The Theory Of The International System

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

Realists’ belief that, “war is unavoidable and natural part of world affairs.” According to Bova, there are over 200 sovereign states, and they all interest to gain power to defend themselves. As a result, state’s feeling of insecurity causes it to take any means to feel secure whether it is through the formation of ally with another powerful state or accumulation of military and economic power. Such action threatens other states provoke them take similar actions. This cycle applies to all states, and the feeling of threat and desire to survive is innate in humans In understanding International Relations, McNamara’s lesson is useful in the regards that actions that state takes to protect itself causes the complexity and conflicts of foreign policies that human beings are incapable of

In studying International Relations, I have realized that, the nature of International politics can be likened to anarchy. This is because in International relations there seems to be no supreme or overriding authority which establishes and maintains rules or laws in international affairs. All States appear to behave in their own interests.

Realism is a theory that depicts world politics as a ceaseless repetitive struggle for power. In other words, political realism seeks to explain international relations between states in terms of power. Realist “views that nation-state as the most important actor…because it answers to no higher authority;” in other words, it is an anarchic system (Kegley, 27). Some traits of realism are that states are sovereign, non-cooperation among states, and the exclusion if morality in policies.

The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.

Secondly, the motivation for war in pursuit of honor was alleviated through the formalization of international diplomacy and the evolution of beliefs about human rights. Lastly, we reviewed how the pursuit of self-interests, specifically security and resources, continues to serve a motivator for conflict, but primarily between those states operating outside of the current international order. So what are the implications of this argument for the future? The way in which we choose to manage the self-interests of states is of utmost importance. There is either the potential to reduce self-interests as a motivator for war, or the potential to erode the previous reduction of fear as a motivator. The current international order has prevented great-power war for over 70 years. There have been conflicts motivated by self-interests, but they pale in comparison to the death and destruction of the world wars. As threats to security arise and resources are restrained, states have the option to work within the system to meet them or pursue them by other

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

War has been one of the major features of the twentieth century. An extensive percentage of people have been participants or victims of the interstate or civil wars. Nowadays wars still exist and large populations suffer from it. The book Why Nations Fight by Richard Ned Lebow analyzes war in the past and the motives for war in the future. This book is extremely interesting to me, because of the current civil war in Ukraine that has been going on for almost 2 years. Lebow uses different scholarly references and shows that civil wars have been in a sharp decline after the Cold War, however some of the most violent civil wars were sparked after the collapse of the USSR (like in case of Ukraine). In this paper I am going to discuss the critical analysis of the book and the constructivist argument of the factors that influence the international behavior.

In contrast, Kagan states, “Great powers, on the other hand, often fear rules that may constrain them more than they do anarchy. In an anarchic world, they rely on their power to provide security and prosperity” (p.38). “Great powers” are referred to the United States, which has the hegemonic power in the military. Viewing the international system as anarchical is from the realist perspective, as Mearsheimer states. It also indicates that the international institutions are almost impossible, as the states aim to increase their military forces which decreases the transparency and faith between the states (Mearsheimer, 1994, p.9-11).

In accordance with the in-class simulations, an international system includes individuals from different countries. These countries can be called states if they are connected by an organized structure of people, leaders or “government” in those particular countries. In accordance with K.J. Holsti’s article, international systems are “independent political entities that interact with frequency and according to regularized processes”. In other words, international systems represent patterns of interactions between the countries and government structures of power and influence to reach countries’ goals. Polarity, in a generic international system, is the amount of power allotted to each country in an alliance or international organization. An alliance uses defense mechanisms for security purposes and uses force to gain power or influence over another country or group of people. An international organization includes people of a particular country that gets together with other countries to discusses issues related to international laws and legal personalities. Legal personalities express about a country’s rights or lack thereof. An international organization essentially establishes a team of countries working together towards an intended goal. There are three types of international systems: a unipolar system, a bipolar system, and a multipolar system. A unipolar system includes a country that has acquired twice as many power distribution units or more

Realism, winning the first great debate in the 1930’s has been the dominant theory in International Relations since its beginning. Realist argues that we should take the world as it really is rather that what we perceive to be idealistic. Realism holds that the state is its key component and that as an academic theory; it exists with the sole purpose of providing the science of international politics that could study the real laws and behaviours of mankind. The central idea of this theory is one of power and security, premised on the grounds that power play and violent resolutions are simply inevitable. Realism connotes independence through power for the greater good of national interest above human interest that justifies its reasoning for

According to the neo realism, the international system is structured by ‘anarchy’, in contrast to domestic structure that is structured by ‘hierarchy’. The anarchy this term does not mean chaos or disorder, but it means the absence of the world government or higher authority above the states that provides security and stability and rule of law. This structure is the outcome of the sovereignty of the states, as the unites of the international system are the states, and they are equals. This concept of the anarchy has its roots in Thomas Hobbes` arguments about the individual in the state of nature, which means the people `s life in a condition without government. In the state of nature, people will struggle for resources and they rationally plan to hit first as an anticipatory defense because they fear that others invade them. Neo- realism consider that Anarchism of the international system is permanent and stable

Realism is one of the main theories within International Relations. It provides the view that all actors within the international system act on their own self-interests to gain power. This essay intends to discuss its usefulness as a theory and the reasons for and against it being used to analyse world affairs. Firstly, it shall discuss how the theory is advantageous as it explains how shifts in the balance of power can lead to conflict however it is unable to explain why the distribution of power changes. Second, it will portray how it is useful because states do not need to be labelled as good or bad to fit the theory although it disregards the idea of Natural law and gives a cynical view of human morality. Finally, it will suggest that as the theory is very parsimonious, it can be applied to multiple situations within the world system. On the other hand, it will be said that it fails to look at individuals within a state and their influence on the actions of the state. These costs and benefits will be conveyed through the current tensions between the USA and North Korea to link the theory in with current world politics.

For example, although there is consensus that the international system is structured anarchically, neo-realists and neoliberals hold differing views on the nature of anarchy: the former argues that anarchy is all-encompassing whereas the latter contends that anarchy can be weak or strong. Furthermore, neo-realists think that international cooperation is much harder to achieve than neoliberals do. What is more, they see institutions as unable to mitigate international anarchy, while neoliberals doubt this. All of the aforementioned differences will be sequentially elaborated on throughout this essay.

The theories of international relations are the end results of good international relations and system in the world today, most of this theories are not well implemented in most countries which has resulted on conflicts among nations, political instabilities, secessions and all other political unrest.