The so-called CNN effect, where the actions of governments are influenced by the imagery presented by 24 hour news media, is not declining, but has been overstated since its initial conception, rendering James Hoge’s assertion that the CNN effect had more influence in its infancy than in subsequent years a misleading notion.
The Realist school of thought in International Relations has claimed both Thucydides and Hobbes as two of their intellectual forefathers and in doing so has suggested that the core beliefs and views of these two political thinkers can be classified as Realism. Although the key realist ideas can be found in both authors, there are significant differences that need to be addressed.
Even though globalization has many advantages and one of them is the opportunity for economic growth both at an individual and a national level. This means that governments now try and compete for foreign capital and design their policies to please global investors and firms, which results in them not necessarily acting in the best interest of its citizens and this disregards its primary purpose.
The question of ‘who governs?’ is problematic. We must, therefore, start our inquiry of power with a question of ‘how?’: how is power exercised?
For the majority of states, offensive nuclear strategy is simply not feasible, and it is unlikely rogue states would implement a first-strike strategy due to fear of retaliation.
Muslims are facing discrimination on the sole basis of their faith. Whilst racial, cultural, political, social and economic factors undoubtedly play a role, it is undeniable that religion is equal a factor. Islamophobia as a term then has its problems and therefore requires modification, it is, however, well intentioned and describes a very real phenomenon.
The critique of positivism is fundamentally epistemological. Each side makes compelling arguments showing the strength of their position.
This essay will critically analyse the notion that there is a fundamental difference between the tasks of ‘explaining’ (comprehending ‘causes’) and ‘understanding’ (comprehending ‘reasons’). First, the essay will examine the emergence of the sharp division, which has come to be accepted as existent between ‘explaining’ (which is advocated by positivists) and ‘understanding’ (which is advocated by post-positivists). Second, one important consequence of the division will be demonstrated by showing how the intellectual battles between positivists and post-positivists, as well as the occasional attempts at reconciliation between them, have been instrumental in positivism’s dominance. Finally, the work of Milja Kurki will be drawn upon to argue that the concept of causation should be broadened, thereby exposing the interrelated nature of ‘explaining’ and ‘understanding’ without reducing one to the other. This will allow for positivism’s dominance to be effectively challenged.
The disciple of international relations, like all the social sciences, needs theories to make sense of the world it is trying to examine. The merits and faults of each school of thought have been contested in what are known as the ‘great debates’.
The responsibilities and powers enshrined in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter are central to the Security Council’s ability to uphold international stability and peace by averting or ending conflicts. So why has the Security Council failed to address a range of major conflicts that have occurred over the past 64 years, although it has successfully dealt with others?
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.