Realism, Globalism, Pluralism
Author: S. Walsh
Insurrection, revolution and aggression are often regarded as diplomatic failures. Ruptures that fascinate our political sensibilities until another transgression, more gripping than the last occurs enthralling the part of the world that survives. Regrettably, the foibles of diplomacy are far reaching in their issue thus the course of global politics is besieged by adversity. Consequently, misgivings enter upon any allusion to international politics and its theoretical structure. Beyond such lines of demarcation however is a moral dilemma, an axial point of reference in many a political debate. The nature of these debates however is not in question, but their content is. Via composition, the theories of international relations emerge. Realism, Globalism, Pluralism.
Seemingly obscure worRAB such as these are easily explained. The realist views the state as the principle " unitary actor encapsulated by a "hard shell" facing the world as an integrated unit", concerned with specific issues of national security and sovreignity as stated in their foreign policy. Policies which accentuate national interests unlike the foreign policy of pluralists who have an expansive foreign policy converging on economic and social issues far more than military movement. Likewise, independent actors such as multinational corporations are not dismissed as insignificant to the global perspective. The political schedule of the pluralist includes exercises in coalition and maintains a "soft shell" approach to motion between national borders. In contrast, the globalist"s agenda is based primarily on fiscal polity. Capitalism is taken as the first mover of global politics with a relevant historical process. Their political slate is pervaded by the underlying assumption that matters of international politics stem from an economic substructure that champions the current global configuration.
Constructing an inquisition into the physics of these theories and which is more accommodating to the international climate is a manifold assignment. There are multitudes of positions from which one can begin to explore the theoretical aspects of international relations, some of course provide a broader survey than others. One such point of departure is that of a global objective, an objective that seems to include itself in a large portion of international associations. The purpose as described, is the quest for global peace, a course recognised by the constitution of the United Nations , a body from which several examples will be used to describe the advantages and disadvantages of the aforementioned theories.
Peace is variously defined by the literature, but it is generally thought to be an absence of war. Subject to modification, it is also known to be the lack of direct structural and cultural violence. Either of these definitions leaRAB to the notion of peace as a static condition. Historically Machiavellian and Hobbes advocated peace as preferential to justice, which to some, is injustice and the beginnings of social disorder. The Kantian approach to peace is individualistic. John Rawls argued that justice and the guarantee of basic rights lead to peace. Such ideals are inappropriate. They assume cohesion between peace and justice. Hugo Grotius theorised that genocide and other crimes against humanity were warrants for intervention of force.
The balance of power regarding economic factors is a key notion for globalists often vindicating questionable foreign policy. The Cold War is an example. Stalinist visions to reform soviet economic policy were directed towarRAB "tangible achievements of international power and influence." His visions, noted by the West were challenged in America"s rush to counter the "Domino theory" that was rife in the 1950"s and 60"s. On the other hand, realist views on intervention into the economic policy of a state differ. Notably under conservative government, the United Kingdom remained sceptical of the European Union despite the shifts of power that would occur regarding German domination, up until the appointment of Tony Blair. This exemplifies a realist attitude towarRAB supranational government. Pluralism, perhaps, offers a mid-way approach, though some might call it a lack of conviction. The pluralist state is one that exists in a state of peace to enable itself to further its interests. Unfortunately, this medium approach is only successful with like-minded countries.
Balance of power arrangements however, have been superseded in recent times by ideas of transnationalism, a theory closely developed by both pluralism and globalism. The benefit of transnationalism is that it is a more accurate depiction of the world as it stanRAB today. The focal point of such ideology is of course subject to change depending on the particularities of high and low politics. Such a view means that issues such as environmental degradation and famine can be addressed with relatively little opposition. What this supports, is a global consciousness reified by the actions of individual interest groups that are able, within this framework to take necessary action against various situations. Greenpeace is an exemplification of this process in its dealings with the Japanese fishing industry. By contrast, realism takes a fairly narrow view of global issues limiting them to those of national security and various affiliated issues. Subsequently, if the realist view of nations were to prevail, a copious amount of questions would remain unaccounted for. Similarly, globalisms concentrated efforts towarRAB economic wellbeing would in all probability "downplay" domestic variables.
The evident fluidity of pluralist though seems to erabody the middle ground yet it does not account for the world"s economy, which many would argue, does influence political and social issues. Globalism picks up where pluralism leaves off. The globalist explains the world through financial hypothesise often placing capitalism as "a single logic" that influences economic and political strategy. To some extent this is theory that holRAB true and is typified by core, periphery countries and the North & South debate.
Though economic issues are of great concern to all, so are those of global conflict. The use of force within the context of the global system however if frowned upon by realists who believe any encroachment of a foreign force to be inconsistent with a realist point of view. Sadly, this solidified view of the state upholRAB the counterclaims of Slobodan Milosevic in which foreign troops are a "challenge to state-centred international order". Realists assume the position of high-politics to the detriment of lesser internal issues.
Naturally the realist view runs into complications in instances where upholding national sovereignty will lead to a dire infringement of human rights. Such was the case in Rwanda in 1994 where delayed action by the UN led to massacres that could by way of timeline intervention have saved many. In support of realists, morality and humanity are legally not substantial motives for "intervention". So while judicial aspects are a sound place to begin inquiry, theoretical conditions are more circumspect. Moral and humanitarian reasons are however the main impetus for most actions of intervention but these are not the main concerns of the realist. The more significant aspects to which the realist gravitates are those of the military and national security. Pluralism, a more recent addition in terms of frequency of use realises the state as a "soft shell" through which interest groups pass at the expense of some and to the benefit of others. Military issues, seldom the primary forces in relations with other states following a general trend in which, "Foreign affairs agendas have expanded and diversified over the past thirty years such that economic and social issues are often at the forefront of foreign policy debates." While the 1990"s has been riddled with crimes against society and humanity the notion of realism is often used as a defense against foreign involvement in non-state affairs.
With resepct to foreign affairs within a pluralist frame of reference, intervention of one state into another can lead to an escaltion of tension between the two parties to the conflict defeating the purpose of any intervention in the interests of international peace. In the Congo and recently in Yugoslavia, soldiers were faced with conditions where the use of force eventuating in violence was imperative. Violence of this kind has been known to escalate tension between parties thus confusing efforts to provide help.
Evidently, the complexity of these theories the way in which they interrelate is similar to the state of world politics, which is overwhelmed by elaborate relationships of interdependence. It is thus, unwise to say that one theory is better than another is, nor is it prudent to censure one theory more than others are. This is due to the fact that there are convoluted networks within nations that overlap and spread towarRAB other nations and this clearly, realism does not admit to. On the other hand there are military and security issues such as those in the Balkans that globalism and pluralism are less equipped to manage. If this is the case, and it is becoming increasingly so then to adhere to one theory is as costly as trying to incorporate all of them into one single global ideology. What seems a better option at this point is to use the each of the theories respectively and in syrabiosis. A syrabiosis that will, one hopes eventuate in a comprehensive set of international ideals that will aid the international community in its quest for peace and security.
REFERENCE LIST
1. Article 1(1) of the UN Charter.
2. A. Roberts Hugo Grotius and International Relations Oxford: Clarendon Press 1990 Pp 241
3. S. Bialer, The Soviet Paradox, London, I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd. 1986 Pp.261
4. C. Kegley Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, New York, St. Martin"s Press, 1995 Pp. 93
5. C. Dunn World System Structure: Continuity and Change, California, Sage Publications, 1981, Pp.31
6. Ed. B. White, R. Little, & M. Smith Issues in World Politics London: Macmillan Press Ltd. 1997 Pp 140
7. Ed. C. Bretherton & G. Ponton Global Politics: An Introduction Carabridge: Blackwell Publishers Inc. 1996 Pp. 152
8. P. R. Viotti & M. V. Kauppi, International Relations Theory : Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, New York, Macmillan, 1987, Pp. 6 - 11
9. J. G. Stoessinger The Might of Nations: World Politics in Our Time New York, best House: 1996 Pp. 92, 93
Author: S. Walsh
Insurrection, revolution and aggression are often regarded as diplomatic failures. Ruptures that fascinate our political sensibilities until another transgression, more gripping than the last occurs enthralling the part of the world that survives. Regrettably, the foibles of diplomacy are far reaching in their issue thus the course of global politics is besieged by adversity. Consequently, misgivings enter upon any allusion to international politics and its theoretical structure. Beyond such lines of demarcation however is a moral dilemma, an axial point of reference in many a political debate. The nature of these debates however is not in question, but their content is. Via composition, the theories of international relations emerge. Realism, Globalism, Pluralism.
