In this second part of our discussion board I would like you to start by reading the posts by your classmates to Discussion Board Part 1 summarizing each of the theories. I would like you to write around 250-300 words here where you answer the following: which of these theories do you find the most compelling, the most believable, and why? Which one speaks to you the most? What do you find less compelling/believable about the other theories? There is no correct answer here.
You can earn up to 20 points based on your use of evidence, persuasiveness of your argumentation, usage of correct grammar/writing style, and especially demonstration that you’ve read your classmates responses to the previous discussion board.
Please type your response directly in the submission area below (or type it in Word and paste it here – don’t just upload a document as that’s harder for your classmates to read).
1) Constructivism is a prominent perspective that scholars, in the field of political science, acknowledge being a well-respected point of view. There are many factors of the state one must consider when using constructivism as your persepctivve. One of the most important things to pay attention to while using this is the condition of the state. This is because constructivists believe that the terms and international relations are based off the condition of the state, which makes it ever-changing.
Some scholars are skeptic of this theory and may find certain things compelling, for instance the idea the history having little or nothing to do with the condition of the state. This is hard to ignore because international relations relys heavily on the past relations of the state. Without the history of the state many of the the modern issues become uncomprehensible. What makes this believeable is the constant change in power in many of today’s nations, meaning that what was done by a past leader may not affect the leaders decisions. This is believable because in countires where leaders are voted, like the U.S., there are leaders of different parties running and what the last president did may does not determine what is done by the current president. Making the idea that the state’s relations are ever-chaning based on the current condiition.
The philosophical point of view that constructivist take makes it a believeable theory/perspective. This being that one can not determine the state international relations because of it’s past. Meaning fundemental relationships, a realationship between the individual and society, between indviduals and society, and between society. This concurs to the idea that we should rather look at what is going on within the state in order to make an educated infrence on the state. There aree still many holes in this theory that are hard to ignore but if you take the mix method approach, you will find the this perspective can help lead you to a good inference.
2) The theory I have chosen to dive into today will be the theory is realism within international relations. The theory of realism is to apps to achieve things in a manor for which they truly are, being practical and using facts instead of emotions. Realism truly is the the notion that there is a concern for fact and there is a rejection for impractical/visionary ideologies. Realism allows for us to gain an understanding of how politics have been influenced and what they have been influenced by throughout time. The constraint placed on politics by the people and their egoistic ways is what is constantly highlighted my realists in international relations. The lack of not having a central for international government is also a constraint realists see that has had an effect on global politics. The state is one of the most important variables for realists, the state is unitary and speaks under one voice. There are factors that are addressed such as individuals within the state, however the state as a whole is where the power lies, not just within one individual. Realists believe that states find their dependency on their own capabilities. Overall what makes this theory a believable one is just it’s use of practical thinking and logical thinking. Use of emotion or sympathy isn’t being shown it all boils down to what is factual, and that is what I believe makes this theory i the most believable from my standpoint.The most unrealistic claim I belief this theory makes is that the all leaders are able to put aside believes or political persuasions to govern their states within a competitive environment. I find this claim to be very hard to justify just simply due to the fact that humans are emotional beings. I believe if someone has had a strong influence no matter what they might claim I believe subconsciously that influence will always be a factor in making decisions.
3) I chose the realism theory because of the many realistic values it holds. The basics of realism is that it is a family of related debates & arguments that share common ground in and on a logical ground point. Realism theory chooses to pay attention to the power,the state, and the national interest in world politics, in the regard to international relations. When it comes to how the state is involved in realism theory, it boils down to how the states have wanted and will continue to want to protect their own interest against neighboring and or enemy states. Personally, this theory is compelling due to how long it has been in place and how effective it has been while in place – even when not recognized for what it is titled “realism theory”. It gives a framework as well as a plan to understand the backlash of disastrous events – and has been doing so for many decades – ranging from the post World War One collapse as well as the series of aggression coming from Europe, World War Two, and more economically stressful events. Basically, this plays a part in its believability as well. If it were not in place for so long and it was not producing good enough results to keep this theory in place, then, this theory would be unbelievable as it would have produced no results. but, because it produced results in its productivity, it makes it believable. Realism is very realistic, but the thing that truly makes it unbelievable is how it is the theory that coincides with EVERYTHING – from the periodic table elements to what the elements make to bring us into space, to then the upcoming space wars that will take place. It is unbelievable that the theory has that big of a butterfly effect.
