The Merits Of Liberal And Realist Arguments

The UNFCCC is working with the various governments around the world to stabilize the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere to keep the planet from warming more than 2ºC above pre-industrial temperatures (Watts, 2015). The most noted of the work is the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings that began with COP1 in Berlin back in 1995. The COP3 adopted the Kyoto Protocol, even though it wasn’t fully accepted by all member nations. The COP21 was an effort to legally bind members to their submitted plans of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), defining what level of greenhouse gas production each nation would commit to not exceeding from 2025-2030. Prior to the INDCs, a bleak outlook was forecast in 2009-2010 of global temperature rising between 4-5ºC. That figure was restated by the UNFCCC prior to the COP21 in Paris, to below 3ºC, due to the commitments of the INDCs (Watts, 2015).

For a while now I have seen myself as citizen of a global community that begins in Australia but is reflective of, and permeable to the influence of outside cultures. There is little doubt that English speaking countries have more influence on Australians like me, however as LDC’s (lower developed countries) technologically advance, interactions and familiarity with outside cultures will instill confidence in the world’s people, ultimately leading to a global civil society (Rourke 2012) – at least that is what the idealist in me believes. Throughout this unit I have been able to identify with liberalism and determine where I sit on the realism verses idealism spectrum. In Liberalisms Inevitability, Jeff Manza writes “… Liberals do not understand

The Paris agreement is effective because it ensures that countries are making a solid effort to prevent temperatures from rising. As one of the most powerful countries in the world, it should be our duty to take the lead in making our Earth a better place. 68% of Democrats strongly believe that the government should regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars, and factories in an effort to reduce global warming, compared to only 28% of Republicans (Washington Post 2017). The data show that Democrats have made reducing global warming a stronger priority than Republicans have. “The best science tells us that without ambitious, immediate action across our economy to cut carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases, all of these impacts will be far worse in the future (Democrats.org 2017)”. The majority of Democrats look to scientific facts that show that we have no time to waste for stopping climate change. Republicans believe that “information concerning a climate change, especially projections in the long-range future must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data” (Republican Platform 2017). They don’t have the same urgency to take action to prevent climate change that is necessary.

It requires all parties to put their best efforts and requirements to report emissions on a regular basis. Every 5 years, there will be a global stock take to assess the progress toward achieving the purpose of the Agreement (UNFCCC- The Paris Agreement, 2018). A climate change conference where leaders all over the world came together to address climate change, have a goal to deliver action by 2020. In order to be successful, participating countries must make enough provisions to develop financial and technological support to help developing countries. The Marrakech partnership for good clime change action provides agreed outcomes in Paris, by providing a detailed structure to help speed up and get rid of gas emissions, scale down the pace of climate action among parties and non-parties steak holders in all parts of the world. Each year the action plan will continue to evolve as progress is made and new challenges and opportunities arise. The Paris agreement requires all parties to forward their effects nationally determined contributions. This includes regular reports on emissions and plans to success. As all parties have agreed to work together during the time frame 2017-2020, there has been current progeress to minimizing emissions (UNFCCC- Marrakech partnership for global climate action,

“Scientists have been warning about global warming for decades. It's too late to stop it now, but we can lessen its severity and impacts” - David Suzuki. Global warming, a primary topic of debate in various conversations throughout all levels of government, has been an issue for countless years. In fact, of the 134 years recorded, the 10 warmest years have all occurred “since 2000, with the exception of 1998 “(NASA). Solving a global issue such as this is not as easy as it may seem; however ,The Paris Agreement vows to do just that by setting a plan to limit global warming to well below 2°C in “the first-ever universal, legally binding global climate deal” (Europa). Before signing off on such an agreement one must analyze the many negatives

These last two election cycles have demonstrated the importance of climate change in relation to politics and the american people. What is unfortunate is that what seems to be a very crucial and real problem in our human survival, according to scientists, is being debated by people who do not have the scientific credentials to even discuss the science behind the reality of climate change. Those behind the skeptics, have funded a successful campaign against the reality of the facts and have introduce doubt into the sciences.

