Chat with us, powered by LiveChat put in Chicago format please | acewriters

put this paper in 100% Chicago format please the bibliography has the numbers highlighted by each references please do this right please


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Political Behaviors of States in the International System
Political Behaviors of States in the International System
The study of international relations takes a broad range of theoretical approaches into
perspective. Some of the theories have emerged within varying degrees of discipline while others
have been imported in whole or in part from economics and sociology. The few social scientific
theories however, have not been successfully applied to the studies of relations that occur on
international levels. The different degrees of international relations have been conducted
internally and externally as well as has been contested. According to Slaughter, “the anarchy of
the international system requires that States constantly ensure that they have sufficient power to
defend themselves and advance their material interests necessary for survival.” (5). Despite the
diversity, there has been many schools of thought that are discernable in which they differentiate
the principles and variables that have become emphasized. Those principles relate to the
economical stances of military operations and personnel, powers, structures of the international
levels, and ideological beliefs.
International Political Economy: Basis of Theories
For an individual to have a say on the economy of the international politics, one has to
put into account the issues that arise on the importance of the market forces and the political
structures in the economic development and the relationship between them. As one of the major
schools of thought, in itself, this dynamic serves as a basic foundation to this discipline itself.
Empirical observations have been key to formulating of the most renowned theories in the
discipline of the international economy. As observed by Robert Cox, the conditions under which
politico-economic configurations emerge are critical.
A contemporary hypothesis that has surfaced over the most recent couple of decades is
the formative state hypothesis which tried to clarify the steep financial advancement of East
Asian states after the Second World War. Despite the fact that the underlying result of embracing
formative procedures among East Asian states have demonstrated the hypothesis’ power as a
reason for monetary advancement approaches, consequent occasions particularly the
consequences of Southeast Asian endeavors to design itself after formative methodologies have
put into inquiry the formative state’s adequacy as a long-haul game plan. In particular, the
Philippines’ status as an “against formative” state [2] fills in as a channel for analysis of the
formative state hypothesis through other IPE speculations as far as methodologies and
arrangements, yet additionally in the more profound degree of societal clash and political
States behave differently in the international systems because of how the relational
theories are applied to their foreign policies. Behaviors of international states have been essential
targets for current research to help theorists develop theories understand the states behaviors.
International relations and the theories of foreign policies have tried answering the questions of
the behaviors in which international systems conduct. As Slaughter states, “Institutionalism
relies on microeconomic theory and game theory to reach a radically different conclusion—that
co-operation between nations is possible” (5). Many authors have developed their own theories
to explain the behaviors of international states from a political perspective that emphasizes social
sustenance. What leads to become a challenge for theorists, is the development of theories
relating to all states, not just one. There isn’t a single theory that could encompass the relations
of behaviors that stated present on an international level. Trying to find a universal pattern has
become evaded while encompassing many theories in determining their roles. This paper will
discuss the varying degrees of theories in which have been applied to explain why states behave
differently in conduct throughout the international political realms.
World Systems Theory of Politics
The World System theory relating to political endeavors is a theory that regard the
economic inequalities and exploitation that occurs between the core and periphery throughout the
capitalist system. The World System Theory also purports the economic exploitations of the
weaker economies in the periphery that allows for the powerful capitalist’s states to become
more prosperous and sustainable. The elements of this theory revolve around the cheap labor,
raw materials, and lower standards in which helps keep the costs down for multinational
organizations. An essential component of this theory points out that it is impossible to generate
objective measures of an impartial theory concerning international relations as being a part of a
‘system,’ whereas no informed and unbiased views are speculated from the world. There is not
one innate law to explain the behaviors of international systems from a political perspective, nor
are there any cultural norms that help regulate the sovereignty of each state.
Regarding the international system, the realists believe it can be defined as the anarchy.
Whereas the states and sovereign have become autonomous towards each other while having no
inherent structure or order for their societies (4) These societies also emerge into existence to
order the relations that do exist. In international relations, the political realism is considered to be
the traditional analysis in which stresses how imperative states have challenges while pursuing
their powers in politics on a national interest. The realists also theorize, and place emphasizes on
the constraints in which the politics are imposed by the human selfishness or the egoism of the
individuals as well as the absence of international government (7) This would require for the
primary in all political spectrums regarding security and power.
Classical Realism
Concerning the international realm of theories, this theory is based on the state level in
which argues that all the states search for powers while emphasizing the that the classical realism
is the first and last state of behavior (2) The states continuously seek in increasing their powers
while decreasing the powers among their enemies. All the behaviors that the states conduct is
through the method of amassing powers. Other powered stated are rivals for them when the
powers aren’t in their hands (3) However, the durable peace is based on the unwavering balances
of the powers and doesn’t generally just begin with one power.
