International Politics is based upon two main theories, Realism and Liberalism. These theories are conventionally opposed, and therefore give two different interpretations of world politics. This essay will focus on the stances of these theories upon the role of the state. However, before assessing their viewpoints, it is crucial to understand what the state represents. In 1648, the Treaties of Westphalia which ended the Thirty Years War also set up an international society in which sovereign states possess the monopoly of force within their defined territories and interact through the mediums of diplomacy and international law, implying a separation between the domestic and international spheres. The state is thus seen as a "distinct set of political institutions whose specific concern is with the organization of domination in the name of the common interest, within a delimited territory." Max Weber gives the most relevant definition of the modern state. According to him, "the state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a given territory."
[...] During the end of the 20th century and until now, the 3 advents of neo-realism and neo-liberalism have viewed the world in quite similar ways as far as globalization is concerned. Finally, even though globalization has brought considerable new patterns of interaction between states, it does not mean the end of war or the final victory of peace, since globalization also highlights two opposite features: individual liberty versus savage trade; moreover this opposition re-echoes the opposition between Liberalism and Realism. [...]
[...] First of all, to understand the realist point of view on the role of the state in international politics, it is essential to describe the backbone of this theory. The starting point refers to the human nature as crucially selfish, and consequently, the realists regard power as the driving force in political life. Moreover, the state, as the frame of human societies, is labelled as the key actor in international relations, namely an anarchic structure which places the state within a highly competitive and conflictual environment. [...]
[...] What is the role of the state in international Politics? International Politics are based upon two main theories, Realism and Liberalism, which are conventionally opposed, and therefore give two different interpretations of world politics. This essay will focus on the stances of these theories upon the role of the state. But before assessing their viewpoints, it is crucial to understand what the state represents. Already in 1648, the Treaties of Westphalia which ended the Thirty Years War set an international society in which sovereign states possess the monopoly of force within their defined territory and behave among themselves through diplomacy and international law, implying a separation between the domestic and international spheres. [...]
[...] Related to this, the sovereignty of the state is the core of the understanding of the international system. Stephen D. Krasner gives us his viewpoint on that notion: “First, they [people] talk about international legal sovereignty, which is the rule that you recognize an independent territorial entity.[ . ] Domestic sovereignty, which is the standard definition, [which] refers to both domestic authority structures and how effective they are.[ . ] And, finally, there's a last definition which is generally referred to as Westphalian sovereignty, in my view a total misnomer, which refers to the notion that states have the right to autonomously determine their own domestic authority structures the corollary of that being no intervention in the internal affairs of other states.” The reason of the state sets its foundation on the famous “the end justifies the means” of Machiavelli. [...]
[...] This idea has given way to neo-realism which, even though it keeps the realist theory basis, reckons that the structure of the international system affects the behaviour of the states. This was effectively glaring at the end of the Cold War, when from a bipolar world, the structure of the world politics has been shaped to a multipolar world. However, realists contend that globalization has not shaken the international system of states but rather has affected the social, cultural and economic lives. Indeed, Kenneth Waltz states that “There's no international police force. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee