NationStates Jolt Archive

I've just finished a course on IR, which I've never studied before, and given lots of NSG posters obviously take an active interest in foreign goings-on and wotsits, I thought I'd ask: what, if any, approach do you use? And why? Any core texts, or interesting articles, that you would particularly recommend?

I'll make a comment of my own, but right now I'm just putting up a poll.

Edit: I didn't have room for an 'Other' option, but feel free to vote for what's closest and then describe the style you prefer.

I distribute tacos. *nod*

i read the newspaper

"lol at the weak, but show them mercy" - for an interesting article, that one George Orwell did about making tea is pretty good.

Offensive realism ie, the only one willing to recognize and deal with threats effectively.

Couldnt say, im not well versed in what the terms mean...

I wanna say i consider myself a Liberal Realist...or something like that, lol...

If in doubt, nuke'em?

What do you mean by approach? How do I observe and analyze an event or how do I wish nations would interact or how do I believe nations actually do interact? None of the three have to remotely agree with each other.

What do you mean by approach? How do I observe and analyze an event or how do I wish nations would interact or how do I believe nations actually do interact? None of the three have to remotely agree with each other.
The first and third (although the second at least can agree: a dependency theorist is unlikely to really wish for neoliberal policies). But yes: how you think states do, rather than should, act.

I usually try not to bend my knees as I approach international relations and I give a strong effort to not look like I am concentrating at not bending my knees as I walk toward it. Harder than it sounds.

I can't really properly pigeonhole myself in this respect. I borrow from Marxism and world-systems theory primarily.

The first and third (although the second at least can agree: a dependency theorist is unlikely to really wish for neoliberal policies). But yes: how you think states do, rather than should, act.

Hrm...well, I try to look at a state's history, current context, claimed goals and current needs, as well as doing the same for the leadership of that country. There is no technically defined approach for this and it's silly to limit oneself to the tunnel vision entailed by participating in one of these camps; different countries make decisions for different reasons. The decision making process behind various leadership-resembling-persons in Somalia, for example, are going to be different from those of the leadership of the US.

As far as the reality of the world, again I'm not sure. You use slightly different terms than I, but if I am understanding them correctly I'd have to say that the world is a grab bag of all of them. There is obviously some truth to both Marxist and Neoliberal views, but this doesn't discount the various schools of realism or world systems, either. There seems to be an economic spectrum and, depending whereupon that spectrum a country lies, the reality of their context changes. Even just determining this spectrum is difficult as it isn't necessarily aggregate wealth, but has to factor in standard of living, breadth of rights, mobility (socially, economically and geographically), symmetry of information, wealth gap, etc.

Pretty much, to sum it up, I don't think there's any easy enough answer to this that can be encapsulated by any single theory, atm. I believe it exists, but we just don't have it yet.

I've just finished a course on IR, which I've never studied before, and given lots of NSG posters obviously take an active interest in foreign goings-on and wotsits, I thought I'd ask: what, if any, approach do you use? And why? Any core texts, or interesting articles, that you would particularly recommend?

I'll make a comment of my own, but right now I'm just putting up a poll.

Edit: I didn't have room for an 'Other' option, but feel free to vote for what's closest and then describe the style you prefer.

President Ronald Reagan. Peace and security through strength not appeasement, trust but verify.

I don't like to label myself in this regard, as I pick and choose from a number of the poll options, but it seems to me that Functionalism is most likely to matter in the long term, as most of the other options keep us in a cycle that hovers just a bit too close to extinction.

Defensive realism.

I'm not too involved in international affairs. (*Sigh* - passed up for Secretary of State again. :()

Simple, really. Just do whatever my wife wants. In the long run, it's easier and she's gonna get what she wants anyway. :p

Offensive realism ie, the only one willing to recognize and deal with threats effectively.

Which immediately eliminates Dubyah's approach.

Idealist realism. I believe we should work towards the goal of democratization and enforcement of human rights around the world, but that this goal requires us to sometimes compromise on those principles, for example building up trade relations with China to encourage them along the path of further reform. The same would apply in my view to lifting the embargoes on Cuba and Iran; the path to democratization is free trade and free markets, and without building strong personal and private property rights we can't even hope to begin building democracy or human rights.

In the words of Lenin, when referring to NEP, "We are taking one step backwards now to take two steps forward later." One might appreciate the irony of such a choice, but he was correct in his thinking...had he continued NEP and gradually built socialism upon that foundation, the Soviet Union would have been far more successful and freer.

[QUOTE=Vetalia;14273106]Idealist realism. I believe we should work towards the goal of democratization and enforcement of human rights around the world, but that this goal requires us to sometimes compromise on those principles, for example building up trade relations with China to encourage them along the path of further reform. The same would apply in my view to lifting the embargoes on Cuba and Iran; the path to democratization is free trade and free markets, and without building strong personal and private property rights we can't even hope to begin building democracy or human rights.

I agree with you Vetalia. The same policy should be followed with the dictatorship of Zimbabwe, North Korea, Pakistan under military dictatorships, Monarchy of Saudi Arabia. All the worlds dictators no exceptions.

I hex'em till they glow, then curse them in the dark.

oops, I meant nuke em till they glow then shoot them in the dark.

If you're talking about NSG, my nation lives in space away from all the lowlife rabble. :)

I don't really know enough about all of these to say. Is there a handy website somewhere, preferably not Wikipedia, that summarizes them?

I've always considered myself some kind of mix of Realism (a defensive form I guess), Neoliberalism, and some Constructivism thrown in. That Neoclassical realism sounds something that I might fit into, but would you mind explaining it in more detail?

Anyways, now for details. I do believe in one of the core tenets of Realism; that nations work in their own self-interest. I do reject the rather pessimistic/cynical views that Realism can cause one to have in favor of believing that while people do serve their own self-interest they are also, at heart, good and are trying to do what they believe is best for their country/people/group/etc.. This is where my Neoliberal and Constructivism points come in. The belief that people working in their own self-interest leads to the general improvement of society is something out of Smithian-style philosophy and serves as a basis for my viewpoint of humankind. I also tend to support the free-market, though I will occassionally argue against it in certain situations when other non-economic issues arise, such as social, political, and security issues (would you really want to depend on trade to get your military equipment?).

As I mentioned, I believe people generally work in order to advance what they think is good for their country. Now, the Contstructivism part of my view comes in at this part. What people feel is 'good' for their country is based on a variety of cultural and social norms. The people of Country A may think Action X is good and Action Y is bad, but Country B may think it's the other way around. When you are dealing with a country you have to pay attention to the culture, society, and history of the country in order to determine what course of action is best to take in relation to it.

Largely I view the current system as one best described by the neoclassical realist viewpoint, but I've strong sympathies for liberal institutionalism, and even stronger hope that such a system can function, and transcend the existing realist paradigm.

Although, my training has been at the university at which Alexander Wendt, the father of Constructivism, currently teaches. I just have a hard time buying into a lot of his and his associates ideas. I've long felt that a significant portion of states are driven by needs that are not socially developed, and are derived from something more basic, especially in scarcity situations.

Global cooperation. Is that world-ssystems?

Idealism or else!!!