Yasemin Unal
Professor Mark Shirk
GVPT200FC
23 September 2013
It is my belief that Liberalism
is the best theory to fully explain the complex structure of International
Relations. This is due to the fact that Liberalism captures and explains the
essence of International Relations with
regard to modern times and interests. My argument is concentrated on the fact
that independent states today rely on interdependence, rationality, and universal
institutions for their survival and success; therefore, Liberalism is the best
suited theory, because it embodies all of these principles.
It is an undeniable fact that today's
international interdependence is a crucial element in the success building a
strong economy. Interdependence allows a state to specialize in a particular
field, whether it may be agricultural or technological, and produce as much of
that good as possible with much efficiency. Also through this system of interdependence
states cooperate with one another, which helps to build a better international
community. Since interdependence allows for trust and reliance to grow, states begin
to see each other as less of a threat and more of as an ally for their resources.
Therefore with the world economy growing through states relying on other states
for resources they do not have, it is less likely for wars to manifest.
Wars are less likely to be a
major concern for states who are interdependent due to the importance of
rationality. When one state begins to
depend on other states for the resources they need to survive, it would not be in
a states self interest to wage war against them. On that note rationality and
self interest complement each other, because both embody that a state will act
with reason and in a manner that is logical for the situation . Consequently, rationality
plays a key role in Liberalism, because it helps to explain how states act and
value other states. Furthermore, I find that as one state begins to value the
importance of rationality in their politics, they start valuing their citizens
as "individuals" with a stronger presence in government. My final
point on rationality is that this process of utilizing "reason and not custom"
allows for the threat of anarchy to diminish.
Liberalist believe that anarchy
does exist, but that it does not necessarily have a dominating presence due to
international organizations; I agree with that thought. As a result of these
institutions, such as the United Nations, it is also my argument that world
conflicts could be prevented. Undoubtedly, these institutions cannot guarantee
that states will obey their "international law". Nevertheless provide
a good and solid foundation, since these institutions represent a higher law and provide international "norms" that
individual states can follow. On that note, one cannot disregard that these
international organizations can prove fundamental in helping secure human
rights in various states.
In the final analysis, my
argument has been centered on why I think that Liberalism is the major theory
to help explain International Relations. This theory proves to be paramount
because it's major principles is what helps guide states in securing their
interests in the modern age. States undoubtedly utilize interdependence to
their own benefit, through this relationship self interest is created by
rationality, and the usage of international organizations help to preserve
world order.
I completely agree when you say that since interdependence makes states more dependent on each other for resources that they view each other in a more positive way and are less likely to see other states they depend on as threats. I also think you make a great point that international organizations have the power to influence relations among states and make for a more secure and human rights-minded world. I do not think many international organizations today, however, are effective in accomplishing these goals. The UN especially is notorious for not doing anything or not doing enough in the face of conflict and human rights abuses such as Rwanda and Syria. I do not think that you can blame the UN for its inefficiency because states have very different interests which facilitates gridlock but I do think that as globalization continues and countries continue to become more interdependent, these international organizations could potentially become a useful tool in preventing conflict and human rights abuses.
ReplyDeleteI agree that with the rise of globalization, it is imperative that we have stable and dependable international organizations. Without them the exploitation of human labor and land would only worsen.
DeleteI agree with your paragraph on rationality when you say that rationality and self interests go hand in hand because what may be rational to one state may not be rational to another simply because both states may not benefit from the same things. I think Shiran is correct when she says that international organizations aren't too efficient when it comes to preventing world conflicts because of all the different perspectives and goals of the states. I think that, as you stated, interdependence is a great way for states to maintain peace and to unite because they all benefit from their agreements. This helps to create new allies and to lessen the realist idea that states must always protect themselves from others because they are constantly worried about their security.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that states are less likely to wage war on one another when they are interdependent because it goes against their self interest, however it doesn't completely nullify the possibility. Also i do agree in part with your argument on rationality, but as we discussed in class rationality and reason can be subjective. Everyone may define it differently so a state waging war on another state they are codependent with may think they are acting rationally even if according to us, they're not.
ReplyDelete