Seemingly obscure worRAB such as these are easily explained. The realist views the state as the principle " unitary actor encapsulated by a "hard shell" facing the world as an integrated unit", concerned with specific issues of national security and sovreignity as stated in their foreign policy. Policies which accentuate national interests unlike the foreign policy of pluralists who have an expansive foreign policy converging on economic and social issues far more than military movement. Likewise, independent actors such as multinational corporations are not dismissed as insignificant to the global perspective. The political schedule of the pluralist includes exercises in coalition and maintains a "soft shell" approach to motion between national borders. In contrast, the globalist"s agenda is based primarily on fiscal polity. Capitalism is taken as the first mover of global politics with a relevant historical process. Their political slate is pervaded by the underlying assumption that matters of international politics stem from an economic substructure that champions the current global configuration.
Constructing an inquisition into the physics of these theories and which is more accommodating to the international climate is a manifold assignment. There are multitudes of positions from which one can begin to explore the theoretical aspects of international relations, some of course provide a broader survey than others. One such point of departure is that of a global objective, an objective that seems to include itself in a large portion of international associations. The purpose as described, is the quest for global peace, a course recognised by the constitution of the United Nations , a body from which several examples will be used to describe the advantages and disadvantages of the aforementioned theories.
Peace is variously defined by the literature, but it is generally thought to be an absence of war. Subject to modification, it is also known to be the lack of direct structural and cultural violence. Either of these definitions leaRAB to the notion of peace as a static condition. Historically Machiavellian and Hobbes advocated peace as preferential to justice, which to some, is injustice and the beginnings of social disorder. The Kantian approach to peace is individualistic. John Rawls argued that justice and the guarantee of basic rights lead to peace. Such ideals are inappropriate. They assume cohesion between peace and justice. Hugo Grotius theorised that genocide and other crimes against humanity were warrants for intervention of force.
The balance of power regarding economic factors is a key notion for globalists often vindicating questionable foreign policy. The Cold War is an example. Stalinist visions to reform soviet economic policy were directed towarRAB "tangible achievements of international power and influence." His visions, noted by the West were challenged in America"s rush to counter the "Domino theory" that was rife in the 1950"s and 60"s. On the other hand, realist views on intervention into the economic policy of a state differ. Notably under conservative government, the United Kingdom remained sceptical of the European Union despite the shifts of power that would occur regarding German domination, up until the appointment of Tony Blair. This exemplifies a realist attitude towarRAB supranational government. Pluralism, perhaps, offers a mid-way approach, though some might call it a lack of conviction. The pluralist state is one that exists in a state of peace to enable itself to further its interests. Unfortunately, this medium approach is only successful with like-minded countries.
Balance of power arrangements however, have been superseded in recent times by ideas of transnationalism, a theory closely developed by both pluralism and globalism. The benefit of transnationalism is that it is a more accurate depiction of the world as it stanRAB today. The focal point of such ideology is of course subject to change depending on the particularities of high and low politics. Such a view means that issues such as environmental degradation and famine can be addressed with relatively little opposition. What this supports, is a global consciousness reified by the actions of individual interest groups that are able, within this framework to take necessary action against various situations. Greenpeace is an exemplification of this process in its dealings with the Japanese fishing industry. By contrast, realism takes a fairly narrow view of global issues limiting them to those of national security and various affiliated issues. Subsequently, if the realist view of nations were to prevail, a copious amount of questions would remain unaccounted for. Similarly, globalisms concentrated efforts towarRAB economic wellbeing would in all probability "downplay" domestic variables.
