A 7 page research paper that answers four political science questions. Topics covered include the role of anarchy in realist theory of international relations; nature and use of power in international relations; discussion of Michael Doyle's democratic peace hypothesis; and an evaluation of the opinions of Freud and Mead toward the cases of war. Bibliography lists 9 sources.
Name of Research Paper File: D0_kh4qpols.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
to the laws and authority of that state; however, there is no all-powerful world government to which states are subject. Bull (2002) comments that this anarchy can be regarded as
the "central fact of international life," as well as the rational starting point for theorizing about it (p. 110). Since the end of World War I, the view that
anarchy is incompatible to the goal of maintaining peace among nations has been particularly prominent (Bull, 2002). The complete rejection of international anarchy has been expressed in the opinion that
the true value of the United Nations lies in its presumed final cause, which is the creation of a world government (Bull, 2002). On the other hand, the UN has
been judged as predestined to failure precisely because of its preservation of state sovereignty (Bull, 2002). In the typical modern nation-state, order is best preserved "when conflict takes the
form of a competition between contending forces for control of a single government, rather than that of competition among governments" (Bull, 2002, p. 120). Wendt (2002) feels that the
significance of states, relative to that of multinational corporations and various other institutions is in a state of decline. Nevertheless, Wendt argues that these states need not be bound by
realist notions concerning what the term "state" means, as "State identities and interests can be collectively transformed within an anarchic context by many factors" (2002, p. 189). He feels that
the competing, neo-liberal view has been unable to translate theory into institution-building, and also finds fault with the constuctivist viewpoint. His arguments promote the realist view that the "medium run"
sovereign states will "remain the dominant political actors in the international system" precisely because of their manipulation of anarchic factors (p. 189). 2. In the Melian Dialogue from the