International relations: concepts, theory, and practice

International Relations

Discuss the origins and evolution of modern international & world system

Theorist Irving Wallerstein proposed that the new capitalist world system created an international division of labor "that determined relationships between different regions as well as the types of labor conditions within each region" (Halsall 1997). Some regions, called the 'core' regions benefited the most from capitalism and played the most critical roles in the development of the modern nation-state, while peripheral regions such as indigenous economies were largely destroyed in the wake of imperialist capitalist expansion. Semi-peripheral regions did not achieve the same world dominance as core states, yet were not exploited to the same degree as peripheral economies. External economies remained largely self-contained and generated their own economic systems.

The usual beginnings of the international system of political organization are traced to the period immediately after World War I, and the creation of the League of Nations. Before that, the major 'core' European powers tried to create a 'balance of power' in terms of their control of spheres of influence over peripheral and semi-peripheral states, a system that broke down in the wake of the nationalism and secret alliances of the First World War. However, because of the lack of participation of the United States, the League proved ineffectual in containing the nationalist expansion of Germany. Thus, a new organization, the United Nations was born. Concepts such as inalienable human rights accorded to all human beings were generated because of the international horror of the Holocaust and the new, shared belief in the importance of international organization that attempted to give equal representation to all states.

Compare and contrast the idealist and realist theories of international politics.

The realist theory of international politics, popularized by the theoretical writings of the classical realist Hans J. Morgenthau and the neo-realist Kenneth Waltz, is often called the 'black box' theory of international relations, given that it presupposes that states are unitary, rational actors, and discounts the importance of diverse political influences upon state decision-making. Realism views states as "unified and self-contained" and intent upon winning the international struggle for power in a single-minded fashion (Blanke 2008). Classical realism also stresses the need to achieve a balance of power amongst states to ensure international stability. Neo-realism "mostly adopts the premises of classical realism" but has been forced to take into consideration the greater differentiation of actors in the international system that has evolved since the development of international governing organizations such as the United Nations (Blanke 2008)..

While, like classical realism, neo-realism completely discounts the stated idealist vision of the UN in terms of fostering equitable international cooperation, the theory also acknowledges that nations must deal with the realities IGOs create, if only to ensure that "other states do not benefit more from cooperation in international organizations than they do themselves because absolute gains translate into loss[es] of powers if international cooperation is linked to relatively superior gains for other states" (Blanke 2008). Neo-realists believe that IGOs can only contribute to international cooperation "if there is a hegemonic state that is willing to bear an over proportionate percentage of the cooperation costs" i.e., that some states posses such superior power, they can "afford to tolerate the relative gains of other states in order to achieve absolute gains for itself (hegemonic stability)," as was the case when the U.S.-dominated UN and NATO tried to broker peace between the warring regions of Yugoslavia (Blanke 2009). The U.S. had a selfish interest in peace, but could emerge as a more credible negotiator, given that it did not emerge as a net winner if one region triumphed over the other.

While in realist analyses of international politics internal societal differences are left out, idealist theories of international organization see societies rather than nation-states as the building blocks of the international community, and believe that it is possible for states to find common ground and look beyond self-interested, balance of power politics. Woodrow Wilson's radical idea, the creation of the League of Nations, places him squarely in the normative school of international politics: "normative idealism views international organizations both as the representative of an order of values supported by the societies of their member states and the advocate of the norms which contribute this order" in the international community as a whole (Blanke 2008). This form of Wilsonian idealism has been somewhat tempered by a more contemporary reformulation of idealism, social constructivism. " While is has shed the normative mantle of idealism, social constructivism does emphasize that social actors act not only according to their selfish interest, as in realism…but also in response to shared values and norms. Social constructivism therefore stresses that the creation of international institutions in general and international organizations in particular, depends on whether there is a consensus over values and norms" such as a desire for peace or regional economic development (Blanke 2008). Social constructivists, more so than normative idealists or both schools of realists, stress the need for regional actors to have an influence on international events, as it is more likely they can achieve such a normative consensus of values.

Discuss the provisions of the War Powers Act of 1973. Why was the Act enacted? In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack and the ensuing invasion of Iraq, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the Act?

It may surprise many Americans to know that "the United States has not formally declared war since World War II" (Lithwick 2001). The War Powers Act of 1973 arose in response to the abuses of the American government during the Vietnam War, which was never specifically declared a war by Congress, as specified in the Constitution under Article I, Section 8. This Article reads that Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal" even though the President is officially 'Commander in Chief' of all branches of the military (Lithwick 2001).

"The War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) was passed over the veto of President Nixon on November 7, 1973, to provide procedures for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities. Section 4(a) (1) requires the President to report to Congress any introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. When such a report is submitted, or is required to be submitted, section 5(b) requires that the use of forces must be terminated within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes such use or extends the time period. Section 3 requires that the President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing" U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities" (Grimmett 2004).