what is the role of the state in international politics

4 pdf format

Language : english

international relations

presentation

date published

24/07/2006

review : not yet assessed

level : General public

requested 16 times

Summary

International Politics are based upon two main theories, Realism and Liberalism, which are conventionally opposed, and therefore give two different interpretations of world politics. This essay will focus on the stances of these theories upon the role of the state. But before assessing their viewpoints, it is crucial to understand what the state represents. Already in 1648, the Treaties of Westphalia which ended the Thirty Years War set an international society in which sovereign states possess the monopoly of force within their defined territory and behave among themselves through diplomacy and international law, implying a separation between the domestic and international spheres. The state is a “distinct set of political institutions whose specific concern is with the organization of the domination in the name of the common interest, within a delimited territory.” Besides, Max Weber gives the most influential definition of the modern state: “the state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a given territory.”

Although realism, as a discipline in International Relations has only been around since the Second World War, it has a tradition that can be traced back to the time of the ancient Greeks. The fact that realism still provides a viable, though frequently criticized theory in politics can be owed to the enduring foundation layed down by Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes, and to the significant contribution of Hans Morgenthau. In this essay I am going to present a comparison of these theorists, who, although each having a completely different historical setting, thus a different starting point, have tried to deal with the same dilemmas like human nature, the state and the sovereign and power and ethics in international politics. First I am going to introduce the differences of historical background and purpose of writing. Then I will present the commonalities and differences in their thoughts on the following points: human nature, the sovereign and the state, international politics. Finally, I will briefly reflect on the question how realist these authors can really be considered.

$3.95

4 word format

Language : english

international relations

presentation

date published

17/06/2008

review : not yet assessed

level : General public

requested 0 times

Summary

A little known history professor once argued that the colonization that took place in Southeast Asia during the nineteenth century occurred in fundamentally the same manner. Colonial powers entered the country, subjugated the local people and exploited valuable resources for economic and political gain. In response, each nation rose up to throw off Western rulers. Although the professor’s hypothesis is one that attempts to succinctly encapsulate the period of colonialism that occurred in Southeast Asia, the reality is that the development and evolution of colonialism as described by this professor was not as cohesive as this hypothesis makes it sound. In fact, as noted by SarDesai (1997) “The impact of colonial rule on the people varied from unashamedly exploitative to the benign and benevolent. It generated forces of industrialization, urbanization, modernization, intellectual ferment, and political ambition that inspired at least a small elite in each colony to abandon part of the traditional trappings and step into the modern age” (p. 141).With the realization that colonialism did not have a uniform impact on the development and evolution of countries in Southeast Asia, there is a clear impetus to examine some of the differences that manifested during this time period. To this end, this investigation considers the nationalist movements that took place in the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam in an effort to overthrow colonial rule.

This essay deals with one of the most controversial questions in today’s social science debates: the relationship between the nation-state and globalisation. Globalisation, understood quite loosely here as a series of contemporary and unprecedented developments in the economic, social and cultural integration of world market and societies – in other words, a general sense of the shortening of distance between here and there, us and the Other – implies a new definition of the field of social relationships, a definition that is much less centred on the national level and takes more account of the global.
In these conditions, the end of the nation-state may be at hand. According to this view, the nation-state, which has been the only entity of international importance since the Westphalia treaties of 1648, is now the subject of increasing strains. It is doomed to lose more and more of its power in the twenty-first century. In the realm of worldwide action and global participation, how can the territorially limited and ideologically outdated nation-state survive ?
One should always be cautious about seemingly-obvious statements, especially on issues of national reach. Lessons from the past show us that the nation-state has flourished from very sturdy roots, roots that have many times proven stronger than the winds of change. Still, some signs, such as the appearance of many new institutions of global governance, cannot be ignored: what scope remains for the state in the new distribution of power brought about by globalisation ?
I will attempt here to show that the most challenging aspect of globalisation for the nation-state is not economic revolution, contrary to common belief. Indeed integration of world markets adds as many opportunities for states as it does bounds to their sovereignty. Globalisation also means new forms of contacts and exchanges between cultures, making people ever more aware of global issues that concern all of humanity. I will argue that it is in this new “global consciousness” that the greatest threats for the sovereignty and legitimacy of nation-states lie, with one crucial question lying in waiting: will future globalisation be up to the challenge of democracy and accountability?
This essay will be structured around two parts. In the first one, I will tackle the still burning debate of economic globalisation and the fate of the nation-states, taking sides with those who do not want to proclaim the end of the nation-state too soon. In the second part, I will concentrate on more political and social issues, attempting in a few words to show that globalisation requires new forms of democracy that may prove a big challenge to contemporary political organisations.

Kosovo is located in the southern province of the Republic of Serbia in Western Balkans (see Appendix One). The administrative capital is Pristina and the province is separated into thirty municipalities. Kosovo’s last official census in 1991 registered its approximately two million population to be composed of eighty-two percent ethnic Albanians, ten percent Serbs and eight percent Montenegrins, Croats, Turks, Gypsies, Muslims, and others. The nature of the state contested involves disputes between the two main ethnic groups: Serbs and Albanians. These two groups share a long history as residents in the same territory and are commonly referred to as Kosovars, although they differ in their ethnic roots, languages, religious affinities, customs, and culture. Religion was never the centerpiece of the conflict between the two groups, yet over the years, has been manipulated by politicians for ideological purposes.

