major conceptual ideas of Liberals about IR
Critically assess the major conceptual ideas of Liberals about International Relations Generally speaking liberalism highlights the individual rights and equality of opportunity, and yet in broader sense, liberalist supports the idea of peace and liberty in international relations. In order to assess the major concept of liberalism about international relations, this essay will critically evaluate on liberalists' ideas about the state intervention in a relation to free market or mixed economy. Then it ill discuss about a free interstate relations, such as creating international institutions for mutual cooperation. Firstly, Liberals thought had its roots in Enlightenment thinking, John Lockes 'natural law' implying a limited government, and Adam Smiths interpretation of free markets under capitalism. In addition the distribution of power amongst a range of actors rather than solely the state, and in terms of economy classic liberalists sought that state intervention should be kept at a minimum. Liberal states such as arguably the USA, champion these values as well as the belief that the domestic character of states plays a crucial role in shaping their international behaviour. Examples of this may be seen in US-Latin American relations - for instance their market orientated government reforms (Woods, 2004:172). Furthermore, Liberals focussed on the idea that an imbalance or
Is Military Intervention in Africa Successful? A Discussion of
Is Military Intervention in Africa Successful? A Discussion of UK Policy on the African Continent Jack Straw once commented that if a stone was thrown through the window of the British Embassy in Kinshasa, he would consider it 'not a an immediate threat to British security' but nevertheless we should not 'take the view that conflicts such as the war in the Congo are none of our business'.1 In just two lines Straw manages to condense the ambiguities of UK African policy, so often derided as limited, reactive and pragmatic in the extreme.2 If these conflicts are our business as he suggests, then why? Are we under moral or humanitarian obligation to make them our business, or do more urgent international security concerns come to mind? Indeed, how would we intervene, if at all? These questions he does not answer. In quantifying the relative successes of UK foreign policy therefore, it is the purpose of this essay to show that New Labour's 'Ethical' agenda has failed to be legitimately twinned with a shift to security-centric concerns. It is not the place of this piece to judge UK intervention in terms of scale or morality, but instead to highlight that not only has our success been limited by sporadic and inconsistent action, but also that growing emphasis on self interest and security (especially since 9/11) has proved generally irreconcilable with 'ethical' policies of
To what extent is it possible to speak of a'global society'?
To what extent is it possible to speak of a 'global society'? The main aim of this question is to examine how far globalisation is widespread enough to say that a global society exists. Is the globe becoming so interconnected by trade, communication and culture that instead of being made up of thousands of small communities, it is becoming one huge society? There are numerous plausible reasons to answer both yes and no to this question, but before doing this we must first define what globalisation actually is. The line of argument that this essay will take is that whilst globalisation is a very real thing with very real effects, but to say that a 'global society' is not wholly accurate. In many years to come yes, a global community probably will exist, however at this time this society is still in its embryonic stage. A community is beginning to emerge but is not yet complete. After all, when taken into account all of the wars and terrorism attacks that have taken place because of different cultures and ideals, getting 6 billion people to live harmoniously in a monoculture is going to be a very long, drawn-out process. There are various definitions for what the term globalisation actually means. The sociologist, Anthony Giddens, defines globalisation as 'a decoupling of space and time, emphasising that with instantaneous communications, knowledge
To what extent do you agree that Philip II's principal aim was the security and aggrandisement of his dominions?
To what extent do you agree that Philip II's principal aim was the security and aggrandisement of his dominions? Philip had various aims and was not just concentrating on the security and aggrandisement of his dominions. It is possible to see that there was an aim of security and aggrandisement of Spain in Philip's foreign policy. The aim of security can be seen in that during the 1560's Pius IV and Pius V clashed with Philip as to whether or not the Dutch rebels should be branded as heretics (this could lead to further revolts) and Elizabeth I should be excommunicated (this could lead to war against England). This aim can be seen further in that after the Spanish triumph in Lepanto, Philip was unwilling to follow it up and in 1578 a truce was made with the Turks. As well as for security reasons, it can be claimed that these policies were also for economic reasons - and, therefore, the aggrandisement of Spain - as they avoided expensive wars. The aim of aggrandisement of his dominions can be seen further in that in 1580 Spain annexed Portugal and ignored the papal endorsement given to the rival claimant. However, parts of Philip's foreign policy were aiming to protect the Catholic faith. A principle repeated ritually since the days of Ferdinand and Isabella had been , 'Peace with Christian countries and war against the Infidel'. This can be seen when Spain had victory in
The Hydrogen bomb is a pivotal piece of technology in the twentieth century.
Introduction The Hydrogen bomb is a pivotal piece of technology in the twentieth century. Its highly debated and controversial introduction, as well as its political and strategic significance shaped the decade of the 1950's. The bomb's materialization is a defining issue of the Cold War, shaping the relations between the United States and other nations, particularly the Soviet Union. The hydrogen bomb, also referred to as the "Super", served to escalate tensions and an arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, and paradoxically preventing war between the two super powers. In essence, the hydrogen bomb was created and utilized as a political, economic and strategical device rather than a military necessity. Context Within The Cold War When examining the decision of the United States' to build the hydrogen bomb and the bombs subsequent role in the nations defense, the situation of the United States must be explored. The relevant period begins with the termination of World War II. The Soviet Union was a primary Ally of the United States during World War II. It was the only other power to come out of World War II with enough strength to challenge the emerging American powerhouse. In fighting and winning against Germany, the Soviets occupied practically the entire eastern half of Europe. The Soviets installed pro-Communist governments in these
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in late 1991, the geopolitical scene in the center of the Eurasian continent has altered fundamentally
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in late 1991, the geopolitical scene in the center of the Eurasian continent has altered fundamentally. The independence of five Soviet Central Asian republics, and the enduring weakness of these states created a political vacuum that external powers have ever since competed to fill. Soon after this ground-breaking development, a paradigm evolved defining Russia, Turkey and Iran as major players in the entire 'southern tier' of the former Soviet Union, that is the Caucasus and Central Asia. Russia was correctly identified as a retreating hegemonic power, whereas Turkey and Iran were seen as competitors for influence in especially the six Muslim states that gained independence, that is the Central Asian states and Azerbaijan. This paradigm, which accorded little importance to other international or regional actors, has to a large extent survived in media as well as academia.i[1] However, almost ten years after the Soviet collapse, viewing Central Asia through the prism of a Turkish-Iranian-Russian triangle offers at best highly limited guidance to understanding the security and geopolitics of that region. In the analysis of international security, the state has generally been center of analysis, with focus on the defense of territory. The result of this thinking has been an understanding that the state is the ultimate arbiter in
Chinese Foreign Policy & National Security - U.S.-Chinese Military Relations in the 21st century
Chinese Foreign Policy & National Security U.S.-Chinese Military Relations in the 21st century Larry M. Wortzel , 1999 Summary by Michael RASKA Ph.D. Candidate, Yonsei GSIS One of the most significant challenges facing the U.S. foreign policy is the shaping of an Asia strategy for the next 20 years. The challenge lies in formulating and executing a long-range strategy that will enhance relationships in Asia while protecting U.S. national interests. The wide-range of changes in the balance of power in Asia (implosion of USSR, economic crises in Asia, and most importantly the rising China) have changed the strategic landscape in the region. In particular, Beijing now sees China as the central power in Asia that must be considered in geo-political and military equation. The following four key questions must be therefore considered in formulating U.S. long-term strategy: (1) Does Beijing seek to dominate the Asia-Pacific region? (2) Is there a 'strategic glue' in the U.S.-China relations? (3) Are American military leaders deluding themselves into thinking that they can change the strategic culture of China and draw the Chinese military into the community of cooperating friendly armed forces? (4) Is the Chinese PLA studying U.S. military strategy, doctrine, and tactics to prepare itself to more effectively fight the U.S. armed forces, should the Chinese leadership decide that
Should the Concert of Europe be viewed as an example of collective security?
Should the Concert of Europe be viewed as an example of collective security? The Napoleonic Wars, lasting from 1789 until 1815, were unlike any previously fought on continental Europe. For the first time, it was fought between nations and not just the ruling elites of each state1. In addition, the terrible toll in lives lost and damage done was of a previously unthinkable scale. When, therefore, Napoleon was defeated and France was restored to its original (pre-Revolutionary) frontiers, the Great Powers of Europe sought to create a system between them that would ensure a lasting peace. This system came to be known as the Concert of Europe, and acted to sustain a viable peace from 1815 until the Crimean War in 1848.2 This essay discusses whether this system acted in a way consistent with the theory of Collective Security. This essay will begin by discussing the theoretical framework of Collective Security, its key principles and objectives. Following this, a look at the structure of the Concert of Europe will show its theoretical incompatibility with Collective Security doctrine. The two systems show two clearly different approaches to power among states, and the principles of Collective Security are not the same as those of the concert. Thirdly, it will be shown how the Concert acted in practice, not in line with collective security, but with balance-of-power, the system
What do sociologists mean by the term 'globalisation' and how have they tried to explain it?
What do sociologists mean by the term 'globalisation' and how have they tried to explain it? Globalisation is one of the hottest debates in sociology today. There are numerous factors that could be considered within this essay, the rise of 'global media' the advancement of technology and the effects of 'Americanisation' or western 'cultural imperialism', to name a few. Instead this essay will first explore the two main arguments central to the causation of globalisation, the 'single casual logic' and 'complex multi-casual logic' (Hall 1991, p. 69) and then it will focus on two main themes that are Intercorrelated and seen as central to the globalisation debate, the 'global economy' and the 'nation state'. It will evaluate, using Britain as an example, if the concept of a global economy is a truism within the contemporary world, and if so, what effect does this have on the heads of nation states. It will then question whether nation states are declining in favour of a 'global nation'. There are three leading authors, who fit David Helds' paradigm of the single casual logic explanation of globalisation, Wallerstein, Rosenau and Gilpin. They all believe globalisation is caused by one factor however they all see that factor as different. Wallerstein considers the development of the capitalism ideology, or free market economy, to be the main instigating factor, of the so called
Coexistence in the Middle East
The Future of the Middle East: It is in our hands Coexistence is a condition in which two or more groups live together peacefully by respecting their differences, communicating as an entity, and solving their possible conflicts non-violently. The term used to describe this state was introduced during the Cold War, where the idea of "peaceful coexistence" was used to attempt to describe the relations between the US and the USSR. Coexistence was initially utilized to cover up for their constant aggression, which later evolved as a guide for reframing a relationship between their powers. When one looks at the current state of the Middle East, coexistence is probably the last term to come to mind. Coming from that part of the world, I am a person always in search of some form of absolute truth, whether or not that really exists, and how much of an impact it has on my life. The core of seeking truth comes from understanding and gaining knowledge of current, past, and reoccurring issues. There are some parts of the world where conflicts never seem to die and as Middle Easterners living in the West, we must examine how much, or how little "coexistence" means in the lives of our real homes. Unfortunately the answer for this question depends on who is answering it, and where they are from. The news will portray each nation will point fingers at its enemy (who is their neighbor), we