The Neo-Realism theory contends that the system of behaviors in international structures
are an offshoot of the classical realism. This theory agrees that the causes of struggles among
powers and the rivalries aren’t as a function of the nature of states, but more of a function of the
nature of international systems (15) The states are along in the arena and there is not a
government in which is set to be looked up to by the states. There are no enforced laws in which
can be broken, and the world of lawlessness and states can get away with achieving more power.
The states are responsible for protecting themselves and as this theory dominates the scholarly
thinking of how today is referred to the international relations that have became prevalent in
developing countries (11)
Neo-Classical Realism
The Neo-Classical Realism is in a way, a restored version of the classical realism.
However, this theory accepts the powers of the rivalries but at the same suggestions are made
towards the characteristics of the state level variables (17) These variables play essential roles in
the behaviors conducted by the states from a political stance. The states are not just searching for
powers, but they also fear other states that have powers. Much like a combination of the classical
realism and neo-realism in which the factors rest upon the system level and state variables (4)
The Liberalism Theory adds value to the equations of international relations and politics.
This theory is sometimes confused with the idealism theory. This theory is based on the state
level in which argues that there is much cooperation taking place around the world on a global
spectrum. It isn’t no longer just about the rivalries. Slaughter emphasizes that, “The basic insight
of the theory is that the national characteristics of individual States matter for their international
relations” (5). The states are not completely worried about what powers they have, and they
focus more on building a just world order. For the liberals, there is peace throughout the normal
states of affairs and that peace becomes perpetual (16)
The Neo-Liberalism Theory is the opposite of the Liberalism Theory. In a sense that the
system level is a translation of the liberalism while focusing more on the institutional ways in
which they can influence behaviors of the states (13) Those influenced behaviors are what spread
the values or creates the rule-based behavior. The Neo-Liberals also focus on the role of the
United Nations or the roles of the World Trade Organization in shaping their foreign policies.
The Rationalism Theory is like the Realism Theory but begins with an anarchy that the
realism theory doesn’t not begin with (4) The Rationalism Theory acknowledges that the sense
of belonging with a community has left its marks of civilization among the state and the
international relations.
The Constructivism Theory examines the states behaviors in a context of the
characteristics that their state maintains (3) All states are distinctive and their own sets of
defining economic, political, religious, social, and cultural characteristics that progressively
influences their foreign policies. Iain Johnston argues that “China has traditionally acted
according to Realist assumptions in international relations but based not on the objective
structure of the international system but rather on a specific historical strategic culture” (5).
States also have their own identities and the identities in which they create characterizes their
behaviors on an international system (12) During the end of the twentieth-century, when
Constructivism was added as a theory, questions began rising among scholars concerning the
states behaviors on a national level regarding the concepts of identity, sovereignty, and
citizenship. In addition, this theory being applied opened new substantive areas towards
inquiring the roles of gender and ethnicity being absent. Slaughter states that, “Constructivism is
also attentive to the role of social norms in international politics” (5).
Levels of Analysis
System Level
The levels of analysis on a state examines the behaviors by looking into the international
system. With this type of analysis, the systems act as the causes in which has led to the effects of
the behaviors by the state (1) If any changes in the international system occurs, those changes
then are reflected in the behaviors of the state.
State Level
On the state level, the analysis examines the foreign policy behaviors of the
characteristics displayed by the state on an international basis (10) The states characteristics of
the foreign policy can then be manifested into the cultural characteristics or could also be defined
by the religious or social traditions of the state, the historical legacy, or the economic nature and
geographic nature of the state (9)
Organizational Level
The organizational level analysis examines the ways in which the organizations within
the states have influenced the foreign policies and behaviors (7) If this level becomes dominant,
the state has no say in making decisions. The organizations will negotiate each other for a
creation in foreign policy in which would then be settled between the competing organizations.
Individual Level
The individual level only focuses on the people of society. Since the people of the society
are those who makes the decisions within the nation states, therefore, it can be said that it is the
people who governs the foreign policies (1). At this level, the analysis explains a foreign policy
through examining its leaders’ understandings and through their perceptions of the world.
