ACTORS IN WORLD POLITIC


At the most general level, an actor in world politics has been defined as ‘any entity which plays an identifiable role in international relation’ (Evans and Nenham 1990, p.6)

This definition is so broad as even to encompass individuals. Although this inclusion is open to debate (Rossenau, 1990: Girrad, 1994), most authors reject it because the influence of individuals in international politics is most often incidental and tend to diminish over time (Taylor, 1984, p.20). In his seminal essay ‘The Actors in World Politics’, Oran Young (1972, p.140) offers a way out to refine the above general definition by defining an actor as: “any organized entity that is composed, at least indirectly, of human beings, is not wholly subordinate to any other actor in the world system in effective terms, and participate in power relationships with other actors.”

This definition suggests that to be considered an actor in world politics the entity under consideration needs to possess a degree of autonomy.

TYPES OF NON-STATE ACTORS

Non-state actors are non-sovereign entities that exercise significant economic, political, or social power and influence at a national, and in some cases international level.

  1. Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs). These groups are typically considered a part of civil society. A non-governmental organization is a legally constituted organization created by private organizations or people with no participation or representation of any government. In the cases in which NGOs are funded totally or partially by governments, the NGO maintains its non-governmental status in so far as it excludes government representative from membership in the organization. Example: Red Cross, Green Peace, etc.
  2. Multinational Corporation (MNCs). Multinational corporations are for profit organizations that operate in three or more sovereign states. The traditional multinational is a private company headquartered in one country and with subsidiaries in others, all operating in accordance with a coordinated global strategy to win market share and achieve cost efficiencies. A significant portion of the discussion, however, centered on the relatively recent “multi-nationalization” of state-owned enterprises, such as Russia’s arms-export monopoly Rosonboron export or Chinese oil company CNPC, which as state entities may or may not share the same incentives and goals as their private counterpart.
  3. The International Media. Example: BBC
  4. Armed Groups. Armed groups include for example rebel opposition forces, military, and warlords.
  5. Terrorist Organization. Including groups, such as Al-Qaeda. In addition to inflicting pain and damage and weakening the existing political order, terrorism, writes Hoffman, “is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is very little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorist seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or an international scale.

As a ‘weapon weak’, terrorism is deployed by groups to gain media attention and visibility as the first step in gaining “name recognition” within the international community.

Even if acts of terrorism are universally commended, they can stimulate media coverage of an issue and provide an opening for the more moderate cause is being promotes. In this regard one must note that one of the observable outcomes of 9/ 11 has indeed been a spotlight of media attention on the Middle East and Isla, and an opening  for more moderate voices to have their grievances at least publicly considered and deliberated, to a much greater extent than had been possible prior to 9/ 10.

  1. Criminal Organization. Example of the criminal organizations is drug cartels such as the Gulf Cartel.
  2. Religious Groups. Politically active organization based on strong religious conviction.

The Quaker is quite active in their international advocacy effort and their supportive role at International conference.

  1. Transnational Diaspora communities. A Diaspora is a transnational community that defined itself as a singular ethnic group based upon its shared identity. Ethno-political groups: common nationality, language, cultural tradition, kinship ties.
  2. Certain Individuals/ Super-empowered individuals is a person who have overcome constraints, conventions, and rules to wield unique political, economic, intellectual, or cultural influence over the course of human events. They generated the most wide-raging discussion. “Archetypes” include industrialists, criminals, financiers, media moguls, celebrity activists, religious leaders, and terrorists. The ways in which they exert their influence (money, moral authority, expertise) are as varied as their fields of endeavor. As bounded by seminar participants, this category excludes political office holders (although some super empowered individuals eventually attain political office), those with heredity power, or the merely rich or famous. This includes an individual such as Victor Bout.

REALIST AND LIBERALIST

The realist perspective acknowledges the existence of non-state actors, but argues that they are peripheral to the international security environment as compared to states. Security threats emanate primarily from states and are responded to primarily by states. Power is treated as an attribute that is distributed across unitary state actors who must each prioritize their own security interest. When realist does look explicitly at the activities of non-state actors, they often view them as being mere extensions of existing configurations of state power and capabilities. The realist lens suggests a particular response is to either refocus attention on threats from states, treat violent non-state actors as proxies for state interest, or to view non-state actors as being “state-like”. The overall policy response is therefore to combat terrorism as one would combat security threats emanating from state through a military response.

In the Liberal Perspective, non-state actors have figured much more prominently in their view of the international security environment. Liberals view power as being distributed not just across state, but also embedded in other entities such as international institution and NGOs. Their view of power is multidimensional, with an emphasis on the “soft power” of economic factors or the power of ideas, in addition to military power. In this world-view, non-state actors have been largely assumed to play a stabilizing role in the international system as extensions of domestic interest groups, or as members of a global civil society that can contribute to international stability by performing tasks such as monitoring human rights violations and assisting in post-conflict reconstruction and development.