4) Constructivism is centrally based on socialization and education. Constructivists think that most conflicts can be resolved through communication, socialization, and education. That sharing different ideas, cultures, and understanding of different ideals of other states could avoid conflicts such as war. The role of the state in constructivism is to identify its their own characteristics and ideals, and understand their neighboring states characteristics and ideals. Their characteristics and ideals could be similar or they could be different from one another, which does not always mean they oppose each other but opposition could happen as well. Understanding the difference between their own identity and another states identity is an importance that could prevent unneccessary actions between states.
I find the theory that educating each other and socialization would correct a lot of the world issues interesting. I do believe that many issues can be solved by communication and coming to an understanding of each states perspective. In my opinion, if states were to be able to educate each other on their own identities it would end a lot of the worlds issues and decrease the chance of negative actions such as war. Yet in this year there are still countries that can not find a way to communicate to each other, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. What makes this theory believable though is country leaders are capable of meeting and discussing world issues even after past wars. For example, Russia and the United States have not had the best relationship since the Cold War but we are able to look past those issues and have our leaders meet and discuss. Even the United States with North Korea, who we never expected to have a meeting with, have met and socialized, we do not have to agree with each other but being able to understand each other can solve a lot of issues.
What is unbelievable or unrealistic about Constructivism is that it can solve every issue between states. Unfortunately, socializing and understanding each others identities can not solve every world problem. For example, if a state wants more territory and the state occupying that territory does not want to give it up, then what happens? Russia invading Ukraine in an attempt to regain the territory they had is what happens. Saudi Arabia and Iran, or Sunni and Shia, have been fighing each other for decades. Even though I belive finding and understanding between two different indentities can solve a lot of issues I also understand it can not solve every issue.
5) The theory I have chosen to dive into today will be the theory is realism within international relations. Realism is s a theory that claims to explain the reality of international politics. Realism’s roots are often said to be found in some of humankind’s earliest historical writings, particularly Thucydides’ history of the Peloponnesian War, which raged between 431 and 404 BCE. It emphasizes the constraints on politics that result from humankind’s egoistic nature and the absence of a central authority above the stat. Realism allowed for us to gain an understanding of how politics have been influenced and what they have been influenced by over a huge period of time. Realists claim to offer both the most accurate explanation of state behavior and a set of policy prescriptions (notably the balance of power between states) for ameliorating the inherent destabilizing elements of international affairs. While learning about this theory, the most unrealistic claim I belief this theory makes is that the all leaders are able to put aside believes or political persuasions to govern their states within a competitive environment. I find this claim to be very hard to believe because no matter what, at the end of the day everyone is going to have an opinion and specific belief with almost anything. Personally, I believe someone will have an opinion and want to embrace that opinion whether it is in specific way or not. If an individual wants their opinion to be known, then I believe that it will be known
6) The theory I have chosen is liberalism. Liberalism has many different meanings and theories that fall under it. Liberal theory can be traced all the way back to the eighteenth century but has been modernized as generations move forward into new ideologies. The liberal theory in the most simple terms is basically a political and moral outlook based on the rights of the person, liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law. Liberalism is loosely based on morals, and making sure that an individual has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberals emphasize the ideology of the well-being of an individual and put that as the building block in political institutions to push forward and make progress as a society. This theory is heavily based on trusting individuals and believing that they are rational and social beings capable of cooperation and decision making as a whole. A key part of liberalism is neoliberal institutionalists and their role in internal relations. Neoliberals are known as “new” liberals, and institution is in the sense of international institutions such as the United Nations that countries may come and go but the United Nations institution will still exist. Neoliberals believe that self-interest is important in any system. Liberals also believe that states can work together to maximize prosperity and minimize conflict. What is compelling about liberalism is the fact that there is much evidence that shows the goal of the liberal theory is to satisfy the people as a whole and make decisions together. Liberalism is very heavy on teamwork and being one. But, that can also be the issue with liberalism. While it seems that it would make sense to be cooperative with everyone that is not the reality. The reality is that people have different power motives and intentions for their own people, and countries and people have different intentions as an individual as well.
