What is the role of the state in international Politics?

Résumé du document

International Politics is based upon two main theories, Realism and Liberalism. These theories are conventionally opposed, and therefore give two different interpretations of world politics. This essay will focus on the stances of these theories upon the role of the state. However, before assessing their viewpoints, it is crucial to understand what the state represents. In 1648, the Treaties of Westphalia which ended the Thirty Years War also set up an international society in which sovereign states possess the monopoly of force within their defined territories and interact through the mediums of diplomacy and international law, implying a separation between the domestic and international spheres. The state is thus seen as a "distinct set of political institutions whose specific concern is with the organization of domination in the name of the common interest, within a delimited territory." Max Weber gives the most relevant definition of the modern state. According to him, "the state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a given territory."

Extraits

[...] First, the idea of peace promoted by the state is sustained in most of the analyses of Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant and Montesquieu. Effectively, the latter contends that “international law is based by nature upon this principle: that the various nations ought to do, in peace, the most good to each other and, in war, the least harm possible, without detriment to their genuine interests.” Furthermore, John Locke emphasizes the fact that the state's role is to respect and protect the civil interests, whereas Hegel gives a universal scope to the state: “cest seuleument dans l'Etat que l'homme a une existence conforme à la Raison.” (It is only within the state that man has an existence in accordance with Reason). [...]

[...] First of all, to understand the realist point of view on the role of the state in international politics, it is essential to describe the backbone of this theory. The starting point refers to the human nature as crucially selfish, and consequently, the realists regard power as the driving force in political life. Moreover, the state, as the frame of human societies, is labelled as the key actor in international relations, namely an anarchic structure which places the state within a highly competitive and conflictual environment. [...]

[...] As a result, it seems that war is an omnipresent notion. Indeed, Hans J. Morgenthau claimed that “international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power”. Already in the 5th century BC, Thucydides supported this argument: strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept . This is the safe rule- to stand up to one's equals, to behave with deference towards one's superiors, and to treat one's inferior with moderation”. [...]

[...] This idea has given way to neo-realism which, even though it keeps the realist theory basis, reckons that the structure of the international system affects the behaviour of the states. This was effectively glaring at the end of the Cold War, when from a bipolar world, the structure of the world politics has been shaped to a multipolar world. However, realists contend that globalization has not shaken the international system of states but rather has affected the social, cultural and economic lives. Indeed, Kenneth Waltz states that “There's no international police force. [...]

[...] What is the role of the state in international Politics? International Politics are based upon two main theories, Realism and Liberalism, which are conventionally opposed, and therefore give two different interpretations of world politics. This essay will focus on the stances of these theories upon the role of the state. But before assessing their viewpoints, it is crucial to understand what the state represents. Already in 1648, the Treaties of Westphalia which ended the Thirty Years War set an international society in which sovereign states possess the monopoly of force within their defined territory and behave among themselves through diplomacy and international law, implying a separation between the domestic and international spheres. [...]