From 1618-1648, Europe was overwhelmed in a sequence of intensely vicious conflicts referred to as the Thirty Years’ War. This war is in partly a fight amid an imperial scheme of government and the up and coming nation state. In fact, several historians deem that the contemporary global scheme of nation state was shaped up in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which eventually terminated the conflict. According to Klare (2011), the new thirty years war will be a war for energy dominance. This will be a battle because the survival and profitability of majority of the most wealthy and powerful corporations in the world will be at stake. The fate of nations will also be at risk as they put their gambles on the competing technologies, clinging to their subsisting energy patterns and competing for international markets, reserves and energy sources. Although Klare’s thirty years war will not lead to bloodshed as the 1600s war, it will confirm momentous for future of the globe.
When these 3 decades comes to an end, as with Westphalia treaty, the globe is expected to have the basis of a novel scheme for organizing itself around energy needs. Meanwhile, the battle for energy resources is assured to expand more intense because there is no means through which the subsisting energy scheme can gratify the future requirements of the world. It should be supplemented or replaced in a key way through a renewable alternative scheme or, disregard Westphalia; the globe will be exposed to environmental tragedy. Nevertheless, this doesn’t imply that feminists are deserting theory or hunt for a superior knowledge. Even though they draw upon epistemologies that are relatively different from traditional global relations, they are also looking for a superior knowledge of the procedures that enlighten internal economic, social and political relations (Klare, 2011).
Why feminist perspective on international relations continue to remain outside the mainstream of traditional approaches to IR theory and how a feminist analysis of global terrorism differ from that of a realist
According to Tickner (1997), a feminist perspective on international relations continue to remain outside the mainstream of traditional approaches to IR theory because modern feminist perspectives on global relations are based upon epistemologies and ontologies that are rather diverse from those that enlighten the traditional discipline, Thus, they don’t comfortably fit in the traditional structural and state-centric approaches to international relations theorizing or with the methods often applied by international relations scholars. Feminist epistemologies informing the novel ways of understanding global relations are relatively dissimilar from those of traditional international theory. Feminists are skeptical of common truth explanations and assertions connected with the body of understanding from which females have regularly been kept out as subjects and knowers. Even though feminists draw upon epistemologies relatively diverse from traditional global relations, they are further searching for superior understanding of processes that notify international social, political and economic relations. Creating knowledge that doesn’t begin with the location of the disengaged common subject entails being perceptive to diversity whist attempting to objective (Tickner, 1997).
A feminist analysis of global terrorism would differ from that of a realist in that realists describe security in military or political term, as the defense of the integrity and boundaries of the nation together with its values against perils of an antagonistic global environment. Therefore, realists will view global terrorism as a war involving several nations and disturbing global peace. On the contrary, feminists describe security largely in multilevel and multidimensional terms, as the reduction of all types of violence, entailing physical, ecological and structural violence. Because females are marginal to power structures of majority of nations, and because feminist views on security take the security of women as their core concern, majority of these descriptions begin with the community or individual other than the international or state system (Genest, 1997).
Maxim contention that t, in international politics, the “strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept. I do agree with maxim that, in international politics, the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept. Universal knowledge in international relations informs us that the strong nations do what they are able to do while the weak nations endure what they have to. Power describes global politics and states without power are compelled to act in accordance to the states having the power. Structural realism allows people to describe a more active and independent role for states with minor power. It is applicable to minor powers and it is a hypothesis on competition and self help. It envisages that within an anarchic setting, powerful states are perceptive to comparative gains, participate in interior build-ups and exteriorly balance power of intimidating of dominant actors. Nations care about their continued existence and autonomy and both a focus on comparative gains and external or internal balance does not guarantee minor powers’ autonomy and survival (Genest, 1997).
Minor powers aren’t capable of triumphing poor gap to dominant powers and are also not able to safe guard their well being within balancing coalitions. In short, competition has diverse implications for big and small nations. Three major foreign policy plans continue for minor powers. Firstly, every nation that is a portion of a procedure which puts into danger its autonomy and survival and whose result he can’t establish can be anticipated to prevent these developments. Secondly, because avoiding politics of great powers isn’t usually an alternative, minor power usually tries to alleviate politics of great powers. This entails regional institutionalization that is feasible since minor powers are not required to be sensitive to coparative gains. Lastly, minor powers partner with dominant powers in accordance to the threat or distribution of power. They choose to stay non-aligned and to take part in informal coalition strategies. These strategies elucidate why great powers to what they have the power to do and minor powers accept what they have to accept (Jeanne, 2003).
