Analysis and comparison of the international relations
- Journey to the heart of the optical fiber
- Optical memory
- Brief history
- Principle of the fiber
- Sources and detectors of light energy
- Comparison with the copper wire
- Limitations of the optical fiber
- Applications of optical fiber
- Telecommunications (Erbium and TP)
- Other applications.
The process of affirmation of international relations as a social science has encountered a problem throughout the 20th century. As recalled by Dario Battistella, the internationalist approach, like any scientist, has been facing two problems. We will study the identification of its object of study and the scientific approach that is needed to adopt the same. The specificity of the object of international relations has proved to be a double empowerment discipline vis-à-vis other social sciences and policy practitioners. The founding moment of international relations has involved a fracture, in a process of differentiation between the individual and the collective forces and between the individual and the state, and also between the inner and the outer faces of the state. As political science, international relations deal with the state and they are distinguished by looking at their subject in its shares on the exterior and had to resort to this directory of the war (as the soldier) or that of alliances (as the diplomat). Faced with the unequal character of the configuration of the internal space of the state, the international scene would be seen as inherently egalitarian. Within its borders, the state always has the last word in the use of force since it monopolizes the means of violence-producing obedience. In contrast, the absence of monopoly power across the globe, conducts international relations horizontally. The definition of its object of study in negative term makes it highly problematic as the existence of a science of international relations. Indeed, the object of international relations does not spontaneously appear to the observer. It is therefore necessarily built, and owned. In the words of Popper, it is referred to as the "third world". While the complexity advances any effort to conceptualize, historian Jean-Baptiste did not hesitate to denounce the theory of international relations as a "smokescreen" designed to be "sub-Lysenko" or as naive and suckers. It is very difficult to separate internal and external variables, and the author of War and Peace among nations had also previously admitted that "there can be a pure theory of international relations" and that any concrete study of international relations can only be a sociological study. Echoing this profession of faith of Raymond Aron, the sociological dimension of the discipline was thus affirmed, throughout the twentieth century, with increasing relevance.