Philosophy Of International Relations

•    Realism concentrates on a single reality: global power. It is the ability of one nation to direct and shape the destiny of another nation in the manner desired, namely into a kind of tacit servitude of serving and protecting one's interests at the expense of the other. 

 

•    In the international arena, realism holds that power – the amount of power a country possesses – is the only thing that matters. Morality, ethics, and law are all irrelevant, as are political systems, legal systems, and cultural systems.

 

•    The argument appears to be that no one can be trusted in the international sphere because everyone wants to dominate the other. Because one country will either dominate the other or attempt to dominate the first, it is preferable to be the dominant or dominating country. 

 

•    The realist approach to the international sphere or international relations simply denies any role for common or shared ethics, and instead creates an ethically neutral or ethics-free zone that can be filled by the power of the dominant party.

•    Others, understandably, will regard a realist conception of international space and international relations based solely on the principle of power as unfair. 

 

•    There is nothing in realist conception or realism that prevents someone from making an ethical assessment of the dominant country's power motivation and dominant actions, withstanding such pressure, and claiming it to be unethical or unjust. 

 

•    Many people find the attempt to control and direct other people's fates in the international sphere repulsive and demoralising. The old adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely may be invoked implicitly. 

 

•    When power is the sole basis for international relations and international action, such perceptions will colour assessments.

 

•    The international sphere, according to realism, is a place where "anarchy" reigns supreme and there are no rules. Why would anyone follow rules imposed from without or imposed by another? What kind of binding power do those rules that aren't made internally have? Is it possible for a country to be free if it follows the rules of another? This claim that there are no binding international rules that international relations are required to follow appears dubious.

 

•    What if there were agreements between international parties? Would those agreements be enforceable, and if so, would the rules on which they were based appear to be enforceable? Consider the terms "human rights" or "human dignity" as a test case. Do these rules apply to international relations and the international sphere? If they are upheld, who will enforce them? Who will hold another person responsible for their wrongdoings? 

 

•    Thus, if power is the only thing that works in international relations, human rights or human dignity violations will continue to occur, and there will be no one to stop them except a power greater than itself, according to realist conceptions.

 

•    As a result, the realist position or realism tends to favour war as the ultimate means of resolving inter-national conflicts and establishing international order by imposing the order of the conflict's winners. 

 

•    Realism within nations may make it rational to pursue power, create power distance and dominance over its neighbours, and balance power by aligning a sufficient number of states for a country to counter the power influence of those nations opposed or against it. In this way, realism creates and spawns a fundamentally divided world through thought, word, and deed. 

 

•    There will never be a unipolar world; the fact that one exists after the fall of the Soviet Union is only a passing phase, if that. The world quickly responds by restoring and restoring power balance. World wars, or wars in general, will almost certainly occur in such a world where balancing power exists.

 

•    Pursuing realism and realist policies will harm our common world and its shared vision of a humane future for all. Realistically, such a feat is impossible to achieve. 

 

•    Realism as a field is a necessary ingredient for the development of a superpower and, in turn, for the relative independence or servitude of others in relation to it. Only one country is still considered a superpower, and others are expected to follow in its footsteps.

 

•    Realism is a theory of power balance that maintains the world's power balance. All we can hope for is that the world's most powerful nation will have no one to challenge it, resulting in peace. This is merely conventional wisdom. 

 

•    Deeper reality reveals that its power is already being questioned, that the name and form of war has shifted, and that the shadows cast over many relationships have not vanished, but have remained. There isn't any true peace.

 

•    In terms of trade, realism works well because trade terms are set by the powerful against the weak to reflect power imbalances and advantages. 

 

•    In terms of realism, international ethics is simply the field of international trade wars, international war and peace, and the need for some kind of "international justice" dictated and dominated by the rule of the powerful, dominant country in the relationship.

 

•    Idealism is concerned with "common interests" between nations, rather than with power or distance, or with power balance. It aspires to construct the international sphere on the basis of idealist values that are shared by all nations involved in international issues and problems.

 

•    Idealism based on common interests appears to have more power than realism's unilateral power, and thus has the potential to supplant realism in thought, word, and deed, as well as a philosophical thought. 

 

•    Idealism has the potential to foster more long-term hopes for peace and a growing international sphere in which mutual interests and concerns are addressed more seriously in the true spirit of pursuing what can be considered human purposes of flourishing. 

 

•    Even though conflicts persist, the rise of idealism holds out hope. Idealism views international trade interests as shared interests and platforms for improving, growing, and mutually beneficial international relations.

 

•    Idealism is aided and supported by the rise of the international and global market place, as well as the growing interdependence of nations. Individuals and humanity as a whole are capable of high levels of idealism.

 

•    The international system, international order, and international sphere are governed by rules, laws, and institutions in idealism. Ethics, morality, laws, legal systems, and international institutions all have a central place in idealism. 

 

•    As a result, idealism stands in stark contrast to realism, which emphasises only power. Even though conflicts are far from over, the world becomes less dramatic and dangerous.

 

•    International treaties, UN organisations, and the system all play a key role in supporting and promoting idealism, as doe’s idealist thinking. Even though it is voluntary, it provides international ethics guidance and has the rational force of assent and appeal to conscience to be accepted and guided by it. 

 

•    Idealism opposes the dominant views of realism, which hold that war is a necessary consequence or necessary evil that the powerful can justifiably justify. Idealism does not rule out war, but it does extend an "olive branch" to those who can see reason and faith.

 

•    Constructivism focuses on things like foreign policy and diplomacy to shape international relations and the international sphere in which a country has credible influence. 

 

•    Domestic politics and how it shapes foreign policy with what goals in mind are the focus of these discussions. Every country and state cultivates a sense of national identity in a variety of ways, including historical and cultural celebrations and means. As a result, national identity is formed, which is said to influence how nations interact.

 

•    Essentially, constructivism allows national identities and their constructions to have an impact on the international sphere. In and through the 'give and take' of identity respects and exchanges, the international sphere can also be a place where various identities can melt into more humane understanding between people.

 

•    Constructivism demonstrates how nations fight perceived threats to their identities, nationalism, and national sovereignty. They don't have to be real. Attempts to make the world a better place, or to change world systems or world order, are thwarted by this. If national identity is not respected, all such attempts by other nations, no matter how rational, will be resisted.

 

•    Constructivism gives individual nations more power by focusing on national identity (rather than national interest), which is a more powerful tool for having less to do with other countries in the international sphere and more to do with advancing and promoting one's own identity.

 

•    The rise of identity politics in the twenty-first century has resulted in political power being harnessed by interested parties for their own gain. National identities based on religious domains will be able to define international relations and span countries.

 

•    Religious "fault lines" of conflict may emerge, causing problems not only on the international stage, but also within a nation. Rather than sparks of peace and humane relations, it will fan the flames of violence and anger. Identity tensions will be felt strongly, and whatever feeds and forms them is a long way from allowing people to be truly free and open in shaping humanity's one world destiny. 

 

•    Even when critically assessed for their role in shaping international spaces, international spheres, and international freedoms, cultural identities are to be respected.

 

•    Doing the right thing is something that both cosmopolitanism and idealism have in common. The right thing to do is to act in the same way that you would want others to act. 

 

•    It is concerned with how we interact as members of a global community. It holds that because we interact with people from other countries, we have a moral obligation to treat them as moral people. 

 

•    As a result, cosmopolitanism's prescription is to "do the right thing." International ethics and the development of "global values and ethics" are thus fully empowered by cosmopolitanism.

 

•    Cosmopolitanism advocates for morally correct behaviour. Where there are no rules or laws, it will be necessary for us to come together and negotiate ethical rules and laws to follow in our interactions with people from other countries.

 

•    Cosmopolitanism is capable of welcoming people of all backgrounds and identities without discriminating against them or treating them as a means to an end. People, their freedom and rights, rather than nation states' sovereignty, will be prioritised.

 

•    Some may even use it to argue for a global government that takes precedence over national interests and borders. Although we may not yet see the development of such possibilities, it is certainly capable of universality in thought, word, and deed.

 

•    Cosmopolitanism emphasises the importance of the international community, which can play a decisive role in determining what a country or nation should or should not do morally.

 

•    Nations that feel they are on the receiving end of world opinion or world politics, and who prefer their national identity and sovereignty sentiments, may resist such developments.

 

•    In the international sphere, international ethics guides our decisions, but our choices are clearly constrained rather than free. 

 

•    The options may be limited by the need to maintain domestic political support. Identity politics may limit the options available.

 

•    Power equations and balances may limit the options available. Many practical constraints may also be present; for example, when decisions must be made, economic constraints and national interest constraints will undoubtedly be present.

 

•    When it comes to choosing between national and global interests, some have argued that national interests should be prioritised. While it is generally accepted that defending a country's goals is the morally right thing to do, a country's goals and interests are numerous and may be in conflict within themselves, resulting in more confusion and the general acceptance that defending a country's goals is morally right becomes meaningless. It has no binding authority.

 

•    Morality, without a doubt, entails a choice between two or more alternative states of action.

 

•    It is sometimes argued that if the practical necessities or constraints concern the survival or extinction of a state or its identity, morality or ethics, as well as law and political systems, become irrelevant.

 

•    Every life can be regarded as having the same moral value. In this view, global interests are just as important as domestic interests. 

 

•    Governments and others give no consideration to the welfare of the country's citizens. Such governments do not recognise distinguishing factors that distinguish the welfare of their citizens from that of citizens from other countries. Everyone has the same set of rights. 

 

•    In every way, everyone is treated equally. Making sacrifices for others becomes meaningful in such situations and in the context of such beliefs of life equality. People rarely make self-sacrifices for those close to them. 

 

•    People who sacrifice themselves for others in international space, on the other hand, are truly worthy examples of human greatness and the heights to which the human spirit can rise. 

 

•    International ethics should be guided by respect for life in thought, word, and deed. You would choose a world that protects the weakest of the weak, the least advantaged, if you had to choose which world you wanted to live in without knowing what position you would be in.

 

•    In such a world, life will be full of meaning, and equality of life will be an accepted principle. In the principle of equality of all life, such a world would grant even the unborn the right to life.

 

•    Though the context may vary, there are a variety of frameworks for making decisions about international actions that have long-term economic, social, and environmental consequences and impacts. Because of the widening gap in ground realities between nations and international organisations due to levels of difficult conflict, there is a gap between any system of global and international values and international ethics on the ground. 

 

•    The frameworks have been developed to provide a way out of the conflict and are useful in dealing with a variety of competing ideas on international ethics.

 

•    The framework provided by the United Nations and its various UN agencies, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Genome and Human Rights, and other international declarations and conventions, provide the necessary framework for cooperative and collaborative international action to solve international problems.

 

•    Several global institutions are concerned with global economic order, while others are concerned with global information order, and still others with global environmental regimes or order, among other things. Each of them provides frameworks within which its members are expected to make their decisions and choices, and those decisions are respected and supported by the frameworks in place.