The World Of International Relations

Over time the United States has had many different presidents, each serving one or two terms in office and that same tradition still continues today. Once elected the president spends the majority of his time in the White House with his family while serving the people of his country, and when his presidency is over, he goes back to living his normal life. While in office presidents deal with more than their share of problems and conflicts of interest whether they are domestic or international. To alleviate these situations, the president with the help of his administration comes up with solutions for these problems whether they are deals, treaties, or presidential doctrines. Presidents create presidential doctrines because of the conflicts of interest that arise, relationships that exist among each other, and provide the solution to the conflict.

This war, which lasted for four years instead of its intended four months, marks a paradigm shift in the concept of warfare. Benefiting from the Industrial Revolution, this conflict was to shape the following century. Interestingly enough, this clash of super nations was expected to be “The War to End all Wars.” These nations believed that war was inevitable for the prosperity of Europe and the world. However, from a contemporary perspective, this is erroneous. The changing of warfare, the Treaty of Versailles and the reluctance of many nations, made it impossible for

The President of the United States has the most scrutinized and profiled job in the world. He is under constant media and public scrutiny as well as international scrutiny. His job responsibilities are numerous from setting the budget of the U.S. government to being Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces. While his domestic responsibilities are certainly important in his job description it can be argued that his foreign policy responsibilities are even more important. The United States sets an awesome precedent in international relations and can sometimes be the difference between growth and regression or war and peace. While the country itself sets the standard, the President and his administration are the face of that standard. Not all foreign policy is going to go the United States way however as there have been times that presidents have been duped so to speak or just handled the situation poorly over all the examples being Jimmy Carter and the Iranian hostage crisis and more recently President Obama and Vladimir Putin in Russia over the issue in the Ukraine.

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.

The study of international relations pertains to the understanding of the rules of engagement between the sovereign states. This study falls under the domain of political science and international law studies. Based on the study of international relations, an individual gets an insight into the foreign policies of a government, the political dynamics that are prevalent in a region and overall global events awareness. It also enables understanding the entities of intergovernmental organizations. Understanding of the international relations also pertains to comprehending the level of declared and vested interests possessed by different states in the course of interaction with other nations. Study of international relationship also pertains to finding amicable means towards the resolution of the problems faced through diplomatic engagement of the parties (Wilkinson 2007).

A transformed Middle East has shaken traditional relationships with former allies. Indeed, there was a time when Washington coordinated effectively with leaders like the monarchs Hussein, Hassan and Abdullah; or Sadat, Mubarak, even Arafat, who could deliver their constituencies and act on the Arab stage. No longer. The rise of Iran, largely as a result of the Arab world’s melt­down and the U.S.­Iran nuclear agreement, has strained relations further. And if America lacks partners on whom it can rely, how in essence can it manage problems effectively, let alone lead to resolve them? A transformed Middle East has shaken traditional relationships with former allies. Indeed, there was a time when Washington coordinated effectively with leaders like the monarchs Hussein, Hassan and Abdullah; or Sadat, Mubarak, even Arafat, who could deliver their constituencies and act on the Arab stage. No longer. The rise of Iran, largely as a result of the Arab world’s melt­down and the U.S.­Iran nuclear agreement, has strained relations further.

As such many groups have attached themselves to one side or another claiming to fight for or represent them. The United States in particular has been a target of many groups in the Middle east. The United States involvement in the Middle east to many seems like a continuation of the western involvement into the area after WWI. This involvement as created a resistance to American occupation with the term “Islam is under attack”, becoming a religious call to arms. As such groups like Al Qaeda have attacked Americans and have ultimately changed the world after September 11, 2001. This attack undoubtedly highlights the global and international concern directed towards the area, as this attack initiated America’s global war on terror. This war led to heavy U.S. involvement in the Middle East with the toppling of government in Iraq, which arguably lead to the creating of the Islamic State or I.S.I.S. Consequently, the issues, conflicts, and violence of the, Middle East has always been an international concern and will remain until, the social, cultural and territorial boundaries of the area are

