegated set of policies. This essay will discuss those concepts following their related main actors from individuals via states to international organizations. Each paragraph gives a short characterization of the respective concept, links it with the most appropriate paradigm and shows the application of the concept in both democratic and more autocratic states while referencing the other concepts.