The evident fluidity of pluralist though seems to erabody the middle ground yet it does not account for the world"s economy, which many would argue, does influence political and social issues. Globalism picks up where pluralism leaves off. The globalist explains the world through financial hypothesise often placing capitalism as "a single logic" that influences economic and political strategy. To some extent this is theory that holRAB true and is typified by core, periphery countries and the North & South debate.
Though economic issues are of great concern to all, so are those of global conflict. The use of force within the context of the global system however if frowned upon by realists who believe any encroachment of a foreign force to be inconsistent with a realist point of view. Sadly, this solidified view of the state upholRAB the counterclaims of Slobodan Milosevic in which foreign troops are a "challenge to state-centred international order". Realists assume the position of high-politics to the detriment of lesser internal issues.
Naturally the realist view runs into complications in instances where upholding national sovereignty will lead to a dire infringement of human rights. Such was the case in Rwanda in 1994 where delayed action by the UN led to massacres that could by way of timeline intervention have saved many. In support of realists, morality and humanity are legally not substantial motives for "intervention". So while judicial aspects are a sound place to begin inquiry, theoretical conditions are more circumspect. Moral and humanitarian reasons are however the main impetus for most actions of intervention but these are not the main concerns of the realist. The more significant aspects to which the realist gravitates are those of the military and national security. Pluralism, a more recent addition in terms of frequency of use realises the state as a "soft shell" through which interest groups pass at the expense of some and to the benefit of others. Military issues, seldom the primary forces in relations with other states following a general trend in which, "Foreign affairs agendas have expanded and diversified over the past thirty years such that economic and social issues are often at the forefront of foreign policy debates." While the 1990"s has been riddled with crimes against society and humanity the notion of realism is often used as a defense against foreign involvement in non-state affairs.
With resepct to foreign affairs within a pluralist frame of reference, intervention of one state into another can lead to an escaltion of tension between the two parties to the conflict defeating the purpose of any intervention in the interests of international peace. In the Congo and recently in Yugoslavia, soldiers were faced with conditions where the use of force eventuating in violence was imperative. Violence of this kind has been known to escalate tension between parties thus confusing efforts to provide help.
Evidently, the complexity of these theories the way in which they interrelate is similar to the state of world politics, which is overwhelmed by elaborate relationships of interdependence. It is thus, unwise to say that one theory is better than another is, nor is it prudent to censure one theory more than others are. This is due to the fact that there are convoluted networks within nations that overlap and spread towarRAB other nations and this clearly, realism does not admit to. On the other hand there are military and security issues such as those in the Balkans that globalism and pluralism are less equipped to manage. If this is the case, and it is becoming increasingly so then to adhere to one theory is as costly as trying to incorporate all of them into one single global ideology. What seems a better option at this point is to use the each of the theories respectively and in syrabiosis. A syrabiosis that will, one hopes eventuate in a comprehensive set of international ideals that will aid the international community in its quest for peace and security.
REFERENCE LIST
1. Article 1(1) of the UN Charter.
2. A. Roberts Hugo Grotius and International Relations Oxford: Clarendon Press 1990 Pp 241
3. S. Bialer, The Soviet Paradox, London, I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd. 1986 Pp.261
4. C. Kegley Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, New York, St. Martin"s Press, 1995 Pp. 93
5. C. Dunn World System Structure: Continuity and Change, California, Sage Publications, 1981, Pp.31
6. Ed. B. White, R. Little, & M. Smith Issues in World Politics London: Macmillan Press Ltd. 1997 Pp 140
7. Ed. C. Bretherton & G. Ponton Global Politics: An Introduction Carabridge: Blackwell Publishers Inc. 1996 Pp. 152
8. P. R. Viotti & M. V. Kauppi, International Relations Theory : Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, New York, Macmillan, 1987, Pp. 6 - 11
9. J. G. Stoessinger The Might of Nations: World Politics in Our Time New York, best House: 1996 Pp. 92, 93