(Scientists say we must stay below a two-degree increase to avoid catastrophic climate impacts.) To help make the deal happen, the Obama administration pledged $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund, an international organization dedicated to helping poor countries adopt cleaner energy technologies. Under the terms of the Paris agreement, participating nations will meet every five years, starting in 2020, to revise their plans for cutting CO2 emissions. Beginning in 2023, they will also have to publicly report their progress (© Natural Resources Defense Council 2017).

Realism and Liberalism are two extremely prominent theories of international relations. These doctrines exhibit sagacious perceptions about war, foreign affairs and domestic relations. The fundamental principles of protocol in which we rely upon aren’t always apprehensive (Karle, Warren, 2003). By interpreting the data one could fathom these ideas. The assessment of these faculties wield noteworthy dominance about the concepts of international affairs. In analyzing this data, you will comprehend the variant relationship between Realism and Liberalism.

Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the

Liberalism is an international-relations theory that relies heavily on interdependence among many different actors within our international system. Individuals, nongovernmental groups, international organizations all hold roles that are pivotal to international-relations (Arreguin-Toft and Mignst 88). Liberals believe that people are inherently “good”; they are rational and can make the correct choices to move society towards progress. However, it is crucial to the international system that all actors work together to build an efficient, sustainable society. Liberals believe that working under one international system would aid in the construction of appropriate social institutions to neutralize threats to the common good (83-84). Almost 200 countries signed the Paris Climate agreement to aid in the globe’s fight in preventing temperatures from increasing to 1.5 degrees Celsius from where they were before 1950. Though many countries signed it, only 164 fully accepted the terms.

Realism and Liberalism is one of the most important theoretical approaches to the study of international studies. As for realism, it has been argue that realism is not just a simple perspective, as it is actually a complex area of debate rather than just single specific of point. In Realism, we can identify such classic and specific versions, some realist who call themselves as neo-realist or structural realist, and so on. As for Liberalism, its history goes back to when the scholars tried to come up with a new theory that could end the despair of the First World War. Liberalism starts to take up the world politics after the fall of Idealism after the Second World War as they have more pessimistic view of the world politics. Both of these theories

Liberalism is another concept that has significant arguments regarding international relations. Liberal economics have determined the shape of the monetary system and support the concept of open markets, where individuals have the freedom to engage in commerce. Unlike realists, liberals oppose mercantilism and the zero-sum game much like the countries in NAFTA. This disagreement is the cause of many disagreements during the NAFTA negotiations. If countries are able to work together and trust one another to attain power, conflict is less likely to occur and overall economic wealth for countries can be gained. Through free trade, the goal is to have a decreased amount of wasted resources on inefficient production because the more individuals that engage in this collective use of resources the more likely the system would become efficient and acquire heightened economic gains such as wealth. ) Finally, there is the liberal institutionalism perspective which approves of regimes and international organizations. Utilizing these rules through rapid growth of regimes, regulate economic affairs, determine which activities are allowed and disallowed, and assure that

There needs to be integration on all levels of society and among the various stakeholders in order to have any hope of restricting warming to 1.5-2 degrees Celsius, therefor limiting the disastrous potential impacts. This report will detail and inventory some of the most ambitious climate action plans and applied policies from a selection of the most influential and innovative cities, businesses, and universities in the world. Data collected from policies around the world as well as emissions targets relay the actions already in place. Additionally, an analysis of the methods within California and Sweden in terms of GHG emissions, reductions targets and

Among the main goals of the Paris Agreement is to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels” (Paris Agreement, 2015). That is, countries involved in the agreement are expected to implement measures that

In order to contextualise the similarities and differences between Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism, it is necessary to define these key terms and elaborate on where they came from. The former, otherwise known as structural realism, is a brand of realism. Realism is a broad school of thought, developed during the early Cold War and interwar years, that sets out a series of tenets which attempt to explain why the world is the way it is. Hence, it revolves around the