7) The theory in which I chose was liberalism. The basics of this theory are that they focus on liberty, freedom values of order, and toleration. They usually are known for supporting individuals’ rights whether it is civil rights or human rights. They believe in equal opportunity for all people and one who is open-minded and not strict on the observance of orthodox. Liberals think the most important things to pay attention to in international relations are the global structures within the international system. They also think that states can work together to maximize prosperity and minimize conflict. The liberal state focuses on individual rights and freedom. While it also argues for a neutral and minimal state. The state works for the common good of the society and its main activity is to understand law and order so that everyone is treated equally with no discrimination. Meaning liberal states regard individuals as rational agents and morals. What I find compelling about liberalism is that everything is done for the good pf the person. It seems hard to believe since usually everything is done for money or a higher power to benefit them without worrying about the true person in which you are. Liberalism compels me since we are finally worrying about the people for a change and making sure they are okay and happy with what is going on around them. They protect their human and civil rights as well to help change the way for new things people do not want. What I find unbelievable about liberalism is that they are not strict on any values. They are such open-minded people that they understand everyone’s perspectives and give them input on their opinions or ways even if it is different from their own. While still carrying open forms to keep the group of liberals going.
8) Like many other theories, liberalism is a diverse theory that is made up through centuries and countiues to be updated to this day. If liberalism was looked up in the dictionary it is stated to be a political philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. Even though this may be the definition there is so much that goes into liberalism and how it all started, and how it has changed today. One of the founders of enlightenment beliefs is Immanuel Kant. Mr. Kant believed that states would act in their own way due to their beliefs and it would lead to peace because of self interest. Continuing through the years, in the nineteenth century it was seen that liberalism was met through freedom in a democratic state. To this day it is true that most political freedoms are in capitalist states such as the United States. Following through to the twentieth century Woodrow Wilson, a president of the United States followed liberalism and believed in the “idealist” theory. Wilson believed that the war was preventable through certain aspects such as mediation, arbitration, and international courts. To this day, the basis of liberalism is quite the same, but there are a few changes that continue to progress as time goes by. The liberalism theory is compelling because they want equality but at the same time it can be unrealistic because it could be taking other people’s freedom away. This could be a sticky situation in today’s world as we see the problems the United States suffers with in today’s world. Liberalism has become extremely popular in today’s generation because so many people agree with these beliefs that are given. An example of liberalism in today’s world would be free education. Many people believe that if everyone had free education then there would be more equality, and opportunity for all people. Even though this may be seen as a good thing it can be unrealistic in our current system of social services.
9) The basics of realism is that states lives in a context of anarchy where power and security is principle for survival. In a state of anarchy where there is no government present for help, realist would need to harvest a bunch of power and use it for the security of the state.A realist use’s their power intelligently and judiciously in order to protect their land.The use of the power can be broken into offensive or defensive realist. Offensive realist believe “the best defense is good offense”, and that the more powerful your country is, the more countries are willing to be on your side. Countries want to be on the winning and more powerful side. This is also known as bandwagoning. On the other hand, we have defensive realist who believe in balancing the power. A defensive realist would balance their power so they do not attract much attention and will not have a big target. Another kind of realism are neorealist or (new)-realist. Neorealist focus on the distribution of power among varies countries and not just a single state. If a there are different distributions of power among varies states, then this will lead to different kinds of politics and the ways states interact.What I find interesting of this theory is how competitive this theory can be.In a realist mindset where power is the key for survival, a state can create a security dilemma. This can happen when a state wants to have more security by building a better army or bringing more weapons causing the neighboring states to feel insecure and weak. This can lead to the neighboring states also wanting to build their power and security causing an arms race. That sounds like that happens in today’s society where whatever state has the most nuclear weapons then they are stronger. What I find unbelievable about the theory is it only focuses on the states. There are other organizations and individuals within the state but they hold less power.
