The Concept of International Relationship

Foreign policymakers usually disregard academic theorist and their views on international relationship. However, the link between the real world of policy and the abstract world of theory is inseparable since theories explain the blizzard of events and information in the daily life. According Wait, (2008), good policies are a result of organized principles and good theories of the real world. The concept of international relationship is based on three broad theories of liberal, realists, and constructivism. Moreover, despite the fact that the three schools of thoughts (realism, constructivism, and liberalism) recognize the world as a system of anarchy, they differ in ways in which the nations of the world behave and deal with their problems. Nonetheless, nations around the world forge alliances based on the paradigm of international relationship that is faced with disputes from different school of thoughts. However, it is important to note that the different school of thoughts shapes the relationships that exist between nations of the world. Ideally, the concept of international relationship is attributed to the fact that realism, constructivism, and liberalism try to explain the events of the world in their different perspective. Since the First World War, many political scientist and theorist have come with ways of solving conflicts in international relationship to no avail. However, theorists have tried to explain the events of international relationship through the different school of thoughts. Nonetheless, it is important to understand the views of the theorist since many events of international relationships are embodied to the views of the different school of thoughts.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The debate of between liberalist and realism theories has been going on for many years. This can be attributed to the different point of views shared by these schools of thoughts. Moreover, the barriers to corporation between nations of the world have galvanized the dispute between these schools of thought. Thus, it is important to understand the cause of these barriers to corporation and ways that they can be avoided or solved. In addition to this, the theorists have come up with different ways of solving these barriers to corporation between nations of the world. However, due to different reasoning and perspective, the theorists have different opinions on how the conflict of international relationship can be solved. Moreover, the different school of thoughts views the world as an anarchy that is faced with struggles for power (Rosenau *, 2004). The input and concepts of the three schools of thoughts makes them inseparable to issues regarding international relation.

The study of international relationship is based on the competition of ideas and views of the liberals, idealist, and radical traditions. Realists emphasizes on the prosperity of conflicts between nations. On the other hand, liberals seek ways to mitigate the conflicts, and the traditionalist or constructivist outline ways in which the system of state relationships can be transformed (Walt, 2008). Moreover, the relationship between the idea of these theorist are somewhat contradicting but debates among them have helped in understanding the discipline of international relationship. In addition to this, studies of world politics show that countries operate in an environment with focus on social, economic, political, and geographical interest. Moreover, these nations interact on the basis of their interest and what they stand to gain in any engagement with other nations. According to, hg the national interest, group interest, and domestic economy are the major determinants of relationship between nations. In addition to this, many nations make decision following the reasoning of two major school of thoughts namely realism and liberalism. As stated by Vasquez, (2009) actors in the stage of international relationship favor the framework of the theories of realist and liberalist. Moreover, the theories of liberalist and realist explain why actors in the stage of international relations take the actions their actions concerning foreign politics. Thus, international relationship is characterized by the arguments put across by liberalist and realist theorists.

Realists base their perspective on the struggle for power and suggest that power is the central cause of major events inn international politics and international affairs. Realist view the world in terms of the struggle for power in which strong nations seek to dominate the weak nations and the weak nations resist to preserve their independence and interest. Moreover, realist concur with the notion that there is no supreme power in the world that is recognized as legitimate and respected by all parties in the international stage. Nonetheless, realist emphasize on power as the main influence aggressiveness of states, pursuit for international and domestic power at foreign levels, and individuality of human nature (Frieden, Lake, & Schultz, 2010). In addition to this, realist point of view was the dominant interpretation of cause and effects during the wars of 15th and 16th century. The paradigm of realism dominated during the Cold War of (1947-1991), when U.S. and U.S.S.R engaged in a power struggle. Moreover, other world events such as the Vietnam War, Korean War, and Cuban missile crisis among others proved the argument of realist.

On the other hand, liberalist perspective challenges the perspective of realist and argues that economic interdependence can discourage wars and the use of wars to seek supremacy. Liberals argue that economic interdependence can strengthen the relationship between two nations since it can discourage war that threatens the prosperity of both nations. Furthermore, liberals also argue that the spread of democracy can help in establishing peace in the world since democratic nations are more peaceful than authoritarian nations. Nonetheless, liberals also advocate for the use of international agencies like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in enhancing international relationship by encouraging nations to forgo their personal interest for the greater good (Walt, 2008).

From the above discussion, is evident that international relationship cannot be explained without the argument of theorist. This is because the argument of liberals and realist shape the nature of international relationships. Furthermore, the nature and principles of international relationship are ideas put across by the theorists. In addition to this, despite the fact that policy makers disregard the input of the theorist, it is hard to explain the events of the world without the insight of the theorist. Ideally, most of the international relationship forged in the present day is based on the principles of the theorist. For instance, it is evident that the war between Israel and Palestine is a supremacy battle in the aim of controlling resources. Thus, it is hard to explain international relation between the principles of the theorist. Moreover, the contribution of the theorist helps the world to understand the concept of international relationship because such relationships are two way traffic.

References

Frieden, J., Lake, D., & Schultz, K. (2010). World politics. New York: W.W. Norton.

Rosenau *, J. (2004). Many globalizations, one international relations. Globalizations, 1(1), 7-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1474773042000252110

Vasquez, J. (2009). Classics of international relations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Walt, S. (2008). International Relations: One World, Many Theories. Foreign Policy, (110), 29. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1149275