Why Do International Organizations Create World Order?

The most prevalent reasons for states going to war are security, interest, standing, and revenge; of these, I posit that security is the most frequent. For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on warfare occurring since the onset of the 20th century, however many of the core arguments retain efficacy through the countless centuries of human warfare. States don’t trust one another; even the best relationships between states are mired in spycraft with, or in opposition to one another. To summarize Waltz, drive for security is something that all states want, and need, as long as there are multiple states and at least one of them is looking for power.

Neorealist concentrate on both absolute and relative gains that come from cooperative hard work between states and international agreements entered into. They go further ahead to claim that enemies can become friends in the search of relative gains. Neorealist ponders conflict to be inevitable when states interact with each other and their goals are the short-term gains. A lot of weight is put on the issues of security and how power can be maximized as opposed to putting a lot of consideration on economic issues. On the other hand, relative gains are of very little concern to the neoliberals. Neoliberals believe that every state should profit from the absolute gains of cooperation and international agreements between states. If states purpose to only pursue absolute gains, then it will be very easy for them to cooperate with each other and uphold the international principle. Working together will also be a great way of avoiding conflict (Samuel 153)

A number of researchers, especially realists, believe that the anarchy does exist in contemporary international politics, since there are “no hierarchy of authority exists in international relations” (Pease, 2008:51). International anarchy does not always mean chaos or disorder, however, it urges each state to arm itself for self-defence, and it may also fraught with serious military conflict. Although the Preamble of the United Nations (UN) Charter states that one of the duties of the UN is to “maintain international peace and security”, it is not widely regarded as international government, which exercises its authority all over the world. Still, millions of people believe that the international organisations, especially the United Nations play crucial roles in preventing and resolving military conflict between states. In this essay, I will examine whether the international organisation, especially the United Nations contributes to prevent or détente international disputes caused wholly or partly by the elements of ‘international anarchy’, or not.

First of all, under realism, IOs are not powerful independent actors in international society. Amongst realism’s central axioms is the assertion that the state is “the only legal actor internationally,” (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2014, 544). This effectively means that the state is the only powerful independent actor in international society. Furthermore, this principle also establishes that since IOs are not states, they do not have any power within the international system, thus, they cannot be powerful independent actors in international society. There are instances where the state has ignored the

Liberalism has pacific historic origins as a reaction to the huge casualties and damage caused by the First World War in the western world. It aspires to promote peace through international cooperation. However, this theory simplified international relations too much to the extent that it focused on the great war between western powers.

In “Anarchy is What States Make of It” Alexander Wendt describes two opposing state systems—competitive and cooperative. In competition, “states identify negatively with each other’s security so that ego’s gain is seen as alter’s loss.” In cooperation, “the security of each [state] is perceived as the responsibility of all.” Currently, there are problems such as the spread of nuclear weapons, terrorism, poverty in developing countries, international financial instability, and climate change that confront the entire global community. Ideally states could cooperate in order to solve all of these dilemmas in the next twenty years. Realistically, they will only solve problems with specific and easily stated solutions. Cooperation tends

Societal ideas, interests, and institutions influence state behaviour by shaping state preferences, that is, the fundamental social purposes underlying the strategic calculations of governments. For liberals, the configuration of state preferences matters most in world politics, not as realists argue , the configuration of capabilities and not as, institutionalists (that is functional regime theorists) maintain, the configuration of information and institution. According to Donelan (1990: 24), the central point in realism is then that sometimes we as persons and still more important as associations are made moral, for we have a common power over us; the state. He goes on further to say that we are not made moral, there is no common power, and that is international relations as the frontiers of the state are the limits of morals which on one side we have security of the state, on the other the bleak wastes of international relations, where the states and great associations confront each other in cold

Liberals see the international system develops in the system of anarchy, and recognizes that the individual is always selfish and compete against something, but they also believe that individuals have a lot of interest and thus may be involved in social action that is collaborative and cooperative, both domestic and international. So here liberals not only regard the state as the supreme force in international relations but further more liberal view state can be united through cooperation with other countries to create peace in the world. (Moravcsik,nd).