Keywords: Balkans, UNMIK, NATO

The nature of the state contested involves disputes between the two main ethnic groups.
From the lens of the stakeholders.
The security and safety of the Kosovo Serbs - also a major concern.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) began air strikes in March 1999 without UN approval.
The role of UNMIK:
Why is Kosovo relevant to international politics?
Any legal change in Kosovo's final status would require a UNSC resolution.
Kosovar Serbs and Albanians must be realistic in their demands.

$9.95

11 word format

Language : english

international relations

presentation

date published

14/12/2006

review : not yet assessed

level : Expert

requested 7 times

Summary

Located at a strategic position in the eastern Mediterranean sea, Cyprus, in the course of its history has frequently switched hands in-between powers which maintained an interest in the region. The list of its successive rulers includes the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Phoenicians, the Byzantines, the Venetians, the Ottoman Turks, and finally before the1960 declaration of independence, the British.
Amidst all of these populations only two of them had a significant impact on the demographic structure of the Cypriot society. The Greeks, which settled on the island during the second millennium B.C, and the Turks, which sat foot on Cyprus during the period of the Ottoman empire, when, in 1571, the armies of Lala Mustapha seized Famagusta, last city to resist them on the island. Cyprus remained under Ottoman rule until the congress of Berlin in 1878 where it was ceded to Britain. The terms of the agreement stipulated that Britain was to occupy and administer the island in exchange of a promise to help Turkey defend itself against Russia if need arose. In 1914, after Turkey had joined forces with the Central powers, Britain unilaterally declared the 1878 convention null and annexed Cyprus. This illegal (in face of international law) situation was resolved by the Lausanne treaty of 1923 which stipulated that Turkey recognized ab initio (from the 5th of November 1914) the British annexation of Cyprus.
In recent history, the Cyprus problem has gone through three phases while we are now (with the probable acceptance of Cypriot membership in the EU) probably witnessing the beginning of a fourth one. From 1923 until 1960 it was mainly a colonial issue. From 1960 to 1974 the problem became an internal one, in which external powers where involved. These powers where Greece, Turkey, Britain and (although the importance of superpower involvement has been cited quite many times) to a lesser extent the USA and the Soviet Union. After the Turkish invasion of 1974, the Cypriot problem has revolved over the de facto partition of the island and the illegal proclamation of the TRNC. (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) in 1983 which has been condemned by UN resolution 541.
In this paper I will be mostly focusing on the first and second time periods. More precisely I will try to find the psychological causes of the ethnic violence that first erupted in 1963. In order to do so I will shortly present a number of theories which might explain the causes of conflict and I will try to show the elements in the history of Cyprus that enable us to point to these theories (or to refute them) as an explanation of the communal violence. Alternative, non psychological, explanations of this conflict will also very shortly be presented, and as a conclusion, a short assessment (deriving from the paper) of the analytical strength of both types of explanations will be presented.

When we look at the issue of trade liberalization and we question which international institutions have promoted it, we must ask what exactly is an international institution. In the formal sense, they are seen as “an organization established by multiple national governments, usually to administer a program or pursue a purpose that the governments have agreed upon.” (Deardoff, 2005) But in a more broad sense they can be understood as an organization or group with international ties or networks. If we were working with the former definition, we would include institutions such as the UN, IMF, GATT, G8 and OPEC. Working with the latter definition, however, we would have to include the aforementioned groups as well as supranational and regional organizations and areas, such as the European Common Market, NAFTA, and FTAOA as well as NGO’s, public pressure groups and TNC’s. For the purpose of this essay, I will use the category of ‘international institutions’ to characterize the first grouping of organizations, relying on Deardoff’s definition and thus including the UN, IMF, GATT, G8, OPEC and so forth.

There are many international institutions and organizations that play a role in shaping and influencing international trade.
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
The IMF describes itself as ‘an organization of 184 countries.
Much controversy surrounds the free trade debate due to an uneven distribution of advantages and gains.
The view on international institutions and organizations and their role in trade.

$3.95

4 word format

Language : english

political science

presentation

date published

29/11/2006

review : not yet assessed

level : Expert

requested 7 times

Summary

Globalisation is a complex phenomenon based on an economic dynamic of internationalisation of trade and the emergence of a single world market but that entails significant geographical, political and cultural repercussions. Indeed, the volume of international exchanges of goods has been multiplied by 16 between 1950 and 2001and the development of international trade of service since the 1970s has been even superior to the growth regarding manufacturing goods.
Then, globalisation has also meant an irreversible opening of national economic territories, sine qua non condition for the integration of the states into the world economy and to take advantage of the great single market. But in the same time, such a move has impacted traditional attributes of sovereignty in terms of economic policies, regulation of the job market and also promotion of particular cultural or political paradigms. Furthermore, globalisation has produced a new economic framework as well as a changing of scale in Europe in which the future of nations-states that has emerged against the “rest of the world” (role of the “constitutive other” in the construction of European states) has often been described as jeopardized.

The logic of economic globalisation has unquestionably undermined the hegemony of the European nation-state model by giving more power to new supranational actors such as transnational corporations and international organisations (I). But in response, the nation-state has intended to maintain its sovereignty at a higher scale and has undergone a resurgence of regional and identity but also reactionary claims (II).
But in response, the nation-state has intended to maintain its sovereignty at a higher scale and has undergone a resurgence of regional and identity but also reactionary claims

$9.95

10 word format

Language : english

economics

presentation

date published

29/08/2006

review : not yet assessed

level : Expert

requested 7 times