A detailed description of the benefits and costs of interdependence as defined by Nye
Nye defines interdependence as conditions in which events or actors in diverse regions of a system influence one another. Nye goes on with his description of interdependence trough saying that the outcomes are usually varied and even though the probable benefits subsist, the potential for disaster subsists as well. In spite of this probability for differing outcomes, Nye also argues that its very hard and very expensive for a nation to attempt and isolate itself from the globe, like what Albania or Myanmar did. Interdependence may be split into four distinct elements, which are its benefits, sources, symmetry, and costs, dimension which can emerge in both social and physical aspects of the society (Nye, 2000).
The notion of economic interdependence cannot be doubted as an actuality in the contemporary planet. It is a notion that attained immense popularity before the First World War and very slowly gained popularity after the isolationist period of America after Second World War. Nye (2000) argues that economic interdependence entails policy options about costs and values. The policy options are mostly based on the notions of demand and supply, in the logic that what a country can’t supply for its people, can be provided via trade with other countries. These policy decisions nevertheless, are fairly regularly not as easy as demand and supply, but rather are hugely dependent on dispensation of resources, particularly powerful resources. The outcomes of economic interdependence are very varied in distribution of benefits of the involved states. Economic interdependence is positive in that it brings nations closer together and forces them to operate in a cooperative way. Nevertheless, economic interdependence is not usually a good tool of prosperity and peace and has the capacity to be utilized as a mace of mass destruction and chaos. Economic restrictions by nations in regulation of powerful resources possess the distinct capability to coerce and oppress nations in need of these resources (Nye, 2000).
Class system / Globalism
A discussion Wallerstein’s contention that “the capitalist world-economy cannot survive” and as a historical social system is in “the process of being superseded.”
The contemporary global-economy is a capitalist global-economy. It is a chronological scheme whereby priority is offered to the never ending buildup of capital and capital is utilized so as to generate more capital. Wallerstein uses the phrase capitalism global economy, implying that capitalism is a historical scheme or an explicit time of history characterized by particular actors such as status groups, classes, firms, household and states and the interrelations amid them aiming at improving the buildup of capital. Capitalism is a historical scheme since it is composed of mechanisms which eliminate or penalize actors who don’t operate in accord with the goal of endless buildup of capital whilst these mechanisms impose positions of actors that undertake this objective. Only the capitalist global-economy can subsist for a long duration as it is really doing and all other global-economy have been changed into empire scheme or have been destructed. This is because in a global-economy, the uniting aspect of the diversion region of the scheme I division of labor and its efficiency determines the unity of the entire scheme (Wallerstein, 2004). I do agree with Wallerstein contention because capitalism is the outcome of interference from the state. It is an outcome of a union, or a tactic deal amid producers and merchants and politics. Capitalism is not a natural thing it is rather constructed. A capitalist aiming at continued buildup of capital is greatly effective on the basis of generating wealth and it elucidates success of modern global economy. The basic idea that Wallenstein created is that there is no existence of free market because the market is composed of oligopolies and monopolies. Therefore, free market is a mystery. Nations have the capacity to stabilize or enforce oligopolies and monopolies via diverse interventions such as imposition of a scheme of patents for the intellectual property, via nations’ fiscal policy and via nations’ trade policies prohibiting imports and compelling other nations to restrain their imports. Without such state interference, the capitalist scheme couldn’t survive.
