Realism remains the dominant paradigm in International Relations theory. Discuss
Realism remains the dominant paradigm in International Relations theory. Discuss In this essay, I will be answering the question as to why realism remains the dominant paradigm in International Relations theory. I believe it is still the dominant paradigm in International Relations. This essay will consist of not only my thoughts as to why it is the dominant paradigm but certain facts and thoughts of other people. I will be attempting to provide you with an insight on the several different theories in international relations. The main topic of discussion will be realism as it is part of the question, in addition there will be explanations on the several different types of realism; human nature, classical and neo-realism. The history of realism in accordance with actual events will be provided and several other reasons will be explained to help me provide an adequate answer as to why realism remains the dominant paradigm in International Relations theory. It is perhaps necessary to begin this essay with an explanation of what realism actual is and an insight to the different types of realism. Realism is just one of the several different types of theories in International Relations. Realism is not just a theory; it branches out into major schools of thought. There are several 'branches' of realism; human nature realism, classical
'Generals win battles, resources win wars.' How far does your study of the period from 1792 to 1919 confirm this view?
Rob Williams 'Generals win battles, resources win wars.' How far does your study of the period from 1792 to 1919 confirm this view? From my study of Land warfare from 1792 through to 1919, it can be judged, with fair certainty that the hypothesis, 'Generals win battles, resources win wars', is correct. However it needs deeper study to precisely define 'how far' this hypothesis is accurate; do Generals by the end of 'the Great War' have any influence on the outcome the war? Or was the side with the greater resources and attrition 'bound' to win? Are the battles of the First World War won purely on attrition, or did Generals still have a part to play by 1919? This essay intends to argue that throughout the period 1792-1919 that Generals influence both on the outcome of battles and wars decreases substantially, whereas the nation's resources, and how they efficiently used them, became increasingly important to the nations final victory. However what it will not argue is that Generals become redundant in the role of winning either battles or wars. If we look, briefly, at the middle Ages, the military leader was decisive in both the battle and war's outcome. Although discrepancies in armies, due to the resources of the King or noble affected the battles outcome, it certainly was not critical. If one takes Henry VI at Agincourt for example, he overcomes great disadvantages in
The FalklandsWar "Did war prove to be a successful means of achieving political objectives? Examine this from both UK and Argentinean perspectives."
The Falklands War "Did war prove to be a successful means of achieving political objectives? Examine this from both UK and Argentinean perspectives." Major J E Cunningham GH War was inevitable but success was not1. The 1982 invasion of the Falklands Islands by Argentina dealt global humiliation to a postcolonial Britain. At stake was national pride2, international norms3 and a people's right of self-determination. The Falklands War will be remembered as one of the strangest in history4. A war fought at a time when conflict was avoided at all costs. Its termination would observe Britain securing decisive victory and deliver disgrace and isolation to Argentina. War indicated a great diplomatic failure. The world watched in bewilderment. This essay will illustrate that war was a successful tool for Britain and yet disastrous for Argentina. In addition, that it is only through the combined application of means does a nation obtain its goals. This essay will examine how each side utilized their available national power and the degree that war achieved success. Britain applied a spectrum of national power; Argentina did not. Britain was the undisputed victor and restored its international reputation, military pride and political security for the ruling Conservative Government. Conversely the Argentine military Junta was defeated. The state plummeted into further
Are atrocities an integral part of war?
7229774 War and the Politics of Ethics POLI 30822 Are atrocities an integral part of war? Introduction This paper’s main argument is that war creates conditions that significantly increase the likelihood of atrocities occurring, but atrocities are neither integral nor limited to war. In order to understand this conclusion it is necessary to analyse what is meant by atrocity and how intention affects whether or not certain harms are atrocities. Therefore this paper first looks at what atrocities should be defined as and their relationship with war. Followed by an analysis of what justifications for war there are to compare to the likely occurrence of atrocity. These definitions will be used in conjuncture with historical illustrations of events in war with a particular focus on the My Lai and Son My Massacre from the Vietnam War on the morning of March 16th, 1968. My Lai was a hamlet 7 miles from Quang Ngai Town on the South China Sea that had the most deaths in a grouping of massacres by the US 23rd Infantry Division directed under 2nd lieutenant William Calley Jr. The military police concluded that 347 people perished at My Lai although a memorial at Son My remembers 504 victims.[1] While some soldiers refused to take part many others still raped and killed, women and brutally murdered men, children and even the animals.[2] Its use as a case study is
WITH REFERENCE TO RECENT CONFLICTS, IS IT APPROPRIATE TO FOCUS ON THE STATE, FOREIGN POLICY, POWER, SECURITY, CONFLICT AND WAR (THAT IS, THE REALIST AGENDA)?
WITH REFERENCE TO RECENT CONFLICTS, IS IT APPROPRIATE TO FOCUS ON THE STATE, FOREIGN POLICY, POWER, SECURITY, CONFLICT AND WAR (THAT IS, THE REALIST AGENDA)? It is immensely appropriate that we now focus on the Realist agenda for two main reasons. The first is that the main hegemony1 and the most powerful - economically and militarily - state in the world, the United States of America (US) is recognised by analysts and academics as following the realist agenda.2 And secondly, recent conflicts have demonstrated the power of states and that their obsession with security has formed a foreign policy that has resulted in growing amounts of conflict and war. After giving definitions, the main principles of realism shall be applied to recent conflicts and issues in the international system. Kegley and Wittkopf define a 'state' as an "independent, territorially defined community in the global system administered by a sovereign government". Power is defined as "the factors that enable one state to coerce another; to realists, arms and military capabilities are the most important factor in determining which state will win a dispute".3 Conflict is "...discord, often arising in international relations over perceived incompatibilities of interest" and Foreign policy is the "decisions governing authorities make to realize international goals".4 Theory is a set of hypotheses
'War seldom resolves the causes of conflict' Analyze this claim with reference to a period in history.