THE EFFECT OF NON-STATE ACTORS ON THE WESTPHALIAN STATE MODEL

The proliferation of non-state actors in the post-Cold War era has been one of the factors leading to the theorizing of the Cobweb paradigm in international Politics. Under this paradigm, the traditional Westphalian non-state is experiencing an erosion of power and sovereignty, and non-state actors are part of the cause. Facilitated by globalization, NSAs have challenged nation-state borders and claims to sovereignty. MNCs are not always sympathetic to home country’s or host country’s national interests, but instead loyalty is given to the corporation’s interest. NGOs are challenging the nation-state’s sovereignty over internal matters through advocacy for societal issues, human right, and the environment.

Many armed non-state actors, opposition group, that operate without state control and are involved in trans-border conflicts. The prevalence of these groups in armed conflicts has added layers of complexity to traditional conflict management and resolution. These conflicts are often fought not only between non-state actors and states, but also between non-state actors. Any attempts at intervention in such conflicts has been particularly challenging given the fact that international law and norms governing the use of force for intervention or peacekeeping purposes has been primarily written in the context of nation-state. So, the demands of non-state actors at the local and international level have further complicated international relations.

REFERENCES:

–          Rochester, Martin. J. 2002. Between Two Epochs: What’s Ahead for America, the World, and Global Politics in the Twenty First Century. NJ: Prentice Hall

–          Davies, Thomas Richard. 2007. The Possibilities of Transnational Activism: the Campaign for Disarmament between the two World War. ISBN 9789004162587

–          Stone, Diane. 2004. Transfer Agents and Global Networks in Trans-nationalization of Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11 (3) 2004: 545-66

–          Glasius, M; Kaldor, M; Anheier, H. 2006. Global Civil Society. London: Sage

–          Rossenau, JN. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf

–          Smith, S. 1989. Paradigm Dominance in International Relation: The Development of International Relation as a Social Science, in H. C. Dyer & l. Mangaserian (eds) The Study of International Relation: The State of the Art. London: Mc Millan

–          http://docs.lib.duke.edu/igo/guides/ngo/define.htm.worldbankdefiningNGO

–          http://www.Ise.ac.uk/collections/CCS/pdf/int-work-paper.pdf(100KB)

–          http://www.intractableconlict.org

Sistem Politik Perbandingan Gabriel A. Almond


Gabriel A. Almond (1956) menyatakan, dalam jurnalnya yang berjudul Comparative Political System, bahwa teori sosial adalah sebuah konsep cure-all bagi semua “penyakit” disiplin ilmu (dalam konteks ini, perbandingan pemerintahan). Kegunaan konsep sosiologi dalam menemukan perbedaan yang esensial diantara sistem-sistem politik. Konsep pertama adalah sistem politik adalah sistem dari tindakan yang artinya perbandingan harus diobeservasi melalui empiris. Kedua, sistem politik didefinisikan sebagai satu set dari semua role yang berperan atau sebagai sebuah struktur role. Ketiga, perbedaan sistem politik merupakan monopoli legitimasi pada paksaan fisik terhadap teritori dan populasi tertentu. Konsep keempat adalah orientasi terhadap aksi politis (pemahaman, pilihan dan evaluasi).

Setiap sistem politik terikat pada pola tertentu orientasi pada aksi politis, yakni apa yang kita sebut budaya berpolitik. Perlu diketahui bahwa budaya politik sejalan dengan sistem politik/ masyarakat serta ia tidak sama dengan budaya umum kendati masih berhubungan. Sebab orientasi politik meliputi pemahaman, intelektual, dan adaptasi dari situasi eksternal. Orientasi politik terpisah dari standar dan nilai budaya umum serta memiliki otonomi tersendiri. Fungsi dari skema konseptual ini akan dijelaskan melalui studi kasus.

Sistem Politik Anglo-American

Sistem politik Anglo-American terkarakteristik oleh sebuah homogenitas, budaya politik sekuler. Yang dimaksud oleh budaya politik sekuler adalah budaya politik multinilai, rasional, bargaining,dan budaya politik eksperimental. Mayoritas aktor dalam sistem politiknya menerima tujuan terakhir sistem politik dari kombinasi nilai-nilai kebebasan, kemakmuran dan perlindungan bersama. Oleh karenanya sistem politik sekuler meliputi individu dan memiliki otonomi di setiap role-nya. Setiap orang dalam set role dilengkapi dengan otonomi dalam urusan politis, juga dalam berpendapat. Maka struktur role yang terjadi dala, grup sistem politik ini: (1) sangat beragam, (2) manifestasi, tertata, dan terbirokratisasi, (3) terkarakterisasi oleh taraf tinggi dalam fungsi-fungsi role, dan (4) cenderung memiliki difusi kekuatan dan melakukan sistem politik secara keseluruhan.