10) The theory of liberalism in the scheme of international relations can be traced back to the Enlightenment optimism seen in the 18th century. According to the textbook on page 78, liberalism rests on the basic idea that humans are rational and able to understand universally applicable laws that govern nature and society. Furthermore, this understanding means that humans are capable of manufacturing a just society where war, aggression, and injustice can be moderated through reform or collective action. The base ideas that contributed to the formation of liberal theory often cited war and violence as a consequence of forming civil society but that does not necessarily mean that it is an attribute of individual humans. This optimistic view of human nature developed the more rational approach that is 19th century liberalism, which favored fair trade and democracy. A core value of the liberal theory is that individual needs of each person can be satisfied in rational ways under a democratic state that allows for freedom and autonomy. Without excessive government restriction, individuals can contribute to themselves and the greater good of the economy and free market. Free commerce and trade is also believed to create an interdependency between states and increase the cost of war, creating a deterrent for it. Liberalism is exceptionally compelling because of its development with idealism. The idea that war is preventable through collective action or mediation is quite interesting because of its relevance to history. For example, the League of Nations cited this notion of “collective security”, that aggression against one state is aggression against all and should be handled collectively. Seeing as of now the relations between Ukraine and Russia this could become very important. On the other hand, states often act within their own economic interest and the theory of liberalism does not propose a solution to this sort-of large scale greed.
11) The theory that I chose to explore is liberalism. Liberalism as an international relations theory essentially states that people are inherently good and trustworthy, and that cooperation is possible. This contrasts with the idea of realism which states that people are inherently self-interested and untrustworthy. Liberalism also states that negative occurrences such as wars are a product of society, not something caused by the nature of individuals. Therefore, liberals do not believe that events such as these are unavoidable, but rather that they can be moderated or eliminated. Liberalism also focuses on absolute power and absolute gains rather than relative power and relative gains. This means that they are less focused on equality of outcome and more on ensuring that every party involved in relations ends up being better off, even if some countries benefit more than others. I believe that a good representation of the international relations theory of liberalism is summed up in the quote by Montesquieu: “different nations ought in time of peace to do one another all the good they can, and in time of war as little harm as possible, without prejudicing their real interests.”
The role of the state in liberalism is to pursue action that brings about the collective good. For example, the League of Nations was rooted in liberal theory. It was founded on the idea that war is preventable through the collective action of states. It included the concept of collective security, which states that aggression by one state would be met with action by a “league of nations.”
Liberalism appeals to me mostly because of the idea of multiple nations working together to achieve a common good. The idea that people are generally good and trustworthy seems like a much more positive outlook on the world than the opposite. The success by IGOS such as NATO and the UN shows that this idealistic point of view is at least somewhat believable.
Liberalism can be somewhat unrealistic however, as it does not always self-interest as an important motivation for individuals and nations and does not seem to acknowledge that this can cause them to act in dishonest or harmful ways. A good example of this is the failure of the League of Nations to prevent conflict in WW2.
12) The theory that I decided to write about was liberalism. This theory is based on protecting individuals rights, the consent of the governed and equality. Liberalism was developed in the 1970s. Liberals tend to believe that international institutions could play an essential role in cooperation within states by inter-independence. Liberals tend to argue that international diplomacy can be a significant way to convince states to have some sort of interaction within themselves without the use of any violent or untruthful manner to solve their concerns. By believing that with the proper government system, all states would be able to successfully rise prosperity and decrease conflict. Additionally, liberals strongly support the idea of being able to successfully spread their democracy to other corporations.Liberals stand by the idea that the state should not be granted a lot of power, but to limit their power by separation of powers, so that their citizens beliefs could be respected and for that the government could hold too much power. The political idea which holds that the state isn’t a issue to outside and internal authority of the other states which includes the military. Liberals strongly agree with the idea that nongovernmental organizations and international law organizations have a equal say in political concerns which in this circumstances contradicts with the concepts that realists support. What makes this theory realisticis the main purpose of this theory: protecting individuals rights. The idea of building an government system helps sustain the laws that would help prevent anyone from disturbing someone’s rights. The only flaw with this theory is that it is based in an idea that their is equality within citizens and the government. Even though, they have tried to explore the idea of finding ways to help spread their democracy, their government will always hold more power than their citizens. The equality that is mentioned in this theory is solely based in the idea that somehow this could be made true but it has yet to happen.
