The Analyzing of Golan Heights Issue on International Sphere (original) (raw)
Related papers
International Political Anarchy?
This essay questions the viability of political anarchy from a global governance perspective, eschewing the individual as a unit of analysis and instead focusing on the role and interaction of nation-states on an international level. In doing so this essay concludes that in a global context, political anarchy is feasible but not necessarily wholly sustainable. The implications of this for anarchic viability are discussed. The specific focus of this essay upon nation-states explores the claims of realists such as Mearsheimer (1994), who inherently assume that the system of international relations we inhabit is anarchic. Anarchy is not explored in any depth at more micro-levels of interaction but only referenced in passing and for example. Whilst it may be conventional to view political anarchy in binary terms, this essay makes the point that such a view is broadly unhelpful in understanding the practical implications of anarchy and the notion may be better explored in terms of ‘degrees of anarchy’.
Anarchy and Anarchism: Towards a Theory of Complex International Systems
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2010
The use of ‘anarchy’ in International Relations theory appears very different from its incarnations in political philosophy. Whilst realist scholars have used anarchy to describe an absence of centralised political authority in which states wield differential power, political philosophers in the anarchist tradition have mounted a critique of the coercive and compulsory powers of states themselves. This article argues for reconceptualising ‘anarchy’ in International Relations theory using insights from complexity theory. We would describe the international system as a complex adaptive system which has a tendency to self-organisation. Furthermore, in distinct contrast to Waltz, we argue that the international system has to be seen as embedded within a range of physical systems, and other social systems including those which reproduce a range of (gendered, racial, class-based, colonial) relations of domination. Here insights from anarchist social ecologism can be utilised to further ac...
Anarchy Is What Explains the History of International Relations
MGIMO Review of International Relations
The article examines the major events of the two previous centuries of international relations through main concepts of political realism. The author argues that in order to understand the present dilemmas and challenges of international politics, we need to know the past. Every current major global problem has historical antecedents. History from the late 19th century constitutes the empirical foundation of much theoretical scholarship on international politics. The breakdown of the Concert of Europe and the outbreak of the devastating global conflagration of World War I are the events that sparked the modern study of international relations. The great war of 1914 to 1918 underlined the tragic wastefulness of the institution of war. It caused scholars to confront one of the most enduring puzzles of the study of international relations, why humans continue to resort to this self-destructive method of conflict resolution? The article shows that the main explanation is the anarchical ...
Anarchy and Authority: International Structure, the Balance of Power, and Hierarchy
danial h nexon, 2019
Do international systems tend to remain anarchic because of recurring balances of power, or do they tend toward imbalances and hierarchy? Leading structural theories posit competing predictions about systemic outcomes, and the historical record offers evidence to support both claims. This suggests the need to theorize conditions under which one tendency or another is likely to dominate and what factors lead systems to transition from one state to another. We draw on constructivist and English School insights about international authority and legitimacy to develop such a framework. We conceive of patterns of international authority as structures independent from, and interacting with, mechanisms usually associated with international anarchy, such as the balance of power. We propose that international authority systems vary along two dimensions: particularist cosmopolitan and substitutable nonsubstitutable. Both are emergent properties of ideas and institutions located at the unit level. We argue that certain authority systems-particularist and nonsubstitutable-reinforce, and are reinforced by, anarchy and balanced distributions of capabilities. Others-cosmopolitan substitutable-facilitate rollup and domination and are likely to emerge or be maintained in hierarchic and highly asymmetric systems. By offering a Article Navigation
Constructivism arose in mid-1980s as a cluster of research methods and analytical tools with an objective to debate the neorealist premise that anarchy forces states into recurrent security competitions, power struggle and relative gains alike (Dale, 1999). In a sense, constructivism is an extremely different approach, as is a socio-understanding theory, which is bringing a new ways of thinking about the world we live in. Constructivism goes beyond traditional international system. It takes values, ideas and identities of and communications among "agents" to create "structures" . The first part of the following essay will focus on the definition of constructivism, which certainly makes constructivism a distant approach in the discipline of international relations.
Capitalism and Anarchy in the context of International Relations
The first part of this paper will explore the Realist school of IR. Here, it will be discussed how Realism accentuates the sovereign agency of nation-states by bolstering the inherent normativeness of anarchy. Following this, the Liberal theory of IR will be introduced as it entertains the potential of peace within the world of war. For the first time, anarchy will be understood as susceptible to cultural change. The appeasement of anarchy - however - is not sufficient. If anarchy is to be truly overcome, a shared component that transcends the differences between nation-states should be erected. To this end, the classical liberal doctrine of economy will be introduced. The myth of anarchy will - again - undergo a change, in that the free market economy will be understood as a unifying force that binds the nation-states together. The change in anarchy, however, can only come about by way of socio-political responsibility. Here, constructivism will be introduced as it emphasizes the political responsibility of making something out of anarchy. The myth of anarchy will - yet again - undergo a change, in that anarchy will no longer be understood as natural or inherent. This point is crucial, because a true change in anarchy can transpire only if political actors realize that they are responsible for a specific kind of anarchy. Finally, the notion of capitalism will be introduced. That is to say, the accrued knowledge of anarchy will culminate in the analysis of late capitalism. It will be argued that the canon of anarchy often forgets the internal organization of states and dismisses the vertical hierarchies of power that affect the international politics. Capitalism will - therefore - assume a more prominent role. It is the claim of this paper that the understanding of IR in terms of anarchy can be afforded solely to the victors of the new world order. Finally, the intention of this paper is to construct a road map for present-day political action. In the end, the discussion of globalization and neo-Marxist theory will compose exactly that - a map for action.