Case Study of the Kosovo war of 1999
- International Relations
- Post Modernism & Constructivist theory
Folker looks into the Kosovo war of 1999 between the Serbs and the Albanians the work of four different authors and in the theories that they brought forward to explain international relations will be reviewed in this paper. The paper seeks to find what theory of international relations best explains the events that happened in the Kosovo war of 1999. The paper will more over review the key points that various authors brought out on various theories of international relations.
The authors each look into a different theory of international relations in a bid to understand how the whole international system works (David A 74). International relations are the basic manner in which different states of the world relate with each other. It is important to note that, there are different positions that the countries of the world each hold. This is why there are super powers of the world and third countries need to relate with each other. There are more needs, to be sanity maintained in the world thus the need for power and co-operation among the states. It is almost obvious, that those in power are also the ones the ones who have the large chunk of the world's material wealth in their possession.
[...] In conclusion thus, the Serbs and Albanians were fighting each other either looking for security or power as the above theory posits. It is therefore right to say tahgt5 states fight each due mainly due to the two reasons, looking for security and or power. It is also of great importance to note that there must be standard rules in the international system if there is to be any unity, order, co-operation and discipline in this system (David A 600). Works Cited David , Baldwin. Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.1933. [...]
[...] It is considered the best theory as it tries to explain the actions of a state in the international system. According to Gideon Rose, any country's foreign policy is a slave to two main factors; the position of the country in the foreign system and its capabilities in terms of material wealth in comparison to the other countries in the international system. In essence, the policies that are adopted by a given state are driven by the country's position in the international system. [...]
[...] this is not the case as The first critique is that this theory relies on anarchy as an implicit .This theory has four main propositions of the international society; it argues that the international system is anarchic. In the sense that, there is no one is in power and can regulate the international system. It further argues that. Each state must be in a position to control their own policies in terms of relations with other states. It further argues that states do not need dictation of relations with other states coming from a higher power. It is however very important to have control, order and power and not everyone can be a leader. [...]