Liberal internationalism Two main bases; The first is the fear of and international ‘state of nature’ Idea that self-determination is a mixed blessing, While preserves self-government it creates a world of sovereign nation states controlling own freedoms and interests, possibly at the extent of other nations. In conditions of international anarchy, self-restraint may not be enough to ensure enduring peace. Two forms of prevention have been proposed First being international independence with the intention of promoting cooperation; (this is why liberal s support free trade between free nations) material cost would be huge in conflict, war would therefore be unthinkable. Libs also proposed a supernatural body/ bodies to bring order to otherwise lawless international structure. Seen in social contract theory; government is the solution to problem of disorder.
However McCauley, source 9, stresses that US economic strength and interests created and ‘informal American empire in Europe’, therefore increasing the divide. Deteriorating relations between the two superpowers cannot be attributed primarily to Stalin’s errors. Rather, US economic interests played the most important role in the development of the Cold War in the years 1945-49. Stalin’s own errors and personality undoubtedly played a key role in developing the Cold War, this is emphasised in source 7. Tony Judt argues that Stalin ruled with ‘uncompromising rigidity and confrontational tactics’, this is somewhat supported by source 8 as it highlights that the ‘personality of Stalin’ was a significant internal factor in the USSR.
It can be argued from the anarchist perspective that the state is an oppressive body, which undermines human reason and the capacity for self governance. Laws do not solve the problem, rather they make individuals dependant on outside authorities, to regulate out lives and provide answers for problems that may arise. Therefore, we lose our reason and ability to think for ourselves, we lose out natural autonomy. Thus a state has the opportunity to put a moral code upon us which we cannot question as we become dependant on the rules of the state. Godwin argued that human beings are naturally rational and have the
As he states, the defensive realism of Kenneth Waltz finds it imprudent for states to search for global hegemony “because the system will punish them if they attempt to gain too much power” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p73). Since the question of power is not answered by the defensive theory, interest shifts towards the other model. Accordingly, offensive realism finds it admissible to certify that survival is the ultimate goal, and power is just the tool (measurable) to ensure that end is fully realized: “The argument is not that conquest or domination is good in itself, but instead that having overwhelming power is the best way to ensure one’s own survival. For classical realists, power is an end in itself; for structural realists, power is a means to an end and the ultimate end is survival.” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p74). That is why Mearsheimer sustains that USA will be ultimately forced to react to China’s rise in the future.
For example, if it is morally wrong to lie, then everyone should never lie. Even if the consequences of a lie are great, it must not be done. Kant’s theory is cold and unemotional. However, Kant viewed this as the best way to make ethical decisions. Kant’s view uses a categorical imperative, in which ethics is based upon an absolute, objective, deontologcial theory, in which intentions are more important than consequences.
Throughout this text, the protagonist Holden Caulfield is portrayed as someone who is facing the typical struggles that became apparent in society due to the industrialisation of the 20th century. Despite his un-heroic nature, we’re called to examine wether or not Holden has enough characteristics to be titled an archetypal anti-hero. His mental instability and judgemental personality can be used to argue against this statement. Conversely, the obvious flaws that he posses and the heroic desires that he has may just be enough for him to redeem his title as an anti-hero. Through the discussion of these points, we can come to an educated conclusion as to wether or not Holden is in fact the archetypal 20th century anti-hero.
These two theories therefore characteristically contrast with one another. However, this essay will also argue that there is an underlying commonality that can be viewed. The first contrast studied in this essay will be the way in which both theories view the effects of colonialism on the developing world, based upon their epistemological stance. Argentina’s president Nestor Kirchner once noted at a summit that “In reference to Neo-liberalism… ‘US policy not only generated misery and poverty but also a great social tragedy that added to institutional instability in the region, provoking the fall of democratically led governments’.”(Gibbs, 2006, pg.275).This demonstrates the split in opinion between the neo-liberal, US influencers of modernisation theory and the post colonial, Latin-American and western influencers of dependency theory. It will be argued that this contrast in the two theories is the most important.
Niebuhr explains the importance of recognizing the parallels between the U.S and the USSR and the faults of the American system: “If only we could fully understand that the evils against which we contend are frequently the fruit of illusions which are similar to our own, we might be better prepared to save a vast uncommitted world, particularly in Asia, which lies between ourselves and communism, from being engulfed by this noxious creed.”[7] When we refuse to acknowledge our failures and inconsistencies, and when our creed is developed through illusions of our supposed moral superiority, Niebuhr claims, we are less capable of understanding our purpose, our enemy, and ourselves. For Niebuhr, a strict, black and white separation ignores the moral complexity that needs to be recognized in
“Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices”(4). Paine believed that, in society, government was necessary in order to keep the vices of the governed in check. Paine argued, “Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one”(5). Thus, Paine reasoned that because government could be unbearably evil that it must be limited. Paine’s view of the ideal form of government was premised upon “a principal in nature…that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered”(7).
Let us first establish parameters of these two perspectives: Realism: is the view that world politics is driven by competitive self-interest creating a dynamic among countries that is a struggle for power. (Rourke, J p.20) Idealism / Liberalism: is the view that the people and nations of the world are driven by mutual interests seeking to cooperate to achieve common goals through international organizations and according to international law. (Rourke, J p.23) As we move into the study of international politics and relations it is apparent that both of these schools of thought understand that people and countries have defined goals. All people, societies, and states are striving to achieve security and stability and that is the goal of both realism and idealism. The security and stability that states are seeking comes once a balance of power has been achieved.