|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
When looking at the nature of international politics, we could say, as some liberal theories believe, that states’ actions are primarily determined by their wants. Initially, this idea seems to make much sense, as we could say, “states do what they want to do”. Yet, this statement is far too simple to be used to explain the nature of international politics. First, we need to find where states form their wants and desires. Second, what is the best way that they can realize these in the context of international politics? Each theory has it’s own way of answering these enduring questions, but none are complete in their explanation of how we came to this situation, and the best approach to accomplish the end that will best serve the interests of all actors. The primary reason why we entered into “social contracts” that led to the emergence of states in the first place was to create an environment that would ensure our safety, survival, and ability to exercise our faculties to achieve desire satisfaction. The behavior of a state can be somewhat interpreted through the wants of man; just as we hope to survive in the long run, and conduct our lives relatively free from external interference or coercive forces, so does the state. Yet, should we be so grim as to say that the entire goal of states is to accumulate the most power, or that the nature of the international system is a state of war? Whether we take it from Morgenthau’s classical or Waltz’s neo-realism, the end result is that states are in a struggle for survival. The corollary to that is that since competition is rampant, and cooperation is scarce, a “self-help” scenario arises, almost ensuring the perpetuity of a certain degree of conflict. But why is it the case that this must be so? It is due to the fact that states have differing interests, which are derived from many sources. Suffice to say, it would be a much simpler world if we all had the same interests in mind, but at what point to our interests diverge? Wendt’s constructivist theory is one way that we can use to see this problem. What realists do not fully explain is the role of ideas in the formation of state interests and goals. It is very simple to describe an environment of competition, and the pursuit of power as the realists do. However, where constructivism receives credibility is in the fact that it attempts to explain the process of change in international relations.
Approximate Word count = 1689
Approximate Pages = 6.8
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|