Although the United States remains the world’s lone superpower, it is no longer a hyperpower that can bully potential contenders. The rest of the world is catching up. A change from unipolarity to multipolarity is one could facilitate a return nations struggling for power and prestige through war. While some might say a return to this system could destroy todays relative peace amongst great powers, they are incorrect. A return to multipolarity could show us that several emerging powers will emerge to join the United States as powers within the international system. It does not tell us how multipolarity will effect international governance. The question is whether emerging powers accept or resist the western order that will exist when they

As the world turned over into the 20th century the threat of war could be seen throughout European countries. Tensions arising from alliances, the arming of nations, and the deep seated hatred still present from past loses were all too present. In late July of 1914 the powder keg that was Europe would erupt and the countries would be pushed into the fires of war. However, the United States of America would stand on the sideline for some time before becoming involved in an affair they had no care to be in. Come 1917 the U.S. would enter the war though, aiding its Western European allies in their fight against Germany and the Triple Alliance. This entry into WWI was a marked shift in U.S. foreign policy, moving from a nation of isolation; the U.S.’s participation and position in WWI would forever change its standing in the world politics and its position as a unilateralist nation.

For this reason, I would like to investigate the extent to which John F. Kennedy’s decision-making process changed from the Bay of Pigs Invasion to the Cuban Missile crisis during his presidency. I chose the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis because the first is an event in John. F. Kennedy’s presidency before he gained experience from this job and the latter is an event from after he was acquainted with the presidential role.

Of the six principles of political realism, I believe that principle four connects mainly to the

The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 is undeniably a major confrontation of the Cold War. Lasting for 13 days it is arguably the pinnacle of the Cold War. This crisis was a decisive factor in the United States’ (US) decision process of whether to engage in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union (USSR). However the essential fault of both state leaders (J. Kennedy and N. Khrushchev) which created the inevitable crisis was miscommunication. Today we recognise actions taken by both states during the crisis as consistent with a realist point of view. Realism holds great emphasise on the obstacles enforced by human nature and the non-attendance of an international government. Creating international politics an area focused on power and state-interest.

The connections between global forces are turning out to be more pertinent to Americans, as issues concerning them become more intricate of forces abroad. Understanding universal relations is critical to a world where thousands of atomic weapons exist and more nations are attempting to obtain them, where a large number of people die every day from neediness brought about by the manner in which the international system works, and where suicide terrorist assaults like the ones of September 11, 2001, come all of a sudden. (REF Singer J. David; The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations Pg. 77)

Kegley and Raymond stated: “The shape of the world’s future will be determined not only by changes in the objective conditions of world politics, but also by the meanings people ascribe to these conditions.” Terrorism is presently a major factor in international relations and has impacted the world to change in many significant ways. Terrorism is a political ideology that has been problematic in defining definitely because of its various interpretations around the world, as well as the fact that it is constantly evolving. Since the terrorist events of 9/11, the lives of many have been changed forever. A small group of individuals, which are a mere fraction of the population of the world, have managed to impact and shape the way international and domestic relations are looked at and handled. People question how secure and safe they feel due to uncertainty of public safety because of events such as 9/11. The war on terrorism in the 21st century has certainly and inevitably changed the landscape for global politics. However, the relationship between terrorism and global politics is troublesome and in ways problematic to describe accurately. Both terrorism and global politics individually are complicated phenomenon. It is erroneous to propose that one is responsible for the other or vice versa, but they are inextricably and inevitably linked. In the study of international relations, there are multiple theories and theoretical perspectives. In this essay, realism and liberalism

In the years preceding the first world war, when realism was the dominant political theory, states were seen to be in a self-help system [Brown and Ainley, 133]. There was no League of Nations or council for arbitration that states could bring their grievances to be heard.