Struktur Role dalam Sistem Politik Anglo-American

Sistem Politik Praindustri

Sistem politik praindustri atau sebagian terindustrialisasi dan Westernisasi terdeskripsikan sebagai budaya politik campuran. Di sini parlemen bisa menjadi sesuatu yang lain dari parlemen, partai-partai dan grup penekan berperilaku dalam cara yang tak lazim, birokrasi dan angkatan bersenjata seringkali mendominasi sistem politik, serta terdapat atmosfer yang tidak dapat terprediksi secara keseluruhan. Karakteristik dari sistem politik ini menjadi jelas dalam analisis struktur role politik yang mana tidak terlalu berkarakter: (1)derajat rendah dalam diferensiasi, (2) derajat tinggi dalam pertukaran role, (3) merupakan campuran dari struktur role politik

Sistem Politik Totalitarian

Dalam budaya politik totalitarian terdapat kesan homogenitas, namun homogenitas tersebut bersifat sintetis. Sebab tidak ada organisasi sukarelawan dan media yang tidak dipegang oleh pusat maka tidak akan terjadi penilain terhadap jalan mana yang diterima baik dari perintah totalitarian. Maka dalam sistem politik ini terhadap adanya paksaan kekerasan yang kuat untuk mendukung berlangsungnya sistem. Banyak pengamat yang mengakui bahwa tak hany monopoli kekuatan absolut, namun juga kepastian ketidakpararelan atas segala komando yang akan dilakukan; tetapi juga memudahkan independen dictator dari bawahannya dan menjadikannya mungkin bagi pertukaran dan perubahan mendadak dalam kebijakan.

Terdapat dua karakteristik dari struktur role totalitarian ini: (1) dominansi coercive role, dan (2) ketidakstabilan fungsi power roles – birokrasi, partai, angkatan bersenjata, dan polisi rahasia.

Sistem Politik Benua Eropa

Sistem Eropa merupakan fragmentasi dari sistem politik budayanya. Berbeda dengan sistem non-Western yang merupakan campuran budaya-budaya politik yang sangat kontras satu sama lainnya, sistem Eropa pola budaya politik terkarakteristik oleh pola ketidakseimbangan perkembangan. Variasi kebudayaan mereka merupakan outcroppings dari kebudayaan-kebudayaan sebelumnya dan manifestasi politis. jadi variasi kebudayaan dari sistem Eropa, berbeda dengan non-Western, berasal dari satu akar kebudayaan yang sama dan berbagi warisan yang sama. Bisa dikatan pula bahwa sistem Eropa memiliki subkultur-subkultur politik.

Karakteristik struktur  role politik dari sistem ini berasal dari alienasi umum dari pasar politik dan tidak terdapatnya role politik indvidu sebab role terikat dalam subkultur dan mengkonstitusikan diri terpisah dari subkultur. Maka  karakteristiknya : (1) memiliki derajat yang tinggi dalam substitutabilitas roles daripada politik Anglo-Amerika dan derjar yang lebih kecil daripada sistem non-Western, (2) berpotensi adanya ancaman Caesaristic sebagaimana non-Western kendati dengan situasi dan penyebab yang berbeda.

Analisis

Kesimpulannya adalah bahwa pertumbuhan konseptual dan terminologikal dalam ilmu pengetahuan tidak bisa diacuhkan begitu saja sebagaimana pertumbuhan bahasa. Namun sebagaimana bahasa slang dan neologisme yang tidak bisa selamanya bertahan, akan begitu yang tersingkirkan dan hanya sedikit saja yang akan diterima. Dan itu penetua dari kriteria diterima atau tidaknya merupakan fasilitas yang berada di tangan pemikir masa  datang yang akan mencoba menemukan kecocokan. Masing-masing tempat memiliki karakteristik dan kebudayaan masing-masing yang tidak bisa diabaikan dalam sistem politik perbandingan

SUMBER:

—— Almond, Gabriel.1956.Comparative Political System.http://www.jstor.org/(diakses 26 September 2006)

ACTORS IN WORLD POLITIC


At the most general level, an actor in world politics has been defined as ‘any entity which plays an identifiable role in international relation’ (Evans and Nenham 1990, p.6)

This definition is so broad as even to encompass individuals. Although this inclusion is open to debate (Rossenau, 1990: Girrad, 1994), most authors reject it because the influence of individuals in international politics is most often incidental and tend to diminish over time (Taylor, 1984, p.20). In his seminal essay ‘The Actors in World Politics’, Oran Young (1972, p.140) offers a way out to refine the above general definition by defining an actor as: “any organized entity that is composed, at least indirectly, of human beings, is not wholly subordinate to any other actor in the world system in effective terms, and participate in power relationships with other actors.”

This definition suggests that to be considered an actor in world politics the entity under consideration needs to possess a degree of autonomy.

TYPES OF NON-STATE ACTORS

Non-state actors are non-sovereign entities that exercise significant economic, political, or social power and influence at a national, and in some cases international level.

  1. Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs). These groups are typically considered a part of civil society. A non-governmental organization is a legally constituted organization created by private organizations or people with no participation or representation of any government. In the cases in which NGOs are funded totally or partially by governments, the NGO maintains its non-governmental status in so far as it excludes government representative from membership in the organization. Example: Red Cross, Green Peace, etc.
  2. Multinational Corporation (MNCs). Multinational corporations are for profit organizations that operate in three or more sovereign states. The traditional multinational is a private company headquartered in one country and with subsidiaries in others, all operating in accordance with a coordinated global strategy to win market share and achieve cost efficiencies. A significant portion of the discussion, however, centered on the relatively recent “multi-nationalization” of state-owned enterprises, such as Russia’s arms-export monopoly Rosonboron export or Chinese oil company CNPC, which as state entities may or may not share the same incentives and goals as their private counterpart.
  3. The International Media. Example: BBC
  4. Armed Groups. Armed groups include for example rebel opposition forces, military, and warlords.
  5. Terrorist Organization. Including groups, such as Al-Qaeda. In addition to inflicting pain and damage and weakening the existing political order, terrorism, writes Hoffman, “is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is very little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorist seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or an international scale.

As a ‘weapon weak’, terrorism is deployed by groups to gain media attention and visibility as the first step in gaining “name recognition” within the international community.

Even if acts of terrorism are universally commended, they can stimulate media coverage of an issue and provide an opening for the more moderate cause is being promotes. In this regard one must note that one of the observable outcomes of 9/ 11 has indeed been a spotlight of media attention on the Middle East and Isla, and an opening  for more moderate voices to have their grievances at least publicly considered and deliberated, to a much greater extent than had been possible prior to 9/ 10.

  1. Criminal Organization. Example of the criminal organizations is drug cartels such as the Gulf Cartel.
  2. Religious Groups. Politically active organization based on strong religious conviction.

The Quaker is quite active in their international advocacy effort and their supportive role at International conference.

  1. Transnational Diaspora communities. A Diaspora is a transnational community that defined itself as a singular ethnic group based upon its shared identity. Ethno-political groups: common nationality, language, cultural tradition, kinship ties.
  2. Certain Individuals/ Super-empowered individuals is a person who have overcome constraints, conventions, and rules to wield unique political, economic, intellectual, or cultural influence over the course of human events. They generated the most wide-raging discussion. “Archetypes” include industrialists, criminals, financiers, media moguls, celebrity activists, religious leaders, and terrorists. The ways in which they exert their influence (money, moral authority, expertise) are as varied as their fields of endeavor. As bounded by seminar participants, this category excludes political office holders (although some super empowered individuals eventually attain political office), those with heredity power, or the merely rich or famous. This includes an individual such as Victor Bout.

REALIST AND LIBERALIST

The realist perspective acknowledges the existence of non-state actors, but argues that they are peripheral to the international security environment as compared to states. Security threats emanate primarily from states and are responded to primarily by states. Power is treated as an attribute that is distributed across unitary state actors who must each prioritize their own security interest. When realist does look explicitly at the activities of non-state actors, they often view them as being mere extensions of existing configurations of state power and capabilities. The realist lens suggests a particular response is to either refocus attention on threats from states, treat violent non-state actors as proxies for state interest, or to view non-state actors as being “state-like”. The overall policy response is therefore to combat terrorism as one would combat security threats emanating from state through a military response.

In the Liberal Perspective, non-state actors have figured much more prominently in their view of the international security environment. Liberals view power as being distributed not just across state, but also embedded in other entities such as international institution and NGOs. Their view of power is multidimensional, with an emphasis on the “soft power” of economic factors or the power of ideas, in addition to military power. In this world-view, non-state actors have been largely assumed to play a stabilizing role in the international system as extensions of domestic interest groups, or as members of a global civil society that can contribute to international stability by performing tasks such as monitoring human rights violations and assisting in post-conflict reconstruction and development.

THE EFFECT OF NON-STATE ACTORS ON THE WESTPHALIAN STATE MODEL

The proliferation of non-state actors in the post-Cold War era has been one of the factors leading to the theorizing of the Cobweb paradigm in international Politics. Under this paradigm, the traditional Westphalian non-state is experiencing an erosion of power and sovereignty, and non-state actors are part of the cause. Facilitated by globalization, NSAs have challenged nation-state borders and claims to sovereignty. MNCs are not always sympathetic to home country’s or host country’s national interests, but instead loyalty is given to the corporation’s interest. NGOs are challenging the nation-state’s sovereignty over internal matters through advocacy for societal issues, human right, and the environment.

Many armed non-state actors, opposition group, that operate without state control and are involved in trans-border conflicts. The prevalence of these groups in armed conflicts has added layers of complexity to traditional conflict management and resolution. These conflicts are often fought not only between non-state actors and states, but also between non-state actors. Any attempts at intervention in such conflicts has been particularly challenging given the fact that international law and norms governing the use of force for intervention or peacekeeping purposes has been primarily written in the context of nation-state. So, the demands of non-state actors at the local and international level have further complicated international relations.

REFERENCES:

–          Rochester, Martin. J. 2002. Between Two Epochs: What’s Ahead for America, the World, and Global Politics in the Twenty First Century. NJ: Prentice Hall

–          Davies, Thomas Richard. 2007. The Possibilities of Transnational Activism: the Campaign for Disarmament between the two World War. ISBN 9789004162587

–          Stone, Diane. 2004. Transfer Agents and Global Networks in Trans-nationalization of Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11 (3) 2004: 545-66

–          Glasius, M; Kaldor, M; Anheier, H. 2006. Global Civil Society. London: Sage

–          Rossenau, JN. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf

–          Smith, S. 1989. Paradigm Dominance in International Relation: The Development of International Relation as a Social Science, in H. C. Dyer & l. Mangaserian (eds) The Study of International Relation: The State of the Art. London: Mc Millan

–          http://docs.lib.duke.edu/igo/guides/ngo/define.htm.worldbankdefiningNGO

–          http://www.Ise.ac.uk/collections/CCS/pdf/int-work-paper.pdf(100KB)

–          http://www.intractableconlict.org

NATIONAL POWER


THE CONCEPT

The concept power in international relations can be described as the degree of sources, capabilities, and influences in the international affairs. It is often divided up into the concept of hard power and soft power.

1. Hard Power

It refers to coercive tactics the threat or use of armed forces, economic pressure or sanction association and subterfuge, or other forms of intimidation. Hard power is generally associated to the stronger of nations, as the ability of other nations through military threats.

2. Soft Power

Instruments of soft power include debates on cultural values, dialogues on ideology, the attempt to influence through good example, and the appeal to commonly accepted human values. Means of exercising soft power include diplomacy, dissemination of information, analysis, propaganda, and cultural programming to achieve political ends.

CATAGORIES OF POWER

Modern discourse generally speaks in term of state power, indicating both economic and military power, indicating both economic and military power. Those state that have significant amounts of power within the systems are referred to (although there’s no commonly accepted standard for what DEFINE):

  1. Middle Power

a subjective description of second-tier influential states that could not be described as Great Powers. Ex: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, etc.

  1. Great Power

refers to any nations that have strong political, cultural, and economic influence over nations around it and across the world. Ex: China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States

  1. Superpower

Fox (1944) defined the Superpower as ‘great power plus great mobility of power’. Ex: United States, Soviet Union, and British Empire.

  1. Hyper power

coined to describe the post-Cold War, United States or the British Empire shortly after the Napoleonic wars.

IDENTIFICATION OF POWER

  1. Regional Power

It used to describe a nation that exercises influence and power within a region. Being a regional power isn’t mutually exclusive with any of the above categories.

  1. The term energy Superpower

It describes a country that has immense influence or even direct control over much of the world’s energy supplies. Ex: Russia and Saudi Arabia, given their abilities to globally influence or even directly control prices to certain country.

  1. Entertainment/ Culture Superpower

It describes a country in which has immense influence or even direct control over much of the world’s entertainment or has an immense large cultural influence on much of the world. Ex: United States, United Kingdom, and Japan given their abilities to distribute their entertainment and cultural motivation worldwide.

  1. Agricultural Superpower

It describes a country that has immense influence and direct control over much of the world’s food supplies, and even has immense ability to control food prices on a worldwide scale. Ex: Thailand and Brazil.

STANDARIZATION OF POWER

  1. Realist and National Power

National power has an absolute meaning since it can be defined in terms of military, economic, political, diplomatic, or even cultural resources. But for a realist, power is primarily a relative term: “Does a state have the ability to defend itself against the power of another state? Does a state have the ability to coerce another state to change that state policies?”

The realist believes that all nations work for their own benefit, for their gain, without pause regarding their own safety and security.

This emphasis on relative, and not absolute power, derives from realist conception of the international system which is, for the realist, an anarchical environment. All states have to rely upon their own resources to secure their interest, enforce whatever agreements they may have entered into with other states, or to maintain a desirable domestic and international order. There is no authority over the nation-state, nor, for the realist, should there be.

Since, however, the natural tendency of state is to increase their power, the preservation of a decentralized system must be purchased with force, by a system called Balance of power.

In short, realist deifies power: the power to maintain the state, to perpetuate the state and to push forward the state’s interest onto the anarchic international playing field.

  1. Liberalist and Power

Liberalism believes that state inclinations, rather than state capabilities, primarily determine the behavior of the state. As opposed to realism, in which the state is perceived as solo force, plurality of action is the cornerstone of liberalist thought. Varying aspects like economic system, government type, or cultural will shape preferences for a state’s practices.

Liberalism believes that “instead of an anarchic international system, there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation and broader nations of power, such as cultural capital and other forms of ‘soft power’. The ability to get what you want through relations with allies, economic assistance and cultural exchanges with rhetorical support for democracy and human rights and more generally, maintaining favorable public opinion and credibility abroad.” (Spear)

DOMAIN POWER

Domain power defined as power that done to society, territory and wealth. Then, range power is decision or rule of state as gift (to good action) or punishment (to bad action). And scope is all environments that obey government’s power.

MY OPINION

I think that the world has need of mutual understanding. The liberal mindset may have shortcomings and failings, but it is only through cooperation and communication that we can abolish war and engender war.

REFERENCES

–          Morghenthau, Hans. J. 1978. Six Principle of Political Realism, Politic Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, pp 4-15

–          Griffith, Mochn & O’Callaghan, Terry. 2002. International Relation: The Key Concepts. London & New York: Routledge

–          Evans, Graham & Newnham, Jeffrey. 1998. Dictionary of International Relations. London: Penguin Book pp. 522

–          Oxford Learner’s Pocket Dictionary

–          http://www.hoover.org (diakses 2008)

–          http://www.mtholyke.edu/acad/interl/pol11 (diakses 2008)

NATIONAL INTEREST


National interest is a county’s goal and ambitions ether economic, military or culture. National interest of a state is multifaceted. Primary is the state’s survival and security. Also important is the pursuit of wealth and economic growth and power.

Many states, especially in modern times, regard the preservation of the nation’s culture as of great importance.

Some claim that Morgenthau is the founder of international relations as an independent discipline. Before him, it was studied under history, political thought or international law. The more interesting side of him is function as a witness to his time.

DEFINITION AND ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST

In Defense of the National Interest (1951) he contended that moral principles must be linked with national interest and called for a reconsideration of the approach of the founding fathers. General moral principles must be filtered through the national interest if an effective political morality is to be attained, he argued.

Upon further investigation, there terms can be collapse into 2 general categories:

  1. The national interest of a single nation.
  2. The degree of communality of interest among two/ more nations.

We have the following six national interests:

  1. Primary interest: include protection of the nation’s physic, political, and cultural identity, survival against encroachment from the outside. It can never be compromised.
  2. Secondary interest: are those falling outside of a but contributing to it.
  3. Permanent interest: are those which are relatively constant over long periods of time. They vary with time, but only slowly.
  4. Variable interest: are what a given nation at any particular time chooses to regard as its national interest.
  5. General interest: are those which the nation can apply in a positive manner to a large geographic area.
  6. Specific interest: are usually closely defined in time/ space and often are the logical outgrowth of general interest.

We also have international interest:

  1. Identical interest: are those in which those nations hold in common.
  2. Complementary interest: those which (although not identical) at least are capable of forming the basis of agreement on specific issues.
  3. Conflicting interest: those not include in 7 & 8. Today, conflicting interest can be transformed through diplomacy, occurrence of events or the passage of time into common or complementary interest.

THE RELATIONS BETWEEN INTEREST AND POWER

Interest defined as power is at the core of politics. The pursuit of power is the struggle for control over the minds and actions of others. While many goals are pursued. In international affairs, attention to power is essential because goals are unlikely to be attained without it.

NATIONAL INTEREST AND MORALITY

Power is pursued through consequential thinking. That is, actions are taken in anticipation of particular consequences being achieved, not because of prior ethical/ moral imperatives, for instance. Power cannot be successfully pursued with arrogance because the latter leads to misperception and poor judgment.

PROPOSITION ABOUT THE NATIONAL INTEREST

  1. War and the use of force
  2. alliances
  3. diplomatic negotiations

MY OPINION

Today, the concept of the national interest is often associated with politic or realist who wish to differentiate their policies from ‘idealistic’ policies – that seek either to inject morality into foreign policy or promote solutions that rely on multilateral institutions which might weaken the independence of the state. As considerable disagreement exist in every country over what is or is not in the national interest, the term is as often invoked to justify isolationist and pacifistic policies as to justify interventionist or warlike policies.

REFERENCES

ü  Robinson, Thomas. W. 1969. National Interests. New York: Wayne State University Press

ü  Morgenthau, Hans & Thompson, Kenneth. 1985. Politics Among Nations, 6thedition. New York: McGraw Hill, p. 165

ü  http://www.nationalinterest.org

ü  http://www.hawaii.edu/intlrel/pols315/text…s

ON HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY OF INTERATIONAL RELATIONS


The history of international relations is often traced back the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, where the modern state system was developed. Westphalia encouraged the rise of the independent nation state, the institutionalization of diplomacy and armies. The contemporary international system was finally established through decolonization during Cold War. However, this somewhat over-simplified.

IR AS AN ART

International Relations as an art occur when a nation make a relationship with the other nations. For instance when a nations decide to work together in trading or military with the others.

One of the most significant problems in work on the history of IR is that these histories have failed to address question, how one should write the history of IR in the field? Describing the history of IR as if a complete consensus existed on the essential dimension of the field’s evolution is not easy at all, the absence of any significant controversy concern “how the field has developed” must be devoted. That’s why nobody knows “when or where” international relation began at the first time. But all of we knew that the achievement of the art of IR that a nation successfully fulfill its nation interest by its relationship with the other nations.

IR AS A SCIENCE

IR as a science is when we learn IR as a discipline study or science.

Initially, international relations as a distinct field of study (science) were almost entirely British-centered. In 1919, the Chair in International Politics establishment at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth (in 2008, renamed Aberystwyth University) from an endowment given by David Davies, became the first academic position dedicated to IR.

In the early 1920’s, the London School of Economics’ department of IR was founded at the behest of Nobel Prize winner Philip Noel-Baker. That is the defining moment of IR as a science.

There is a strong conviction that significant development in international politics (such as: war) shaped the development of IR as a science. It is characteristically as a reaction of World War I.

THE GREAT DEBATES

1. The First Debate (1920-1930)

Utopian (liberalism) vs. Realism

It talked about ontology[i], the essential of the study of IR.

Liberal International Relations Theory arose after WW I in response to the inability of states to control and limit war in their international relations. Early adherents include Woodrow Wilson and Norman Angell who argued vigorously that states mutually gained from cooperation and that war was so destructive to essentially futile. It’s supported by W. Wilson as the president of USA that day.

The conception of Utopian is a man endowed with reason by nature; his actions are governed by norms and ideals founded in reason and therefore intelligible. It means that man is throwing into the contradiction of norm and reality. This situation instills fear; fear is countered by effort to achieve security by means of the acquisition, demonstration, and argumentation of power (over others).

Unlike realism, it focuses on state security and power above all else. Early realist such as E. H. Carr, Daniel Bernhard, and Hans Morgenthau argued that state is self-interested, power-seeking[ii] rational actors, who seek to maximize their security and chances of survival, balance of power (BOP) [iii].

Termination:

–          US Senate refused to allow the US to join and at first the original members refused to allow Germany or indeed Russia to become members. W. Wilson failed to sell his ideas.

–          1930s saw economic collapse (colonialism and imperialism).

–          Rise of dictators in various countries.

–          From 1839 to 1878 the international system was afflicted by 19 wars (William K. Domke: War and the Changing Global System, Yale U. P 1988).

Achievement: Utopian’s achievement is PBB, but all the failure caused liberalism led realist dominance following WW II.

2. The Second Debate (1950-1970)

Traditionalism vs. Behaviorism (scientism)

It talked about methodology[iv], how to learn IR?

Traditionalism: politics is a specific social form of action full off sense and values; an art which can be learned on the basis of the historical examples. Historical and social phenomena can be clearly distinguished from natural phenomena; thus, they are not susceptible to scientific explanations.

Behaviorism (scientism): they advise to those who govern and political education of those who are govern and political education of those who are governed; evaluating comments, norm-based opinions, and recommendations; for action regarding present political decisions on the basis of respective scientific research results.

Termination:

The real problem of the second debate was striving for an ‘understanding’ of politics on the insight into and of knowledge of historical-social developments and process.

Finally, there is no winner on this debate.

3. The Third Debate (1980-now)

Neorealism + Neoliberalism vs. Neomarxis

It talked about axiology[v], how to use IR as science in the field.

Background: linguistic turn in IR; Cold War

Neorealism/ structural realism is a theory of international relations, outlined by Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 book “Theory of international Politics”. Waltz argues in favor of a systemic approach: the international structure acts as a constraint on state behavior, so that only states whose outcomes fall within an expected range survive. Unlike realism’s (anthropological: man as a security and power-seeking agent), the foundation premises of neorealism is structural: anarchy of the international system. Neorealism developed largely within the American political science tradition, seeks to reformulate the classical realist tradition of E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Reinhold Niebuhr into a rigorous and positivic social science.

Neoliberalism is a response to neorealism; while not denying the anarchic nature of the international system, neoliberals argue that its importance and effect has been exaggerated. Neoliberalism argues that even in an anarchic system of autonomous rational states, cooperation can be emerge through the building of norms, regimes, and institutions.

Both theories, however, consider ‘the state and its interest’ as the central subject of analysis. Neoliberalism may have a wider conception of what those interests are.

Marx believed that the identity of a social class is derived from its relationship to the means of production (as opposed to the nation that class is determined by wealth alone).  Marx describes several social classes in capitalist societies, including primarily:

–          The proletariat (those individuals who sell their labor power and who, in the capitalist mode of production, do not own the means of production). According to Marx, the capitalist mode of production established the condition that enables the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat due to the fact that the workers’ labor power generates a surplus value greater than the workers’ wages.

–          The bourgeoisie (those individuals who own the means of production and buy labor power from the proletariat, thus exploiting the proletariat).

Termination:

–          Individualist disagrees with the basic approach of Neomarxism that of viewing all people acting under the influence of socio-economic forces and instead focus on the differences and unpredictable actions of individuals.

–          In the other hand, neomarxism critics neoliberalism and neorealism.

  1. They (neoliberalism and neorealism) need not to synthesize their ideologies.
  2. Their ideologies are too luxurious.
  3. They supposed to talk about nations of the third world.

Finally, no one won the debate.

4. The Fourth Debate (1980 until now)

Positivism vs. post-positivism

It talked about classic science and the freedom of thought.

Positivism is the philosophy that the only authentic knowledge is knowledge that is based on actual sense experience. Ex: realism, liberalism, Marxism, rationalism (reflection theories).

Post-positivism or also known as empiricism or is a metatheoretical stance following positivism. One of the main supporters of post positivism are John Dewey and Nicholas Rescher. It is a stance that recognizes most of criticisms that have been raised against traditional-logical positivism and similar foundational. Ex: critical theory, post modernism, feminism[vi], environmentalism, peace studies, etc (mainstream perspective).

Termination: there is no termination yet

MY OPINION

I think that there are so many problems with the conventional story about IR. Some of the more recent work on history of IR of the field are nothing more than myths. In my opinion in order for the investigation of history of field to receive the same intellectual respect as other areas of research, more attention should be placed on theoretical and methodological assumption. The absence of such attention in much of the existing literature on the history of the IR’s field had served to reinforce the history of IR is self-evident.

REFERENCES:

–          Schmidt, Brian C. 2002. On the History and Historiography of International Relation. “Handbook of International Relations”. London: Sage Publication Ltd

–          Fearon, James & Wendt, Alexander. 2003. Rationalism vs. Constructivism: Skeptical View. Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage Publication Ltd

–          University of Airlangga Roadmap

–          Angel, Norman. 1909. The Great Illusion. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons

–          http://dictionary.com (diakses tahun 2008)

–          http://hfienberg.com/irtheory/neorealism (diakses tahun 2008)


[i] Ontology is the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being that such.

[ii] The concept of ‘power in international relations’ can be described as the degree of resources, capabilities, and influence in the international affairs. It is often divided up into the concept of hard power and soft power. Hard power is relating primarily to coercive power, such as the use of force. Soft power is commonly covering economics, diplomacy, and cultural influence. However, there’s no clear dividing line between the two forms of power.

[iii] BOP exists when there is parity/ stability between competing forces. It expresses the doctrine intended to prevent anyone nation from becoming sufficiently strong so as to enable it to enforce it will upon the rest.

[iv] Methodology is a set of system/ methods, principle and rules for regulating a given discipline, as in the arts of science.

[v] Axiology is the branch of philosophy, dealing with values as those ethnics, aesthetics, or religion.

[vi] Feminism in international relations is a broad term given to work of those scholars who have sought to bring gender concern into the academic study of international politics. However, it would be a mistake to think that feminist IR was solely a matter of identifying how many groups of women are positioned n the international politic system. From its inception, feminist IR has always shown a strong concern with thinking about men, and in particular, masculinities. Indeed, many IR feminist argue that the discipline is inherently masculine in nature.

Demand for International Regimes


Dalam artikel “The Demand of The International Regimes”, Robert Keohane (1982) mengungkapkan bahwa rezim dianggap efektif selama  demand–permintaan adanya rezim dalam politik internasional–tersedia. Namun hal itu bukan merupakan hal yang mutlak karena terdapat beragam perbedaan kondisi dimana demand rezim semakin berkurang atau kondisi lain dimana rezim menjadi sangat signifikan meski tanpa kekuatan aktor dominan.

silahkan download file di media kami…