International Relations (henceforth referred to as IR) has many theories that attempt to define the actions of states in modern politics, the only problem with these paradigms is none of them are universal.
by
jackal7913 (student)
When in Rome
Science through out history has been the pursuit of truth: testable, quantitative truth. Political science is just the same -- with out any of the tangibility of other doctrines. International Relations (henceforth referred to as “IR”) has many theories that attempt to define the actions of states in modern politics, the only problem with these paradigms is none of them are universal.
In order to analyze the international system, it must be understood that it isn’t much of a system at all. It functions in a state of anarchy. Anarchy does not mean chaos or lack of direction, rather, it means there are no rules. The UN is a governing body but it cannot control the main powers -- which are unfortunately the only ones that matter. The very reason for the UN’s existence is to promote peaceful negotiation and humanitarian rights around the globe, which in theory is the human race’s greatest attempt to provide equality -- all of it is undermined by the security council. USA, China, Russia, Great Britain, and France are all permanent members of this council which allows them to make the rules -- and not play by them. Their true power, though,isn’t in approving decisions, it is the ability to veto decisions that counter national interests. Contemporary examples include the USA invading Iraq with out sanction from the UN and more recently, Russia evoked its right of veto against the attempt to block arms selling to Syria, where mass civilian murder and destruction is taking place. An idealist might shudder in revulsion when confronted with the incontrovertible evidence of states acting almost entirely to the benefit of national interest but it is the way the system evolved.
Idealism is the very root of equality: the premise that national progress is enmeshed in global progress. The idealist paradigm is used frequently in IR for conceptual purposes because nations are unwilling to truly practice it but play along with the ideas. In the international system, there is no room for idealism: nuclear missiles have effectively cowed all lesser nations who do not have at least one of their own. A large critic of Idealism in the 20th century was Edward Carr. Between his unrelenting criticism “coupled with the onset of World War II and then the Cold War, dealt [Idealism] a devastating blow”1. In a multipolar international system, it becomes increasingly difficult for idealist perspective to shine: with so much competition, nations are forced to focus on internal matters. It is difficult to function as an idealist nation because it believes in “the sweet reasonableness of mankind”2 which is disproven every day through media. For example, back in the Martin government, the government clearly outlined it’s “Role of Pride and Influence in the World”3 which was also the title for the paper concerning foreign relations -- however -- as the “atrocity crimes in Darfur”4 became apparent, they did nothing. Ideally, idealism would be the dominant doctrine in global politics, but power corrupts even the most honest intentions and that is the brutal reality.
