Here, it is crucial to understand that the bargaining range is determined by the expected outcome of the war minus the cost for each state. Bargaining failure results as the failure to find a common ground, that both states would prefer, rather than going to war. As highlighted by Fearon (Art & Jervis, 2012) , the first causal mechanism that serves to explain why bargaining can still yield war is
He sees the Vietnam War on the whole as not only a waste of time, men, and resources for the Americans, but also a cause of “huge fissures …in US society” (Harman 572). In contrast, Bentley and Ziegler view the topic from a much more broad-based point of view. They do not point out America’s earlier winnings, but rather focus on
Revisionism is one of the three main approaches to the Cold War and its origins and significance of events. It originated in mid-sixties, while USA was involved in the Vietnam War. The revisionist approach puts blame for the cold War on the USA and its policies towards USSR. It also proposes the view that it was President Truman’s actions that caused the conflict. Revisionism contradicts the proposals of the traditionalism and its blame of the Soviet Union.
Both of these essays show the history behind the war and the reasons of why it took place and why it should not have transpired. Fredrick’s Logevall convincingly argues in his essay Choosing War that the Vietnam War was a choice and not a necessary war to fight for the United States and how it could have been avoided. In his book, Logevall agrees that the Vietnam War is a significant part of our history that had huge impact on our nation and should not have occurred. He begins his essay by describing the events that took place in the beginning of the war. In this essay, Logevall communicates to us his philosophies that the Vietnam War was an error of judgment.
Realists believe the international system to be anarchic: in other words, that there is no authority or organization above the nation state. Indeed, the Middle East is one of the regional sub-systems where this anarchy appears most in evidence....its states are still contesting borders and rank among themselves; and there is not a single one that does not feel threatened by one or more of its neighbours This essay employs an understanding of realist theory in order to develop a hypothesis with which to analyse the foreign policies of modern Middle Eastern states. Drawing on the case studies of Egypt and Israel, it concludes that, although the complex areas of national interests and domestic politics cannot, for various reasons, be fully explained by classical or neo-realism, the foreign policy decisions of both countries are anchored in realism and will continue to be bound to the concepts of power and security. As a theory, realism truly gathered force during the twentieth century, through the emergence of various branches and sub-branches of thought as a consequence of intellectual debate: both within the realist school itself, and between realists and its critics (chiefly constructivists). Particularly with respect to the identification and
This essay will first illustrate the definition and main contents of globalization and realism, then it will focus on the challenges realists face under the shadow of globalization, as state-centric approaches are undermined by the new emerging actors, states lose the monopoly of authority and power resources, and it suffers the ‘relative deterritorialization of activities’ (Mcgrew, 1992). To finish off, it will reverse to demonstrate the relevance that realism relies for survival, to say it’s not anachronistic, as national interests are always concerned firstly when dealing with international issues, international system didn’t shift from anarchy to other forms and other ideas like balance of power and survival remains ture. Globalization can be defined as the ‘time-space compression’ (Harvey, 1989), or ‘a process that involves a great deal more than simply growing connections or interdependence between states.’ (Mcgrew, 1992) According to the definition, world can be seen as a shared social space, which means the ‘great divide’ between the domestic and international politics is dimed. This also set the stage for the appearance of other new actors which will be explained below. Realism is the dominant theory of international relations, especially better fit for the area before the 1990s.
Retention of sovereignty is an ostensibly important dimension when considering the implications of globalisation. Adjacent to this proposition are several issues of contention, which have long been a central source of consultation when adopting and adapting policy in response to modernised ideals of international polity and relations. To settle this debate, first the term ‘sovereignty’ must be defined in a non nebulous and distinct fashion to generate a list of characteristics which if infringed due to the effects of globalisation, can be said to have been undermined. The purpose of this essay is to identify and evaluate issues of contention underpinning the debate encircling the demise of state sovereignty. The Treaty of Westphalia gave birth to a system of sovereignty, wherein ‘within its borders the state or government has an entitlement to supreme, unqualified and exclusive political and legal authority’ (McGrew 2011: 23).
What problems are created by war? And can wars be justified; can there be an appropriate reason to go to war which could take precedence over the first two questions? War is a state of conflict and each time war is declared the main aim is to try and solve a problem. War is different in each situation and you cannot say that every war solved the problems that induced fighting in the first place. The recent invasion of Iraq was caused because several governments, primarily the American, believed that Iraq was creating Weapons of Mass Destruction.
In addition, as globalization takes over, there is need to overcome any cultural barriers. In this paper we shall discuss on how to get rid of ethnocentrism. Before discussing on how to get rid of ethnocentrism, let us understand what it is, and he impacts it has. Ethnocentrism can be termed as having high regards, on own cultural heritage. It is disregarding other people’s cultural beliefs and practices.
This essay will argue that while individual rights are important in liberal democracies, they cannot override the need for national security, as without it the liberal democracies themselves would be unable to exist. This will be shown by looking at arguments both for and against the relevance of individual rights when compared to national security. The theories of important liberal thinkers such as Nozick, Dewey, and Mill will be examined in the context of the modern world and shown to be ill equipped to account for modern security threats. The fundamental importance of individual rights to a liberal democracy will also be examined with arguments for and against. These arguments will focus largely on the United States of America, as it has been pivotal to the importance of national security in the modern world.