The Pros And Cons Of Neorealism

The international system is anarchic. It is very important to notice that anarchy, according to Mearsheimer, does not mean chaos or disorder, but absence of centralized authority, that stands above states and protects

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.

During ISIS’s rise to power, there have been several key players, which have influenced the growth or decline of its movement. The center of Gravity (COG) for ISIS has been its ability to recruit volunteer foreign fighters from around to engage in its caliphate. In addition, local people from Iraqi, Syrian, and other Nations have been key players because of ISIS’s efforts promote fear and violence against their family or communities. Sunnis and Shia countries focused on regional power and security. Furthermore, the U.S. and its 70 Allies through Operation Inherent Resolve Campaign aim to defeat ISIS and promoting regional stability. The last key players are rival terrorist franchises or organizations like AQ, Taliban, Al Shabaab, and Hamas

Neorealism relates to European integration most specifically in terms of the aforementioned balance of power. Nations tend to balance among dominant powers rather than ally with them because they “fear that the powerful ally of today could become the menacing rival of tomorrow” (Collard-Wexler, 2006). This balance, however, should not be confused with cooperation because

Terrorism is a massive problem--everybody realizes that. Regardless of origin, culture, country, or political standpoint, every sane person understands that terrorism is something that is still relatively prevalent in the world, and something needs to be done about it. The problem, however, is that there is no easy solution. The United States tends to take overbearing control and responsibility for all terrorist threats, groups, and attacks, but this is simply not reasonable. Although we cannot expect every country to take initiative against terrorist threats like ISIS, sustained international coordination is necessary to effectively confront transnational terrorist groups (Shirkey). This way, the US can begin taking care of themselves and their own country, as they still have many issues that have yet to be solved. While working together is important, though, it is not the key to solving the problem. What we must do in addition is investigate and address the root causes of terrorism, and analyse them in detail in order to best combat terrorist groups at their roots.

With the emergence of the 21st century the necessity for a broader understanding of security have said present. The world has experienced a variety of new security challenges that have put at stake human safety and have made policymakers all around the world rethink their approach and strategies when it comes to the decision making process. The rise of terrorist organizations in the international arena as well as the development of extremist groups has offered extreme significance to the quest for power and the search for peace, while requiring us to look back and examine our achievements and failures in the analysis of terrorism, extremist groups and our counterterrorism efforts since 9/11. It is essential for all Americans to understand

In this paper, the principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity will be defined and discussed in relation to the event of 9/11. As well as, the legal constraints that are associated with the conduct of hostilities under the new conditions imposed. The term “terrorism” and “terrorist” were included following the events of 9/11, identifying a new type of enemy. Narratives of who the enemy was changed towards individuals who were or seemed like a Muslim. Muslims were perceived as the new enemy. This subsequently led to major legal constraints such as

Planning is defined as choosing a goal and developing a strategy to attain that goal.

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

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

Compare and contrast Realism and Liberalism as theories used in the study of International Relations

In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst

Planning enables decision-making as it involves a choice among alternative courses of action, evaluating it and then selecting the best course of action.

According to Jackson and Sorensen (2003), the leading contemporary neorealist thinker is undoubtedly Kenneth Waltz (1979). His starting point is taken from some elements of classical and neoclassical, such as independent state existing and performing in an anarchical international system. Waltz’s Theory of international Politics (1979) seeks to provide a scientific explanation of the international political system. A scientific theory of international relations leads us to expect the certain pattern that states to behave in predictable ways. In Waltz’s view the

Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism, two of the most influential contemporary approaches to international relations, although similar in some respects, differ multitudinously. Thus, this essay will argue it is inaccurate to claim that Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism have far more similarities than differences. By contrast, it will contend that there are in fact more of the latter than there are of the former, on issues such as the nature and consequences of anarchy, the achievement of international cooperation, and the role of international institutions. Moreover, it will be structured in such a way so as to corroborate this line of argument. In practice, that is to say, this essay will first of all define what is meant by Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism.