Institutionalism rejects the realist assumption that international politics is a struggle for power in which military security issues are top priority and argues that instead, force is an ineffective instrument of policy. In order to understand the impact of internationalism on IR theory and its criticisms we must first look at its definition and how it differs from realist perspectives.

Despite the wide-ranging and largely valid critiques, Clash of Civilizations continues to affect the thinking of scholars and policymakers alike as the “triumph” of capitalism in the post-Cold War era and a movement towards liberal democracy on a global scale make cultural differences such as language, history, religion, and customs more important as a way to distinguish between different groups

War has not changed inherently; it remains political in nature, and its desired outcomes remain political in nature, as it always has. The emergence of non-state conflict has added a new dimension to war. The use of many aggressive alternative methods, albeit in conjunction with traditional methods, has served to enhance the view that warfare has taken on asymmetrical characteristics.

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.

Whilst the German experience in South West Africa is significant, the wider phenomenon of imperial domination is the greater contributory factor to the genocidal Nazi mentality. An ethos of thought and norms developed in the colonies which created the potential for totalitarian domination and mass extermination in Europe, culminating in the catastrophic events of the Holocaust.