IAS Capstone E-Portfolio/Essay
Vincent SSS
WritingBIS284FinalPaperSpring2017.docx5
Name: Xingyun Shao
Course: BIS 284 A
Date: 5/26/2017
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Question 1
International relations are among the aspects that are evolving fast in the modern world. They refer to the activities and interactions among individuals or groups from various sovereign nations. In the contemporary world, international relations are more political and have a significant influence on various spheres, such as the economic and social orders. It is essential to understand that the advancement in technology and globalization have contributed to the development of various foreign policies. Therefore, it is apparent that international relations are concerned with the study of the behavior of different nations and their foreign policy-making practices.
Personally, I am a pragmatist when it comes to international politics. The idealist’s point of view does not seem to address modern issues in a more comprehensive manner if compared to pragmatism. Typically, pragmatists are concerned with practical and realistic solutions rather than theoretical frameworks that might not be implementable. In most cases, I prefer nations negotiating to reach a common ground when solving international issues instead of resolving to military power or any other form of force appeals.[footnoteRef:1] This strategy is critical when dealing with multiple states that have divergent views. Most of the challenges in the modern society require immediate approaches and solutions. As a result, it can be impossible to persuade other countries to accept foreign ideas, especially when they have self-interests to protect. Therefore, pragmatism is fundamental to tackling current international matters. [1: . Jennifer Sterling-Folker, “Neoliberalism,” (2010): 119.]
One of the international relations theories that appeal to me is liberalism. It is one of the most relevant concepts in the modern society. Liberalism is based on the ideology that different nations can work together for their mutual benefit. In addition, the theory disputes the usefulness of military power in international politics, but rather enforces ties and international organizations among states. It postulates that various nations in the world need to reject power politics and promote international cooperation.[footnoteRef:2] In addition, there is a need for the formation and implementation of stronger international organizations aimed at shaping global policy choices. This theory emphasizes the importance of international organizations, such as the European Union and the United Nations, and their role in enhancing economic, social, and political interdependency.[footnoteRef:3] Rather than using military power to resolve conflicts, liberals believe that social and economic sanctions are sufficient to compel a nation to refrain from undesirable practices. For instance, the United States has been using this strategy to deal with various countries that have contradictory ideologies instead of deploying military power. Therefore, liberalism can minimize the occurrence of conflicts that may escalate into war, and enhance trust, cooperation, and prosperity among nations. [2: . Ross Douthat, "Cracks in the Liberal Order," The Seattle Times, December 28, 2015. http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/cracks-in-the-liberal-order/ ] [3: . Nick Cumming-Bruce, “U.N. Rights Chief Says He’ll Shine a Light on Countries Big and Small,” The New York Times, January 30, 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/world/un-rights-chief-to-shine-light-on-countries-big-and-small.html?_r=0 ]
Realism is the least persuasive international relations theory. Although it addresses critical issues, realism is the root cause of conflicts and wars in the modern world. Basically, realism postulates that states devise strategies and approaches aimed at consolidating and increasing power relative to others.[footnoteRef:4] In most cases, military force is the most significant and reliable power which determines the strength of a country at the international level. Furthermore, realists argue that moral behavior is a risky approach and war is the most efficient way of solving global problems. Contrary to liberalism that values international organizations, realism does not attach any significance on foreign policies. Most states and politicians have been practicing realism for decades. However, it can be attributed to the growing international issues, such as poverty, war, and environmental pollution.[footnoteRef:5] Realism results in divisions and widening economic gaps among nations. [4: . Nicholas Kristof, "Education Is a Bargain Compared With Dropping Bombs," The Seattle Times, April 13, 2015. http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/education-is-a-bargain-compared-with-dropping-bombs/] [5: . Kristof, "Education Is a Bargain Compared With Dropping Bombs."]
Question 4
A world government refers to the political system in which a single entity exercises political authority over the entire world. The establishment of world government can be voluntary or through compulsory measures. Opinions regarding the emergence of a world government are not new. This notion has been in existence since the ancient times. However, there is no evidence relating to the establishment of such a system in the history. Analysts argue that the absence of a world government does not mean that it may never happen. Although its practicability seems challenging, the existence of a unified political authority is unpredictable.
Proponents express various arguments to support the establishment of a single government to rule over the world. They postulate that such a system may provide tremendous opportunities for economic growth. The absence of boundary barriers can facilitate the movement of goods and services from one place to another, thus, promoting trade.[footnoteRef:6] It is fundamental to understand that a centralized political authority may require the use of a common currency. Such a situation can minimize economic disparities that are evident in the contemporary world between the developed and the developing countries. Furthermore, the absence of territorial boundaries can minimize the emergence of cross-boundary conflicts and wars. As a consequence, humankind would coexist, and threats of the invention of weapons of mass destruction would cease. Therefore, the establishment of a world government would yield mutual benefits throughout the globe. [6: . Nick Cumming-Bruce, “U.N. Rights Chief Says He’ll Shine a Light on Countries Big and Small,” The New York Times, January 30, 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/world/un-rights-chief-to-shine-light-on-countries-big-and-small.html?_r=0 ]
Although some of the arguments for this political system appear relevant, critics have questioned their practicability. For instance, opponents have argued that for a world government to exist, it has to be established through voluntary actions or coercion. Given that various states have self-interests to preserve, and provided the corrupt human nature, it becomes apparent that a peaceful supranational union is improbable. As a result, the emergence of wars among nations would be inevitable. In addition, research has shown that there is no worldwide Constitution, legislature, or military power that can fit a multicultural society.[footnoteRef:7] Consequently, any established political authority cannot be uniformly accepted and may receive opposition from various regions. This occurrence influences the perceived autonomy and freedom granted by a unified world authority. If by chance a global government falls into bad hands, it would be catastrophic and result in the collapse of humanity. Misappropriation of resources would also be possible due to the complexity and bulkiness of the system. Therefore, opponents postulate that the current political system is the most appropriate. [7: . John Mearsheimer, “Structural Realism,” (2006): 83.]
It is apparent that there are varying opinions regarding the establishment of a world government. Personally, I regard a unified political authority as an undesirable idea, given the current complexity and diversity of the world. Essentially, proponents contend that a global political system needs to be established in the same way as some international organizations. However, they need to understand those international bodies, such as the United Nations and the European Union, foster cooperation among member states rather than exerting authority. Although governance may be centralized, it may lead to unequal power distribution. Developed countries may exercise superiority over developing or underdeveloped states. Therefore, a world government cannot be an efficient way of tackling contemporary problems of poverty, hunger, war, environmental degradation, and other forms of inequalities. Instead, there is a need to promote interconnectedness and mutual interaction among sovereign states in order to tackle political, social, and economic challenges in the world today.
PART TWO
Bibliography
Cumming-Bruce, Nick. “U.N. Rights Chief Says He’ll Shine a Light on Countries Big and Small.” The New York Times, January 30, 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/world/un-rights-chief-to-shine-light-on-countries-big-and-small.html?_r=0 (Accessed June 3, 2017).
Douthat, Ross. "Cracks in the Liberal Order." The Seattle Times, December 28, 2015. http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/cracks-in-the-liberal-order/ (Accessed June 3, 2017).
Kristof, Nicholas. "Education Is a Bargain Compared With Dropping Bombs." The Seattle Times, April 13, 2015. http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/education-is-a-bargain-compared-with-dropping-bombs/ (Accessed June 3, 2017).
Mearsheimer, John. “Structural Realism.” 2006: 77-93.
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. “Neoliberalism” 2010: 114-131.