13) International relations theory is a political perspective looking at how states interact with each other on the global stage in different approaches. Some states may approach it through radicalism, liberalism, or constructivism each having its unique aspects of operating. However, one theory that stands out is that of realism.
Realism in international relations theory is that which emphasizes conflict and competitiveness. In emphasizing this, the state is the front when dealing with international relations. This involves the state acting on the global stage on behalf of its citizens and making decisions for the state in its entirety. Something very important in the realism approach on the international stage is that of strength or power, logic, and national interest. For example, in a time of war or foreign interaction, the state will show aggression and ensure they do not look weak. Additionally, they follow the principle that the unitary leader will make rational decisions that are only in the best interest of the state. The idea of realism is almost opposite to that of liberalism which emphasizes cooperation, however, realism emphasizes competition. The role of the state is to ensure it is competitive on the world stage and remains a strong power.
Many of the aspects of this theory of realism can be seen in certain aspects of our daily lives which makes it believable. Many countries such as North Korea operate as a dictatorship in which the Supreme Leader serves as the state and governs all operations both domestic and foreign. Seemingly operating with an iron fist and lack of regard for cooperation to earn a seat at the table of world powers. Many times, he has often declined to cooperate with other countries most recently being seen in a famine crisis. The lack of cooperation is realism in action. However, by this power-hungry ruling,
Some aspects that I find unrealistic about the theory are the lack of cooperation and constant competitiveness. To have a state always be in competition with others and refuse to work with other foreign policies, they ensure themselves as an isolated state – a state with no outside help, alliances, and often less socioeconomically developed. This ultimately may not be ruling with the best interests of the state in mind as the theory suggests. Often, it would be better to cooperate with outside states for trades, alliances, and more to improve a statistic like the human development index and increase GDP, technological advances, and others.
14) Liberalism a set of beliefs that includes the advocacy of positive government action to improve the welfare of individuals, support for civil rights, and tolerance for political and social change. Liberalism argues that states can mitigate the effects of anarchy. The theory of Liberalism is that they think that it within international relations theory which revolves around three interrelated principles: Rejection of power politics as the only possible outcome of international relations; it questions security/warfare principles of realism. Mutual benefits and international cooperation. The liberal state focuses on individual rights and freedom. It also argues for a neutral and minimal state, it fears that the state may act in an arbitrary manner to persecute certain groups.Honestly, I never knew what a liberal was or what it meant until taking this class. And from the information that I read throughout the chapter, I see the theory wants for the community to be at peace and have common ground. They want individuals to be able to speak their minds but to also be considerate of others and live in a peaceful and conflict less world. The people that believe in this theory doesn’t want a war but to able to talk about the issues and try to find ways that will suite everyone involved. With they also realize that sometimes a war must come to get things sorted out, but they want that option to be the last resort. But there were some criticisms from this group because of World War ll people questioned how things were going because of the new of the holocaust and how the human rights were being stripped away and a lot of question were being asked and questions the theories characteristics and replaced it with Realism. I get why this theory was created and I do agree with some of the guidelines that they have but I don’t agree with the fact that they want a warless world but in the same instance they wanted to get free trade from international groups, Liberal theorists believe that free trade and commerce create interdependencies among states, thus raising the cost of war and reducing its likelihood. I don’t think they researched on how this could affect the nation if this were to happen. In today’s society we rely on a lot of trade especially from China and places in the middle east and the US and Iraq are in constant battle over the land of oil even though we have a treaty with Iraq. Just because two countries can work out one issue doesn’t mean they can work out any other issue that may come up in the alliance.