Three Levels of Analysis
Realism & Neo-Realism:
Morgenthay, Shelling,
Kennan, Walts, Kissinger,
Balance of power in an
anarchical structure of the
States are nominal actors, but
national behavior is
determined by…
Action & Interaction of
Bureaucracies, legislatures,
political parties, business &
union lobbies, & other
advocacy groups
e.g. Gorbachev & Reagan
Choices, actions &
interactions of powerful
Critical Approaches
More common relations at a global level speculates and their hidden positivist has
undergone some testing from several points of view. The women activist, Marxist scholars, postfrontier, and environmental fields have all advanced studies of global relations’ clarifications of
the behavior of the State (7) Most of these scrutinizes share a worry with the development of
intensity and the State, which speculations like Institutionalism as well as realism generally
prone to underestimation. For example, Marxist scholars see relations between various states as
clouding the more major elements of class relations at a global level of class relations(→
Marxism) (17) Only by understanding the interests and conduct of worldwide capital that we
become capable of comprehending the conduct of the State, they contend (Cox and Sinclair).on
the other hand, feminist activism has tried to bring a clarification on the parts the conduct of
State and its belongings by underlining sexual orientation as an intriguing variable. This center
has lead, for instance, to thoughts of security that move past State security (of principal
significance to Realists) to ideas of human security (11) In such a point of view the impacts of
war, for instance, reach a long ways past the front line to family life and different parts of social
The investigation of global relations takes an expansive scope of hypothetical
methodologies into point of view. A portion of the hypotheses have developed inside shifting
degrees of control while others have been imported in entire or partially from financial matters
and humanism. The couple of social logical speculations be that as it may, have not been
effectively connected to the investigations of relations that happen on worldwide levels. The
various degrees of worldwide relations have been led inside and remotely just as has been
challenged. As per Slaughter, “the rebellion of the worldwide framework necessitates that States
always guarantee that they have adequate capacity to protect themselves and advance their
material advantages fundamental for survival.” (5). In spite of the assorted variety, there has been
numerous ways of thinking that are discernable in which they separate the standards and factors
that have turned out to be underlined. Those standards identify with the efficient positions of
military activities and work force, powers, structures of the worldwide levels, and ideological
The Origins of the Developmental State and Basic Premises
The origins on formative state hypothesis ascribe its origination to Chalmers Johnson. In
his book contended MITI and the Japanese Miracle that “Japan’s street to private enterprise was
different from that of Western Countries, the focal pretended by a state first-class subjecting
business sector powers to a key intend to constrain walk the nation to becoming an industrial
powerhouse.”(3) The causes for hypothesis are arranged in the examination of the Japanese
“financial supernatural occurrence” after World War Two. Japan endured one of the best harms
after WWII and it needed to confront the test of modifying its crucial foundations and open
Rather than taking the course of radicalism—that is, firms being privatization, taking part
in organized commerce, and deregulation—the state of Japan, Under the Industry and Trade,
selected to utilize patriot measures to help its recuperation as well as its financial advancement.
Nearby firms and endeavors were supported by the state; The exports were the fundamental
wellspring of income at a national level; and mechanical innovation was obtained from
progressively created nations so as to kick off generation at the local level (17) The underlying
income produced from essential ventures, for example, material creation (on account of Japan)
supported the further modernization of methods of creation which at that point pulled in remote
direct speculations. In any case, the flood of these ventures does not really flag the advancement
of the formative states; rather, they kept up their base interest in the procedures of the other state.
The model is thus what is normally alluded to the formative state model which flourished in East
Asian nations like the countries of South Korea, Japan, as well as Taiwan. The formative state
methodology turned into the main reason for the uniqueness of Asian free enterprise (16)
Alongside the ascent as a financial and modern powerful nation of Japan came the “flying
geese” example which sets a progressive structure inside Asia locale as far as industrialization
(13) As Japan and recently industrialized economies moved to capital-serious creation, its
redistributed work from lesser created nations in the district for the work escalated businesses.
This pattern incited the selection of formative procedures among the less-mechanical nations (4).
It very well may be then attested that the formative state pivots upon the quality and adequacy of
open approach and, all the more in a general sense, the elites in the political realm and the state
contraption itself. This considers the mixing of a proactive political structure with market
powers. Be that as it may, the formative state model was not effective in specific states which
attempted to embrace it. In particular, the instance of the Philippines’ inability to design itself
after the formative technique of its Asian neighbors fills in as a road for the analysis of the
formative model both in its viable and standardizing levels.
The Philippines as an “Anti-Developmental” State
In the Philippines, the political economy was established on a history of feudalism. This
was organized at a time of pilgrim and proceeded after its freedom. Thus, individuals from the
revered first class were the ones who approached assets that could continue amazing political
hardware; all things considered, these nearby rulers normally commanded the then recently
settled Philippine state (17) what came about was a device of the state established on the average
interests that had no positive and combined long haul monetary techniques and plans. The time
after Martial Law was introduced saw the perfection of the inability of the Philippines’ to
embrace formative procedures (5), it is imperative to follow the foundations of this issue as far as
social and basic powers. It very well may be securely found then that the state of the Philippine
economy post-war is around like the formative system of most states of East Asia. Be that as it
May, the Philippines’ ineffective endeavo …
Purchase answer to see full

error: Content is protected !!