'War seldom resolves the causes of conflict' Analyze this claim with reference to a period in history The hypothesis that war causes more tension and quarrel thus leading to more conflict, rather than resolving them as a general statement does not help the historian in his energies. Just as some conflicts are ended by decisive victories such as the victory of Harold I over the Viking forces of Hardraada in 1066, others such as the Arab - Israeli conflict since 1948 have developed into generational conflict as evidenced by five major wars involving Israel since then. My purpose is to demonstrate that World War one did not resolve European conflict but that it contributed in part to World War Two. The causes of World War One were to a certain extent similar to the causes of World War Two, so The Great War failed to resolve the causes of conflict in many aspects World War Two was simply unfinished business. There is a contrary view that World War Two was a result of several unique causes, particularly the role of Hitler's personality and political agenda. The search for a middle ground, if that is one we should tread, between these two views provides fertile land for historigraphical debate. German Nationalism fuelled both World War One and World War Two, clearly indicating that war failed to resolve this cause of conflict. Indeed, before World War One Kaiser Wilhelm II adopted
Conflicts are far more likely to be caused by greed than by grievance. Discuss (Collier, 2000)
Conflicts are far more likely to be caused by greed than by grievance. Discuss (Collier, 2000) Introduction In his forward of the World Heath organisations 2002 Word Report on Violence and Health Nelson Mandela stated that forever, 'the twentieth century will be remembered as a century marked by violence...' with a '...legacy of mass destruction inflicted on a scale never seen and never possible before in human history' (World health organisation; 2002). Mandela's words mark the reality that in every year of the 20th Century there had been at least one episode of sustained violent conflict either in the form of civil or inter-state wars. However the post World War Two era marked a fundamental turning point in the ontological essence of armed conflict. The end of the second World War birthed a new and far more polarized world order that promoted self-determination and identity politics within newly independent countries yet paradoxically greater integration as supranational bodies and dialoge began to take a greater role within the political arena. These seeds of globalisation changed not only the context of armed conflict but also the way that conflict is understood. In the post World War 2 era 16.2 million people have died in civil wars; 5 times the 3.3 million people killed in inter-state wars (Anheier & Isar; 2007). This overwhelming statistic highlights the shift in
What is theory, and why is it important?
What is theory, and why is it important? Introduction To think theoretically one has to avoid treating the task as that of formulating an appropriate definition of theory1James N Rosenau When one thinks of the reason for theory, we only have to look to our past. As intuitive beings we have always had the urge to define events in our world. People in the past have explained different events and phenomena, by creating stories through assumptions which help people to understand the world they live in. In the case of this essay, we look at the complexities of international relations. International relations theories are a tool used by us to better understand the political events of our past and present in an attempt to better understand our future. Thus, theorists and various scholars have played a key role for nations and their policy makers when making decisive decisions. In this same way, during the progress of the 20th century three theories have contributed to create the shape of international relations: Realism, liberalism and a more modern form of radicalism, constructivism. Professor Stephen Waltz, defines the key theories that I will be looking at' Realism emphasises the enduring propensity for conflict between states; liberalism identifies several ways to mitigate these conflictive tendencies and radical tradition describes how the entire system of state relations
How did new military technologies change warfare? Consider the period from 1815 to 1914.
How did new military technologies change warfare? Consider the period from 1815 to 1914. When attempting to analyze how new military technologies have changed warfare from 815 to 1914 it is vital to be aware of the technological advances which have occurred and whether such advances in military technology is what has led to the determinism of warfare. According to The Oxford Quick Reference Dictionary (1993) determinism is the 'doctrine that human actions, events, etc are determined by causes external to the will'.1 This definition is cooperative with the assertions of Martin van Crevald in his book Technology and War: From 2000 B.C. to the Present (1991), that 'war is completely permeated by technology and governed by it'.2 Even as it is right in maintaining that better, more advanced weapons, may be the determining factor in winning wars or battles, it seems that one should be weary of using this criterion of determinism for each war or battle, and should explore deeper into the wider contexts of other factors regarding the weapons themselves, such as the production of the weapon, and how the weapon will be used. Another issue to consider while trying to analyse how new military technologies changed warfare from the period 1815 to 1914, is that 'the literature on war and technology is Eurocentric'.3 Matthew Hughes, in his chapter on Technology, Science and War,
MIntzberg school of thought
Mintzberg school of thought Mintzberg is a professor of management studies at McGill University in Montreal and a professor of organisations in INSEAD in France. (www.onepine.info/pminz.htm) Many believe that organisations are more intricate in today's turbulent world. Requirements in strategic management are changing in today's business environment. A strategy is argued to be vital to maintaining success of businesses in the long term "the determination of the basic long term goals and objectives of an enterprise and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary to achieve those goals." (Chandler 1961) The first three schools of thought are prescriptive in nature, and more concerned with how strategies should be formulated. The six other schools that follow consider specific aspects of the process of strategy management and have been concerned more with describing how strategies get made. The last school sees people seeking an integrative cluster of all the schools. The Planning, Learning and Positioning Schools are the 3 schools of thoughts that I am going to focus on. I will be analysing their underlying assumptions, perspectives and paradigmatic stances. The planning school emerged with the design school "in fact the planning school originated at the same time as the design school; it's most influential book, Corporate Strategy, by
