International Relations Paper Example: Politics, Internationalism, Social Structures Contribution

In this chapter, the writer concentrates on the factors and issues that contributed to development. The writer of the article tries to bring out the relation between these discussed factors and development. As a result, I have developed some opinions on the discussed factors as explained below.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Two main elements:

1. The development of vast potentialities: here the writer explains that political power is determined by factors such as the geographical, economic and strategic conditions and also the human power, technology, and the competition. I like his argument. This is because it is relevant and true. In most cases, power is vested in the economic strength which is majorly determined by the technological growth and the manpower i.e. the skills, experience, and education. The geographical location contributes in the resources that are available such as peaceful neighbors, favorable climate and physical resources such as fertile land. A balance of these factors results in growth and development which are key contributing factors to a powerful political system

2. Railways: the writer argues that the development of a railway line in Russia contributed greatly to its growth through enhancing accessibility. He continues to say that through this railway, the country was able to receive supplies of commercial power. Further, the railway contributed greatly in enhancing transport through the desert since most people used horsed and camels at the time which was a bit inconveniencing. I like this because it brings out the building of a railway as a sign of development. It enhanced accessibility and opened up new better opportunities for more growth. The writer used railway as a symbol of development which I like.

Week 2 Summary

This weeks lesson is on the topic of International Politics. International politics can be explained simply as how the global states relate with each other. As discussed in this chapter, there are a number of theories that have been used to explain international politics. Therefore, I have expressed my opinion as will be seen below on these theories.

Main 2 elements:

1. Neorealist theory: according to this theory, there is no form of order system or rules that can be followed by the states because the states are not willing to regardless of their existence. The theory argues that there is no form of central authority; that every state is its own leader. However, I disagree with this argument. This is because the states are not equal, there are some with great power and authority determined by their economic and political power. Also, there are the small states which are still developing, for example, the third world countries. Most of these developing countries tend to rely on and follow what the developed countries are doing.

2. Offensive Realism: argues that the powerful states tend to use their power and influence in the less powerful states to gain more power and control through domination. I agree with this because it is true. It is evidence more so between the developed countries such as the European countries and the developing countries such as the African Continent. There is a lot of domination by the western countries through various channels such as the culture, media, technology, and more. You, therefore, find most developing countries living the western culture, using the western technology, adopting the western beliefs and behavior. Through this, these powerful countries are able to gain security in resources, either in human or other forms.

Week 3 Summary

On this weeks topic, I have expressed my opinion as discussed below.

Two main elements:

1. Political realism: is a theory that argues that the state in the context of the foreign policy should act according to its national interests to realize its political gain. The theory argues that a state in relation to international relations should only act on what best suits and feeds their political power. It argues that the international laws set, including those addressing the issues of human welfare should be disregarded. The effect of this can be international conflict and division. This can be very harmful to the human wellbeing. Also, this can result in limited growth and development especially in the states which are politically and economically weak. Also, it is important to note that, where the rules and policies protecting the society are assumed and overlooked, the needs of the society are not men. A society that is not satisfied is a society that is demotivated and hence the low rate of growth. I, therefore do not like this theory since it does not respect the needs of the society regardless of whether it international or just local.

2. Complex interdependence: was developed to critique the political realism. It argues that there is a huge possibility of states to interdepend economically. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye continue to say that increase in economic interdependence, as well as other forms of international interdependence, could result in increased cooperation and peace among the states. I agree with them and like how they support the possibility of interdependence among the states and the fact that this can boost peace and unity. I like how they give a solution to reducing state conflicts through archaist. They advise against the use of military force and use of coercive power. This worked and most states believed and applied this.

Week 4 Summary

This weeks lesson is concentrated on social structures contribution to the international relations. I have some opinions to share in regard to some topics as discussed below.

