The United European Economic Community

There is an apparent trend of passivity between countries that maintain capitalistic economies and actively participate in economic relations with each other. This observation can then be mistakenly attributed to the fact that the nations are capitalist, but in this case correlation does not equal causation. The capitalist peace theory, which attempts to signal capitalism as the cause of observed peace, does not serve as a method of explaining this phenomenon because capitalist nations tend to also be powerful nations. Using a realist interpretation, powerful nations have no interest in entering war, and their interests revolve around expanding their own resources. Capitalist peace policy should especially not be pursued, because history has shown that when large nations attempt to establish large open trade deals with smaller nations, this lead to the developing nations being overpowered, and the citizenry devastated by the mass capabilities of larger countries.

The European Union (EU) is a unique economic and political partnership between 28 different countries. It consists of about half a billion citizens, and its combined economy represents about 20 percent of the world’s total economy (Briney, 2015). Today The European Union works as a single market, with free movement of people, goods and services from one country to another. There is a standard system of laws to be followed, and since 1999 many countries share a single currency called the Euro (Europa.eu, 2015). This essay will explore the background history of the European Union and the benefits and drawbacks of the European Union.

Although the world seemed at peace in the early 1900’s but world’s powerful forces were pushing Europe towards war. These forces included militarism, alliances, imperialism and nationalism.

Skidelsky questions whether the market system is favourable to harmony or total conflict, and brings up the fall of communism, and points out that the latter view was the one that reigned. Globalisation seemed to offer a unabridged answer to the main tribulations that were encountered by the international society- poverty, war and political oppression- through free trade which was seen as the ‘principle of economic growth’ (Skidelsky, 2012). Economic growth was the primary

Liberalism was previously a projection of how international relations ought to be; now, liberalism is a modern theory towards peace attained with a state’s ambition for dominance. “Self-interest” has two definitions in accordance to liberalism and realism. Liberalism considers the measure of power within states through stable economies, the possibility of peace and cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms (human rights). Realism believes states are driven by competitive self-interest; international organizations hold little to no real influence because states are self-preserved. International relations is governed by states acting in their self-interest through liberalism; states act in their self-interest by cooperating with one another through international organizations, transnational advocacy networks, and non-governmental organizations. International organizations, normative values, and terrorism are all examples of how international relations is progressing into liberalism.

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.

Liberals argue that economic cooperation leads to political cooperation. This is due to economic cooperation being able to dictate the country’s policies. This is because of the fact that the government know to be regarded as a success the economic stability of the state is one of the most important things. This leads the state into cooperating with not only transnational organizations but similarly other states in order to maximize their possible economic opportunites. A major example of economic cooperation leading to political cooperation was at the end of the Cold War whereby many former communist states saw

Liberalism thinks accumulation of military power and other powers reduces the economic efficiency. Peace is more effective than war. The following table coming from Frederic shows the specific difference between Liberalism and Mercantilism (1999).

The function of the state has seen a continuous change as the world has progressed. It stems from foraging societies that consisted of hunter gatherers, pastoral societies whose focal point was livestock and most importantly agrarian societies who farmed. The atlantic world was a point around 1450 to 1750 that experienced the most change in terms of globalization and integration of European powers into the Americas through trade, exploration, and colonization. Due to the rise in globalization states were intersecting more often on sea and on land. In order to be considered a state I believe there needs to be a foundation of borders, providing services and protection but after this the most important common feature of states in the atlantic world was interdependency. In a globalized world states cannot isolate themselves. In the film Black Robe both the French

While classical liberalism and mercantilism have fundamentally different ideological roots, both theories have profound implications beyond the international economy, creating ripples in the worldwide political and social climate. Thus, each theory needs to be evaluated to maximize the economic policy’s benefits and minimize its negative consequences. Along this line, the concept of freedom in classical liberalism offers clear benefits to market growth, yet the invisible hand does not always intervene to save these economies from the catastrophic effects of inequality and irrational human decisions. Therefore, a balance between freedom and state intervention needs to be reached. Keynesianism offers one approach to maximizing freedom, while still maintaining a safety net in terms of limited state intervention. The issue of security is relevant and important to consider within an economic system, yet the aggressive approach of malevolent intimidation demonstrates a social and political shortcoming within the mercantilist theory. Ultimately, in order to address the issues of inequality, imperialism, and violence within our international community, we have to start by understanding the impact of our globalized economic policies. Once we do this, we can start to move towards a more peaceful, equal, and flourishing society.

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

In this essay the conservative theories of Realism and Liberalism will be compared and contrasted in connection with the study of International Relations. Post World War I International Relations was established as a formal discipline with the eructation of the Woodrow Wilson Chair at the University of Wales, given the worldwide urgency to create international order and stability in the wake of the war. Realist in International Relations view human nature and the states behaviour practically and truthfully, adopting a matter-of-fact attitude instead of visualising how the political institutions ought to function. Liberalists

State is commonly referred to either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity, such as a nation or a province. The state itself consists of the society, government as well as the people living there. Before the Second World War, State is often seen as the main actor in international Relations as it can declare states of wars, control most of the economic influence within the region and larger states often dominant the role of international relations within the region or even in the globe. However, after the Second World War, the impacts on state influence as an actor has become less important than before, regarding to this point, there is

Previously, I perceived our opponents to be the “bad guys” and the United States to be the heroes that were helping people around the world. While this may be true in some applications, I’m no longer naïve to the fact that the U.S. isn’t handing out millions of dollars in economic interest simply because it’s the right thing to do. Rather, I believe that most military conflicts the U.S. has engaged in over the last century, as well as the current battles in Syria and throughout the Middle East, stem principally from economic motivations. While I’m undecided in the political debate that exists between political parties over the term imperialism itself, I’ve become keenly aware of how much of our country’s foreign policy is driven by the economic needs of its citizens. The profound change I’ve experienced is in remaining mindful as to the influence on foreign policy that receptive markets and favorable political conditions in countries throughout the world has.

The integration of independent states through organizations such as the United Nations, the EU and NATO have