international political systems

Three forum responses 200 words each with works cited international political systems

Response 1:

The number of international organizations has increased following the WW II era and this is a fact that can’t be disputed by any of the IR scholars regardless of the theoretical approach they follow. There has been a significant increase in both international intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the world. IGOs and NGOs both have contributed to the changes seen today in international governance. IGOs cover different type of issues including maintaining international order, the regulation of trade, and issues relating to conflict and peace. Some IGOs have more influence than others in the international politics system. Two examples of different levels of influence were compared in the lesson two readings this week. The first one used was the World Organization of the Scout Movement and even though it has a significant amount of members it doesn’t have much influence on the political sphere. The second example used was the United Nations and the World Trade Organization both having a high amount of influence in the international political system. The UN is recognized for its achievements in the past and current times for being able to keep the peace with its members and the WTO purpose was in focusing on reducing imbalances in global trade and other issues that may emerge (Lesson 2 notes).

Three of the main theoretical perspectives were discussed in the lesson two readings of how these three were divided with their view on international organizations and if they mattered or not in the international system. The realists believe it’s an issue rely on states to maintain cooperation in the long term since the international system can be chaotic. The biggest fear states have is handing over its autonomy to an external element such as an international organization. Realists think negatively about international institutions since the world is unpredictable due to its anarchical nature and it can never be certain how long a relationship among states will hold. Liberals on the other had welcome the change international institutions bring and consider it as a better approach towards a more rule-governed international system (Lesson 2 notes).

Liberal scholars also state there will be some backlash and it is already being seen by the realists but in the end humans will rationalize and accept it as a better alternative to governing institutions applying to domestic and international sectors. Both liberal and constructivists see the emergence of international institutions ad being a norm to be accept and embrace the change. Constructivists also agree it is necessary for international institutions to remain in international relations for a better understanding of the IR system. After reading about the three theory approaches and how they feel towards international institutions in the international political system it appears the liberal and constructivist theories both are in favor and welcome it while realists are more hesitant about it in the long term. I would have to say I agree more with the realist approach since it has more valid points to back up why and John Mearsheimer presented a good example of what can happen when a state hands over its governance structure to an international institution. “The False Promise of International Institutions” argument he presented was the international institutions will serve the states that it was created from but they will also reflect the interests of the more powerful states (Lesson 2 notes).

With this being said the most powerful member states interests will come first over a weaker state that handed over its full autonomy to these international institutions to govern it. This isn’t the best option to have a more powerful state to put its interests first above your own and dictate what happens using an international institution as the one pulling strings. The liberal approach was the one acknowledging anarchy is be present in the world but in the end all humans will be rational and accept the institutions. The liberal and constructivism theories had the most optimistic views towards international institutions but it seemed more like a utopian dream than a reality.

Response 2:

Do International institutions matters? Has their existence changed the nature of international governance? This dialectic brings up the very importance of the role of IOs in the international sphere and the relationship they entertained with states governance. With a scope and presence which are usually worldwide, IOs membership respect the sovereignty of member states who voluntary agree to abide by the terms and agreement of such system. Nevertheless, the question still remains if states are sovereign and able to lonely select their destiny and overlay whatever program they desire. The aim here is to underline the importance and effectiveness of International Institutions, and find out what changes their existence have added or subtracted in the nature of the international governance.

According to John Duffield (2002, 1) various types of organization over the years have grown in numbers and importance as well as their role in the international environment. Besides the ontological fact that international organizations role is to set the international agenda, mediating political affairs, providing place for political initiatives and acting as catalysts for coalition- formation; an IO role really depend on the values it seeks to promote or maintain. Similarly, after the decline of the League of Nation in 1945 for ultimately proving himself incapable of preventing aggression by the Axis powers in the 1930s and probably a secondly World, the United Nation (UN) was founded by the nation states after World War II in order to construct a better instrument for keeping peace worldwide. Since then IOs have grown on type and played multiple role from humanitarian, financial, political, cultural, environmental, security services and so on. In this case, the existence of IOs is more beneficial to states even given their self-interested mandate. Likewise Jonas Tallberg according to Steffek (2013, 999-1000) sees in IOs a functionalist logic, in that international institutions are designed to help their creators (states) to overcome collective action problems. He also further argues that decisions are taken beyond the state self interest in the age of internationalized policymaking. However, according to Tallberg, there is a power- based approach that explain the foundation of IOs as a hegemonic project. In his article titled “Why did Bush bypass the UN in 2003?” Alexander Thompson in an attempt to explain the motives behind President Bush unilateral decision to attack Iraq give us a nice synopsis of the importance of international organizations which he calls “multilateralism”. (Thompson 2011). He states that “the international is more likely to promote collective rather than parochial interest – their imprimatur offers an independent assessment that the policy is justified and that broad interest are at stake. International Organization bring a number of benefits. It is a great panel that provide a super governmental panel to debate politic to raise awareness on global issues like climate change, human rights, equal opportunity etc. International Organizations help define a state’s identity and its role within the larger community.

However, if Alexander Thompson insist on the advantages of multilateralism (panel of standing membership organization, not an ad hoc coalition) of being “both political and material”, offensive realism postulated by Mearsheimer believe that International Institutions do not matter. Institutionalist claim that institutions are extremely important in the international domain, they can alter state behavior, therefore can cause peace, promote and safeguard a favorable environment for economic and social bloom. Mearsheimer argue that “institutions have minimal influence on state behavior, and thus, hold little promise for promoting stability” (Mearsheimer 1994, 7).

Response 3 is a response to the question listed below:

What is the difference between international system and international organization?