In this essay, I will focus myself on two models of cooperation and bargaining. The first model is called realism and its thrust is to say that the international political systems as a whole is anarchic in so far as there is no world government but what exists are multiple competing sovereigns. In terms of cooperation and bargaining between states realism poses real challenges to interdependence and specialisation. The second model is called liberalism and like realism it begins by acknowledging that the system is of course anarchic but it goes a bit further to argue that the interests that states seek to pursue in conditions of anarchy are shaped very much by the nature of the society, domestic, and transnational over which they seek to rule and particularly liberals stress the role of dominant powerful groups within society in shaping the nature of the national interests and this is clearly illustrated in a story about the development of India`s national interest in chapter 6. The fundamental difference between the two models is that liberalism says it is not just anarchy plus the distribution of power, it`s anarchy, and the distribution of power plus interdependence.The prospects for cooperation between states under conditions of both anarchy and interdependence bring to fore three aspects of the game. The first, the game is positive-sum when states are concerned purely with their absolute gains but the chance

Few forces in the world can change, create, and destroy history and nations. However, war continues to be one of the strongest proponents of these changes. The study of the international system is comprised of many differing theories. These theories hypothesize the origin of international structure, events, and how states interact. Specifically, the varying theories present in international relations disagree on the causes of war. Political Realism has been the most dominant paradigm in the past 70 years of International Relations (Class Notes, August 31). This paradigm stresses the anarchic structure of world politics, how this structure affects interaction and how it can cause war. Kenneth Waltz, an American political scientist on the forefront of structural realism, highlights the international system’s decentralized and anarchic tendencies. He states, international politics due to anarchy has been called “politics in the absence of government” (PAGE NUMBER?). Additionally, Waltz stresses the component of the self-help mindset of anarchy. As anarchy endures, states will continue to act as selfish units. This mentality often leads to war as anarchy is taken to mean not just the absence of government, but also the presence of disorder and chaos (Waltz, The Anarchic Structure of World Politics). In general, realist theories present that states are the principal actors, every state partakes in rational egoism which is essential to survival, and anarchy is the dominant

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.

Realism is considered the most leading school of thought in international relations, as realism is also one of the oldest and most entrenched theories of International Relations (Steans, Pettiford, Diez & El-Anis 2013, p. 53). All realist share a perspective that states are unitary rational actors that are encouraged by the desire for military power and security rather than principles or ethics. Realists view human nature as self-seeking, conflictual and competitive and consider that states are inherently violent as realism values order and does not welcome change. There are several forms of realism such as, structural, neo and classical, however this essay will focus on classical realism, its key theorists, its strength and weakness and how my view on international politics has changed over the course of this unit.

Despite the more pessimistic view of international cooperation of neorealists, neoliberals believe that cooperation can be a norm in international relations. Neoliberals see that cooperation is possible due to the interdependence of nations and the involvement of international institutions. Even though neoliberals have this outlook on cooperation, they still share the same core ideas of neorealists, but reject their conclusions. Neoliberals, similarly to neorealists, see the world in a state of anarchy with no overriding power above the states. However, unlike neorealists, neoliberals believe that there are instances under anarchy which lead to cooperation between states since, in their opinion, the state of anarchy can be overcome. This is because neoliberals believe states are unitary, rational actors with the final goals of security and survival. Neoliberals express that not only can states improve themselves in terms of military power, but also in other areas such as economic prosperity since it is still works towards security and survival. These goals then lead to the promotion of international cooperation. Oye, a neoliberal, states, “Despite the absence of any ultimate international authority, governments often bind themselves to mutually advantageous courses of action” (Oye 76). States will cooperate with one another when it will elevate their interests and there is a mutual gain between the states involved. Because in the neoliberal perspective, if the situation can

The relevance of state failure in global politics became increasingly significant after the cold war (Harpviken, 2010). This is because before the cold war many fragile states were prevented from failing due to the support they received from either the former USSR or USA as strategic allies for their proxy war (Gros, 1996). During this time issues like poor governance, poor human rights records and political corruption were ignored by the major powers (Gros, 1996). However, after the 9/11 attacks state failure has increasingly been a worry to the international community (The Economist, 2009). Up until recent decades, state failure was primarily analysed in academia in a singular nation context (Wolff, 2010) . However, in an increasingly globalised world the where movement of

However, the very nature of the state system breeds feelings of insecurity, distrust, suspicion, and fear. This atmosphere produces a constant competition for power in which each state, to reduce its insecurity, seeks to enhance its power relative to that of a possible foe. If a state perceives its neighbour as a potential enemy, it tries to deter an attack or political coercion by becoming a little stronger than its neighbour, or at least as strong. The neighbour, in turn, also fears attack or political intimidation. It understands that its best interests lie in increasing its strength to forestall either contingency or, if necessary, in winning a war, should matters go that far.