Sunday, 27 September 2015

ARE LIBERAL AND REALIST VIEWS OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS STILL APPLICABLE?

                                  REALISM AND LIBERALISM - WHAT ARE THEY?

Realism and Liberalism are the two main political theories which help us to understand international politics. Within each are different schools of thought (classical realism, neorealism, offensive realism and defensive realism are some examples of variation within a theory). 

For realists, politics is about power and self interest, and realists often refer to the theory of  'power politics' to explain what happens in the world of global politics. Realists insist that humans are essentially selfish and that egoism is the defining characteristic of human nature - this means that not only humans, but states as a whole are self seeking since states are run by/ on the behalf of human beings . Realists also claim that the international system operates in a state of anarchy in that there is no authority higher than the state - realists believe that a global government can never be established. This means that global politics operates in a state of nature and therefore is unstable. 

Liberals, by comparison, are relatively optimistic. They believe in balanced harmony amongst competing interests  and while they acknowledge that humans and states are inherently self seeking, they claim a natural equilibrium asserts itself. Liberals also argue that non governmental organisations facilitate co operation between states and keep the peace internationally - if this was the case however, then the EU would have succeeded recently in encouraging countries like the UK to take on a fair amount of refugees, most of whom are fleeing war torn Syria.

                                CAN THIS BE APPLIED TO THE MIGRANT CRISIS?
 Unfortunately Liberal theory cannot be applied here as many countries in the EU are refusing to take their fair share of refugees or are refusing to allow any 'migrants' into their country at all. Realist theory is more relevant here, as the self interested nature of states (state egoism) and humans has been revealed. It would not be in the national interest for most states to take on refugees as they would have to provide for them in terms of housing, food and education - this is why countries such as Slovakia, Hungary, Denmark and the Czech Republic have refused to take the proposed numbers of migrants while Germany has taken a large number of refugees - its population is dwindling and migrants are useful for expanding its workforce.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar (the richest country in the world) and other gulf countries have also refused to take a single migrant, although they are not part of the EU. This supports the realist notion that states are self interested and undermines Liberal theorists assertion that NGOs such as the EU promote peace and harmony - global governance does not appear to be working.

Worryingly, Hungary's prime minister Victor Orban cites religion as his main concern regarding refugees - he fears that Muslim refugees will make it even harder to 'keep Europe Christian'.

To conclude, I think that realist theory can still be loosely applied to international politics in that international politics appears to be state centric (and these states are strictly self seeking) and it does not appear that global governance can or will be effective in the near future. Ideally the Liberal view of international politics would show the EU being successful in relocating Syrian refugees to safer countries but currently this is not the case  - the realist theory of power politics has prevailed with most able countries such as the UK, Hungary and Qatar refusing to take on a fair amount of refugees and getting away with doing so, while smaller countries like Jordan and Lebanon have taken on a huge amount of refugees regardless of whether they can afford to do so.  

Sunday, 20 September 2015

THE IMPORTANCE OF PALESTINE WHEN DEBATING SOVEREIGNTY

                                               WHAT IS SOVEREIGNTY?
Sovereignty can be defined as the principle of absolute and unlimited power; the absence of a higher authority in either domestic or external affairs.
The concept of sovereignty is very closely related to the concept of statehood in that sovereignty is a defining characteristic of a state - states are states because they are able to exercise sovereign jurisdiction within their defined borders.

                                                WHY IS PALESTINE INVOLVED?
In recent years, Palestine has tried to attain statehood -  in September 2011 a formal request for Palestine's statehood was submitted to the United Nations. In November 2012 the general assembly of the UN voted overwhelmingly to recognize Palestine as a 'non member observer state' meaning Palestine had access to other UN bodies such as the international criminal court. When Israel was established as a state in 1948, the majority of Arab Palestinians became refugees  - this problem was worsened by the six day war in 1967 in which Sinai, the Gaza strip, the West Bank and Golan Heights were occupied by Israel. The first face to face meeting between the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation) and the government of Israel occurred in 1993 and lay the groundwork for the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority in 1996 which assumed governmental authority (but not sovereignty) for the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

               SO WHY IS PALESTINE IMPORTANT WHEN DEBATING SOVEREIGNTY?
While Israel is widely recognised as a state (it was created after the second world war when Jewish people wanted a place to live, out of land taken from the Ottoman empire), Palestine's statehood is more questionable - although many of the UN members recognise it as a state, not all of them do. In addition to this it does not really meet the requirements of a state as defined by the Montevideo convention  - its defined territory is questionable and it does not necessarily have a good government (Hamas is seen by some as a terrorist organisation). State Sovereignty is when a state enjoys sovereignty in its defined border, and so Palestine cannot have state sovereignty as its territory is changing regularly and it is barely recognised as a state. On the other hand, Israel is recognised as a state but it arguably does not have state sovereignty within its own borders as part of its territory is in question and it has given some authority over decision making in these areas (the Gaza strip and the West Bank) to Palestine.

Sunday, 13 September 2015

States and State Systems

How did the state system emerge? 


The peace of Westphalia (1648) established that sovereignty was the distinguishing feature of the state system. It brought an end to the 30 years war (1618-48) and was based on two principles:
1. States enjoy sovereign jurisdiction (independent control over what happens in their own territory). 
2. The states are all legally equal and relations between them are structured by the acceptance of sovereign independence. 


   How can a state be identified?

A state, as defined by the Montevideo convention on the rights and duties of states in 1933, has 4 qualities:
1. A defined territory 
2. A permanent population
3.An effective government
4. The capacity to enter into relations with other states

The state is no longer the only significant actor on the world stage - TNC's, NGO's and other organisations such as terrorist groups and pressure groups are also able to shape global politics.


The Billiard Ball Model of world politics

In this model (adopted by realist theorists) the states are billiard balls that collide with one another. Sovereignty is the hard impenetrable outer shell of the ball which enables it to withstand the impact of the collision. Not all balls are the same size, which is why international politics gives attention to the interests and behaviour of 'great powers'. This model has come under pressure due to growing interdependence.

 The Cobweb Model of world politics

More recently states have been forced to work together in tackling tasks such as global warming, pandemic diseases, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Keohane and Nye state that such a web of relationships has created a condition of 'complex interdependence', in which state are forced to co-operate. However, the Middle East is an example of how the Billiard Ball model and the Cobweb model are not exact; interdependence varies across the world. 

 The State Centric view

This is an approach to global politics which takes the state to be the key actor in the domestic realm and on the world stage. 

Great Powers

A great power is a state seen to be amongst the most powerful in the hierarchal system - there are a number of criteria a state must meet before it is considered a great power: 

1. Should have the 1st rank of military prowess as well as the capacity to maintain their own security and the ability to influence others.
2. Must be economically powerful
3. Having global, not merely regional, spheres of influence
4. Adopt a forward foreign policy which has an impact on international affairs.