This means that politics places itself above war and modify it to suit its needs, with Clausewitz arguments, it is difficult to think of war as something apart from politics. The Clausewitz's theory underwent a lot of criticism by the end of the Cold War due to the transformational changes that took place in the international system which altered the nature of war (Shaw
There is, however, a distinction in their view how the world politics function. Liberalism, as a school of thought which has its roots in the Enlightenment period has an optimistic view and they highlight the reason to be applied in order to make world a better place. Apart from the states that are considered as the main actors in the International Relations, the liberalism also consider the role and importance of other different organizations in shaping the International Relations. In other words, the liberals treat the international relations as a good body to keeping the security and positive path of the world development. On the question of war and peace, according to liberalism there is a distinction of states to ‘good’ and ‘bad’ states.
This shows how the West we willing to let the soviets do something that was clearly wrong. The reason why they allowed them to do this was because they knew if they had intervened it would have escalated the tension between the two countries and would have possibly started war with the soviets. This is the idea of appeasement and some people said that it was showing a ‘soft’ approach to facing communism. The US didn’t want the soviets to think that they had the advantage over America so they made sure they kept a strong grip on the West of Berlin. Despite their willingness to coexist they were not willing to look weak or give in easily.
Waltz argues in favor of this reinterpretation in order to make political realism a more accurate theory of international politics. He suggests a systemic approach: the international structure acts as a restriction on state behavior, so that only states whose outcomes fall within an expected range survive. This system is comparable to a microeconomic model in which firms accept both their prices and quantity based on the market. Neorealists endeavor to simplify explanations of behavior with a view to explaining and predicting general tendencies better. They stress the structure of the international system in their analyses as a clarifying feature over states, which are emphasized by earlier realists, and over the natural characteristics of human beings.
Realism, also known as political realism and classical diplomacy, in the context of international relations, encompasses a variety of theories and approaches, all of which share a belief that states are primarily motivated by the desire for military and economic power or security, rather than ideals or ethics. For example, a realist might believe that we should not interfere with the affairs of another sovereign state unless that state threatens the sovereignty of our state, humanitarian reasons alone are never adequate enough. I believe that in light of the global economy and information technologies neither school of thought is adequate at directing foreign policy in its entirety. Specifically, this paper will explore the strengths and weaknesses of the international approaches by comparing and contrasting political realism and a portion of Idealist belief, that of collective security. In order to understand the philosophy of collective security, one must first have a base understanding of Idealism.
Prior to Iris Young’s “Global Challenges” issues were viewed from a perspective which she calls the Liability Model. The Liability Model is based on viewing situations from a traditional legal perspective. A widely accepted view was that the scope of obligations of justice was defined by membership in a common political community. In “The Law of Peoples” Rawls says that principles of justice as fairness mutually oblige member of distinct societies to one another, yet do not apply to the moral relationships among people between societies across the globe. Charles Bietz challenged this belief in his work”Political Theory and International Relations” by arguing that there exists an international society even in the absence of a comprehensive political constitution to regulate it (Young 162).
Political figures across the world have argued that there is no alternative to the Global Free Market however Gray challenges this opinion using Russia and Asia countries where an American model of the free market simply don’t fit. He also conveys that the state is weakened by free markets and suggests the possible dangers of this. In the first chapter Gray sets the scene with a description of mid centaury England where the prime objective was to free economic life from political control. This change was called the Great Transformation; however Gray takes a negative stance on such transformation. He states immediately that although a free market might bring short term economic benefits, it brings social breakdown.
Initially, I argue that political constructivism is the best available methodology for self-legislating, socially embedded and fallible human beings; then I show that political constructivism may produce principles that could garner the principled assent of Euro-American Muslims such as Taha Jabir Al-Alwani. The article concludes by considering how political constructivism might be employed to formulate new political principles for Euro-American societies experiencing and confronting the Islamic revival. Contemporary Political Theory (2012) 11, 305–323. doi:10.1057/cpt.2011.27; published online 20 September 2011 Keywords: political constructivism; Rawls; Kant; Hegel; Islam; Al-Alwani Where do political principles – the basic rules or laws that govern a political body – originate? In Political Liberalism, John Rawls canvasses three possibilities.
-The Cold War put a halt to the establishment of a treaty to give binding international legal force to human rights norms -President Eisenhower pressured into not supporting human rights treaty that emerged from the United Nations -International enforcement becomes a problem 3. What “actor” is best suited to promote and protect human rights: individuals, Non-governmental Organizations (NGOS) like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Doctors Without Borders, or Inter-governmental Organizations (IGOs) like the UN, the EU, the League of Arab States? Why? -Individuals tend to have the most freedom out of the three, however they have little power. There are little to no limitations on what individuals can say or do to influence the promotion and protection of human rights.
Liberal states have created a separate peace…and have also discovered liberal reasons for aggression…” (1151). “What we tend to call liberal resembles a family portrait of principles and institutions, recognizable by certain characteristics—for example, individual freedom, political participation, private property, and equality of opportunity—that most liberal states share, although none has perfected them all” (1152). Schumpeter’s liberalism is one that stands in contrast to imperialism. Democracies who are capitalistic will be peaceful. Democratic capitalist countries do not benefit from expansionist policies.