15) The theory that is most compelling to me out of the ones listed above is radicalism. The reason this one catches my attention more than the others is because it is apparent in todays society, and is still taking place. There are plenty of people and groups who maintain radical political opinions and are advocating for immediate change. The basics of this theory is that anyone who believes in it, demands immediate social, and political reform. The people who believe in radicalism tend to have the most extreme opinions on political matters, no matter the side. This theory believes first and foremost in the distribution of wealth, where there is more of a middle class, and less people inside the one percent income status. The state does not have a very significant role when it comes to this specific theory. What is most compelling about this theory is the dedication people involved have to make a change. People who believe radical thoughts go to many different lengths to express their opinion. The most seen way to express the need for change is found in the forms of protests and petitions. These have been happening far more often throughout America, and many people believe it has a very big impact. It is seen as quite believable because it has created many different changes in politics in America, and it will continue to do so. The thing that can be viewed as unrealistic when talking about this theory, is the belief that change must happen immediately. Change has historically taken time when it comes to politics. Many radical people expect a protest or petition to create immediate action. This however does not happen often, and can sometimes be disheartening to many radical individuals. Radicalism is very apparent in this current climate, and will continue to grow.
16) Realism can best be defined as a measure of security. Realism maintains that a security posture is the most important aspect of a state. The role of the state in the realist framework is to pursue its own self-interest, and to maintain its own security. The realist framework also emphasizes the importance of relative gains. The textbook gives the example of India and Pakistan. In order to maintain a security posture against the other state, both states attempt to develop a stronger nuclear arsenal than the other. This falls in line with the realist point of view, which is that states will individually pursue their self-interest. Another core tenet of realism is the idea of international anarchy. Individual states have sovereignty, but there is no sovereignty exercised at the international level. As such, there is no force that can coerce individual states other than other individual states.
The most compelling thing about realism is its close attention to self-interest. Since not all states cooperate, smaller states are in a position where they must choose to align themselves with countries for their own protection and material interest. NATO would be an example of countries that band together for material interests, even though there is no unifying ideology. A country like Turkey is radically different from the United States in its style of politics, but still feels compelled to stay in NATO because of the protection it provides from a country like Russia. The material gains of customs unions like the EU and defensive alliances like NATO increase Western countries’ relative gains in proportion to autocratic countries in the same region, like Russia.
The existence of NATO can also be used as an argument against realism. From the perspective of realism, states are meant to pursue their own material interest at the expense of other states. If this were true all the time, it seems difficult to justify the existence of regional alliances and customs unions, since they also benefit the other countries in that region. If the goal of the state is to maximize its relative gains in proportion to all other states, it would seem like an unwise decision to help your regional adversaries by engaging in trade and commerce with them.
17) The theory I selected for this discussion is liberalism. The liberalism theory focuses on the equality of rights, and well-being of individuals. Liberalism has a major objective to protect the freedom of individuals prioritizing their rights over the government. Liberalism limits governmental power by creating equality rights between the individuals and the law, protecting private property, freedom of speech, division of powers, limiting state power, and establishing civil codes. Etc. The state plays a particular role in the theory of liberalism because it is considered the principal enemy; whose power is trying to be diminished meanwhile the power of the people increases. The liberals fear that the state can use its power to prosecute and censure those that have different opinions. Thus, their main objective is to limit state power via constitutionalism, an independent judicial system, and rule of law.
Liberalism is a way of thoughts and behavior that has become so commonplace that it is easy to forget how it came to be. It brought civic liberty, which put an end to dictatorship and the feudal system. As a result, we may conclude that liberalism’s significance stems from the fact that it ushered in change in many areas, fostering, among other things, democracy, and the well-known rule of law. It also made a change in the social aspect creating the freedom of speech
What I found most unrealistic about this theory is that it tries to take most of the power from the government entity to give it to the people; instead of creating a bridge between the government and the people to work together instead of separate. Also, that liberalism works under the hypothesis that it is possible to take all the power from the government and that if a country is based on liberal principles, it can build the power and wealth necessary to propel a free society more than a mission.