Two main elements:

Constructing International politics: the main point behind this argument is that there is a justified reason behind the acts by the states in regard to international relations. Alexandder believes that it is nearly impossible for states to act in good faith towards the international relations. He argues that most countries only act depending on how well their individual countries interests will be served. He continues to say that most states acts towards the international relations are based on their type of government leadership whereby the system of governorship is the key determinant. Alexander thus concludes that states can act in good faith towards international relations if the act aligns with that particular state type of leadership and vice versa. I like his argument because it is the truth. Also because he helps to point out some critical factors that act as eye openers and thus help to keep each state alert and informed.

Anarchy: Alexander argues that even if it is impossible to have an international government body with rules and regulations, it does not mean that each state should come with their own government bodies limited to individual state government alone. He believes that it is possible for a number of states to have a common governance body especially if these states have the same government ruling systems, structures, rules and policies in their governments. This is because these governments share interests and there is a likelihood of long term relations among them. However, I do not like this argument; this is because in a way it can promote discrimination and separation especially for those states which do not have any similarities.

Weekly reflection

Week 6

Since 1970, the emergence of liberal internationalism as a perfect alternative to realism in InternationalRelations has been met with a lot of controversies and criticism. Week 6 reading did not only affirm the criticism that liberal institutionalism has been faced with but also proceeded to outline the challenges that realism faces in line with the emergence of liberal institutionalism. I agree with the notion from week 6 reading that the problems that the world faces in as far as International Relations is concerned will be answered through liberal institutionalism. Below is detailed reason why I believe liberal institutionalism will work.

Realism, has, as a matter of fact, been dominating the international relations for over ten decades now and it would be hard to believe that it is failing in addressing the international issues. Realists believe that internationalanarchy fosters conflict and completion among nations inhibiting their willingness to cooperate even when they are believed to share common interests. While that idea was true sometimes back, that does not mean that it is still true today.

The fact that realism was the answer to most of the world problems back in the 80s does not mean that the same concepts of realism will be able to address modern day international relationships. I completely agree with the idea that the existence of international institutions will help countries all over the world to cooperate. The main argument of liberal institutionalists is that emphasis needs to be placed on global governance together with international organizations as the perfect way of explaining international relationships.

Critics to liberal institutionalism are against the fact that it rejects the realist assumption that international politics in organized as a form of power struggle where military security issues are the top priority. I do not agree with this observation. As a matter of fact, it is the argument that it is a high time that we start envisioning the world in which there actors other than national governments that participate directly in world policies where there is no existence of a clear hierarchy of issues thattroublesbelievers of realism. I strongly agree with this notion of liberal institutionalism and do not see sense in the points that critics are attacking the concept.

Despite the fact that a number of realists are still unconvinced with the working of liberalinstitutionalism on the merit of it being too utopian and ambitious, I believe it is the ideal way forward, and this is why. In line with the questions asked and the fear that institution-building will be just another form of neo-conservative hubris and the US will use it as a mechanism of forcing democracy on other nations, I believe there isa way of squaring the circle. Fist will be to find a way of coming up with very strictly nature of the bodies of laws that liberalinstitutionalists are envisioning. Typically, in order to get rid of the concerns that western liberal institutionalism is a form of colonialist, the proposed institutions must never be purposive in character but rather procedural in all fairness. The purposive type of institutions will only have one agenda, and that is to achieve a given purpose such as in the form of NATO which exist for the one purpose of defending Western Europe from the harsh reality of the Warsaw Pact.

I completely disagree with the notion that liberalinstitutionalists lacks the realistic understanding of the international politics. In fact, if for anything they are the ones who perfectly understand what is needed in the international relations. It is at this just juncture that I tend to agree with the functionalist theorists who believe in the aspect that special organizations in the form of international labor organization which is in a suitable position to promote cooperation as they serve to carry put valuable tasks without in any way interfering with the sovereignty of a given state. How then can one argue that liberal institutionalists do not understand the world politics? As a matter of fact, it is that understanding that they are presenting the perfect solution to world problems. All that is left for nations to do is the understanding that there is no need for participants to completely agree on a purpose or to get in disputes on who is setting the purpose and for what reasons. All that is needed is for the participants to agree on the rules of the roads and not be concerned...