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.

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.

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

In the age of intensified globalization and migration, societies are increasingly confronted with problems of integration and peaceful coexistence of religiously or otherwise ethnically diffe­rent groups, particularly of groups identifying themselves with Western traditions on the one hand and the world of Is­lam on the other. Tolerance is an important element to meet these requirements.

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.