18) The word liberal has many different meanings. To start when you look at the economy, a liberal point of view stresses the importance of a free market. This is where people self regulate their businesses with limited government rule. The next definition of liberal relates to American politics which highlights liberating people from government control. Lastly, looking at liberalism on an international relations scale is a lot different from these two. Liberal as an international relations theory focusing on connections and relationships with foreign entities. It points out that cooperation with other countries is possible and necessary and the focus should be on absolute power and absolute gains. A liberal view in international relations tries to consider all points of view looking for a solution that will make everyone happy. Liberalism focuses on mutual benefits with other countries meaning they have incentives to hold down things like treaties. Liberalism seems like a very fair way of going about international relationships because it seeks to make everyone happy and help everyone benefit from one another. On another note it doesn’t seam to realistic considering that its impossible to always make everyone happy. There are so many alliances in our world that when one country helps out another, some other country is being effected negatively. Its impossible for everyone to win when not everyone is on the same page and has the same interests for their country. In a perfect world, liberalism would be the perfect way to go about international relationships but as we have seen in the past, its not so easy to put your trust and treat all countries the same especially when they dont have similar intentions.
19) Liberalism (not to be confused with strictly American liberalism) in international relations essentially means the ability to cooperate with other nations is a possibility. Liberals believe cooperation should be encouraged, focusing on absolute gains, meaning policies that make all involved countries better off, even if some are mademore better off than others. In this sense, the most important thing to look for regarding liberalism in international relations is simply whether a policy or action benefits all parties involved; if it does then it’s likely a result of a liberalistic approach. The role of the state in this theory is to encouragetransparency and cooperation in order to provide the most possible benefit.
I find this theory compelling because personally I think the whole realm of international relations would be incredibly different without the idea of liberalism. I think what makes it believable and valid as an idea (particularly neoliberal institutionalism) is that it takes into account people and institutions tend to act in their own self interest, but utilizes that to still benefit everyone involved.
I think the only thing I find unrealistic about this theory in international relations is that there are many scenarios where it’s not really an option. For example, two countries who produce the same product to export are going to have a difficult time coming to some sort of accord where they both benefit; similar to like if fire and water were trying to find something that benefits them both, the possibilities are slim if not nonexistent, so in some cases the idea of liberalism in international relationsis not valid.
My discussion: Constructivism views the globe and what we perceive to see concerning the world as socially constructed. This perception indicates nature to be of reality and knowledge, which is also known as “ontology and epistemology”. “Constructivists believe both agency and structure are mutually constitutive, implying that structures impact agency and agency affects structures”. The definition of agency is the capacity to react, while the structure is the international system composed of physical and conceptual parts. This modification or reinforcement relies on the assumptions and concepts shared by both states. If such values and ideals shift, the social interaction may evolve into companionship. Realists, on the other hand, believe that countries’ conduct may be influenced by the system’s anarchic character. Identities and interests are also a fundamental concern of constructivism. Constructivists contend that nations may have numerous identities socially formed by engagement with other entities. Identities are manifestations of a state’s perception of what they are that reveal their preferences. Constructivists consider them essential since they contend that identity produces values and behaviors. The identification of a small nation, for instance, entails a distinct range of priorities than those of a huge one. It may be argued that the little nation is more preoccupied with its existence, while the giant state intends to control the world’s political, economic, and army events. It is believed that nations that correspond to a particular identity would adhere to the accompanying standards. This concept implies that certain forms of behavior and conduct are much more appropriate than others. It is believed that states which correspond to a particular image would adhere to the accompanying standards. This concept implies that certain forms of behavior and conduct are much more appropriate than others.
One of the things that I find to be compelling with constructivism is that the behavior of international actors depends on their identity and interests. This makes the theories look believable since, in real life, the interaction between two or more states is dependent on the interests of the individual actors. Most states come together with a view of gaining something in return which is their interest. For example, many states have come together to come up with climate change policies.
In some instances, I believe that political interaction is not only about an individual or state interest for the benefit of the entire world. Therefore, I consider it unrealistic to say that international relations depend on the actor’s social interests. Some result from a better environment for all but not only the individual states. For example, the case controlling the climate change impacts the whole world.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more