Political culture and decision making process theories
Fukuyama contention in “The west has won” that radical Islam does not constitute a serious alternative to western democracy
Fukuyama, contention that radical Islam does not constitute a serious alternative to western democracy happened after t he September 11invasion on New York, and the consequent battle against violence in Afghanistan and construction of evil axis. After the September 11 tragedy, Fukuyama asserted that the Islamic society had come to the end of history. He used the term history to refer to the advancements over the centuries towards modernity, defined by institutions such as capitalism and democracy. The observation that Fukuyama made in 1989 prior to the downfall of communism was that the evolutionary procedure appeared to bring larger regions of the globe toward modernity. In regard to liberal markets and democracy, there wasn’t anything else in which the globe could anticipate to evolve , therefore the termination of history. Whilst there existed traditional regions that resisted this process, it was difficult to get a feasible optional civilization that individuals needed to survive in after the dishonor of socialism monarch tyranny and other forms of authoritarianism (Fukuyama, 2001).
Even though there are several states that haven’t made the move to either capitalism or democracy, Islam seems to be strangely resistant to both capitalism and democracy. Islam is the sole cultural scheme that has seemed to frequently produce radical individuals such as Osama Bin Laden. Islam is an extremist religion and causes of this extremism are connected with the constant erosion of conventional village living as well as cultural perils of modernity. The main cause is political authoritarianism and poverty. In regions where Muslim communities have gained immense wealth via exploitation of oil, these form os economic situations have endorsed shady rentiers who have become highly fanatically Islamist. The liberal democracies will prevail since majority of Muslims favor the merging of personal consumption and liberal politics to religious orthodoxy and authoritarian politics. Therefore, Fukmaya thesis of end of history is sustained.
Peace studies theory
Peace studies theory intends to analyse the presence of peace and absence of violence and subsistence of peace promoting schemes. The criticisms of the peace studies theory are based on Galtung’s groups of violence which is cultural, direct or structural along with the subsequent notions of peace (positive and negative). Boulding criticizes structural peace by considering it to be too wide to be analytically helpful. Boulding also thinks that depiction of interdependence amid structural and direct violence is very naive and the economic force behind poverty as a structural aspect of particular societies was fairly dissimilar from political force behind the utilization of hostility to target certain social groups. Boulding sees structural hostility as a deceptive metaphor since the processes that create and maintain poverty aren’t similar to the processes that create and maintain violence. Boulding criticizes the phrase negative peace as deceptive and asserts that peace isn’t simply the absence of opposite of war. Rather, war and peace are intricate phases of a dynamic and ongoing scheme of warning the international scheme, every with its individual differentiating features (Genest, 1997).
I believe that today’s world makes the peace study theory unrealistic because peace has different meanings for different people and it varies depending on the form of problem or extent of analysis. In several contexts, like global relations, peace can be associated with vast historical or political issues or forces, whilst in others peace studies theory can highlight peace between or within individuals. Peace studies theory by viewing peace as having diverse meanings in diverse cultures and also diverse connotations for spheres through which peaceful practices are employed. This implies that the meaning of the term peace as a perception reflects the cultural framework from which peace comes from and in which peace is used.
Human nature and cognitive theories
Freud’s explanation of the existence of war and what factors did he suggest was absent in the League of Nations that might prevent war
Freud explains that the root of war is found in human’s instinct for destruction and aggression. He believed that social life emerged in unsettled conflicts and therefore civilization was usually susceptible to radical distractions. According to Freud, the conflict amid societal mores and sexual needs is the cause of man’s prosperity for aggression, hostility, dissatisfaction, and eventually violence and war. The highest struggle in existence is the association between man’s interior world and the world into which he is born. Therefore, inner peace and harmony can solely be gained when people have learned how to control their aggression impulses through solving this incongruity. Nevertheless, Freud deemed that harmful forces are present in every individual;, and therefore human being is by nature, a fundamentally anti-cultural and anti-social being, it is hard for several people to acknowledge this premises ( Freud, 2005).
Freud believes that war could be prevented only if countries were ready to renounce majority of their dominion in favor of a global body. He also explored the outcomes of suppressing impulses so as to live within a society. Civilization must be restraining death initiation but if individuals are not given the gratifications of aggressions, they always turn against themselves. Freud (2005) offers a simple scheme of tackling a superficial element of a problem. He argues nations to set up global consent, a judicial or legislative organization to resolve all conflicts emerging amid nations. Every nation is supposed to undertake to adhere by the rules issued by the legislative body, to raise its decision in each dispute, to acknowledge its verdicts unreservedly and to undertake each measure the tribunal believes to be essential for implementation of its rulings.