The Un And The Eu Using Rationalist Approach Essay

The realist theory has developed as a theory of state autonomy, emphasizing individual state survival, as a consequence of the perceptions of theorists about the nature of states and progress in the global system. Robert Powell define this perception, reasoning that “if one state can turn a relative gain to its advantage and the disadvantage of others, then [the system’s constraints] will induce a concern for the relative gains and this may impede cooperation absent any superior authority to ensure that these gains not be used in this way” (Powell qtd. Ordershook 213). This emphasizes the concept that states are chiefly concerned with the relative gains that they are capable of achieving, and [states] are acutely aware that other states intend to take advantage of any relative gain that they are capable of achieving in order to further protect their security and sovereignty.

While classical realists recognize that states exist in an anarchical “self-help” system where they must rely on power to protect and control their existence it is there that they suddenly divorce the state from its domestic civil society as well as any other international actors aside from other nation states proclaiming autonomy in their own political realms. This is in order to “recognize and pursue the interests of the nation [state] as a whole, and not those of particular powerful groups within the community…”. (Grieco, 1997) This comes as no surprise so long as we recall that states are and will always be obsessed with their own national security, their ability to be able to protect and at best advance themselves in whatever capability possible which means having the choice and independent

Chandler argues that the invasion and occupation of Iraq highlighted the dynamic behind the concept of R2P. He states that the R2P that emerged in the period after the Iraq invasion reflected more intensely the crisis that that emerged within the ICISS report giving Western governments some form of authority and confidence. He argues that the ICISS report aimed to restore confidence to the UN however it just made R2P appear not as a ‘non-bureaucratic ’ and a non-legalistic’ justification for intervention. There is currently a focus on 'good governance' as a form of prevention and also on institutional reform to take the emphasis away vast transformations of the potential vision of social, economic and political change. Thus it is seen that, Western powers appear to be weak to influence events. Moreover, any form of responsibility is killed once there is an understanding that these 'mass atrocities' are created under the structure of institutional frameworks. “The blame for recurring crises is located narrowly at the level of post-colonial state societies and political elites, rather than in any policy interventions (intended or unintended) by external actors.” (Chandler: 2009, 30)

There are many theoretical perspectives used when examining the international political system. In this paper I will explain two of the most important: liberalism and realism. Though they are both strong theories, liberalism is best when it comes to explaining international politics. Liberalism better examines all of the influence that impact the decisions made within the international system and better represents the emotions and personal agendas of the state. Liberalism can be considered a combination of constructivism and realism.It takes democracy into account and examines the dynamics through all 3 levels of analysis. The downfall of liberalism is it feels like a westernized approach to international politics, so it might hurt a less

Firstly, the theory of realism called for overcoming differences among nations through the international rule of law. The most prominent representatives of this trend, such as Morgenthau, considered that the international system is by nature chaotic and driven by a single law (Schuett, 2011). Realism has interests and is supported by historians. However, the theory suffers from uncertainty because it lacks universally supported definitions for example “power”, and it assumes that state officials act for national interests in accordance with the interests of power; if this is true, this

Realism has been the dominant political theory in International Relations for many years. The theory of Realism can date back to almost fifth-century B.C. But Political Realism, and the way we use the theory today was conceived in the 1940’s by Hans Morgenthau who was influenced by the works of Niccolo Machiavelli. In Morgenthau’s works such as Magnum Opus and Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau structured an account of Political Realism that has dominated international studies often referred to today as Classical Realism. Realism is an extremely pessimistic theory that believes that we should see the world for how it is and not how we wish it would be. For this reason Realists must make many assumptions about human nature and make objective laws centered around these assumptions. They must also focus on the notion that states are the primary actors in international affairs and there main goal is maintaining power and security. It also stresses the rational, objective and unemotional realities that come with state decision making. Because of its prominence, several subtheories within Realism have emerged. Classical Realists like Thomas Hobbes, Hans Morgenthau and Nicolo Machiavelli believe in the same basic principles as neorealist realists like Kenneth Waltz, but they still differ in several ways.

Meanwhile in realism, for which international relations are driven by the states’ security and material interests defined in terms of

The study of international relations rests on the premise that there is always a sensible way of explaining a nation’s grand strategy, for they would not survive otherwise. From the Classical Period to the Middle Ages, from the Renaissance to the twenty-first century, historians, statesman, and political theorists have attempted to provide reason and understanding behind the decisions made by nation-states. More often than not, whether through realism or liberalism, through social constructivism or even Marxism, the theories of international relations have been able to define the guidelines for decision-making. Yet, there are times when those choices are rather questionable, and a new explanation may be called for, one that

Kenneth Waltz’s key argument is that states have little choice but to compete with each other for power as there exists no higher authority that they can turn to in times of crisis. After all, stronger states are less likely to be attacked than weaker states. Therefore, to survive, their main goal should be to ensure that other states do not gain power at their expense. Waltz emphasizes that “the first concern of states is not to maximize power, but to maintain their positions in the system.” Neo-realism’s principal departure from classical realism is the “idea that international politics can be thought of as a system with a precisely defined structure.” It also breaks with classical realism

Question: Critically discuss an international crisis in the post-cold war era, by investigating its dynamics and the motivations of the main actors involved, from a Realist IR perspective.

3. No concrete reforms have taken place to remedy the lack of transparency in the oil revenues of Chad.

This supports realist 's argument that international law simply is a tool for the power and that it represents the global balance of power. States are not influenced by constraining of international laws. States only create laws that are the ones they will enforce, rather, the underlying motivation for a state is their own self-interest and power relations.

The focus of analysis in realism is the struggle for power among states in an anarchic international system. Realists view states as dominant actors. These states are insecure, selfish, unitary, and rational in the sense that they make decisions in an organized manner that will produce the greatest utility. The states are always looking out for their own national interests and are naturally antagonistic against other states. Because realists are only concerned with the survival of the state in an anarchic international system, the most important goal of the state is to enhance their power to ensure security. The security dilemma, power politics, anarchy, and the self-help system all characterize the realist perspective.

While the concept of over-compliance at face value may seem diametrically opposed to most conversations regarding state behavior in IOs, this paper will argue that over-compliance is neither a rare nor a relatively unique occurrence. Therefore, its absence in the larger compliance literature is noticeably conspicuous. One possible explanation for this lack of compliance studies examining why states might elect to surpass minimum standards stems from the dominance of rationalist institutionalist explanations for the role, impact, and importance of IOs (see Abbott & Snidal, 1998; Farrell & Héritier, 2005) From the rationalist institutionalist viewpoint, compliance is based on cost-benefit calculations weighing the potential benefits and costs of adhering to international requirements (Zurn & Joerges, 2011). Thus, a rationalist institutionalist might argue that a state’s compliance with

When extended to the state level, this concept of forcefully acquiring goods and land leads to vicious wars at the expense of a meaningful life for the persons living in the conflicting states. Human rights and social justice are ignored, and in these states there is “no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; … And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” During wartime, a state is only concerned with the concept of winning or ensuring that the opposing side does not win. Life within the state is no longer worth living considering the people’s interests are not being represented. Competition for things without laws or control creates an environment of free will in which the stakes are continually raised higher until there is nothing left of the state to exist; therefore, an overarching power of law such as a sovereign must be put into effect to manifest the significance of defining what is right versus wrong.