The theory of constructivism lends greatly to understanding the institutions of international law (IL) and why they are obeyed, how they are created, how they evolve, and how they become anew throughout international relations (IR). Examining theories by Sean Murphy will provide literature that bolsters the contribution constructivism has bestowed upon IL. Jutta Brunnee’s and Stephen Toope’s work with interactional theory will be highlighted to show how IL works quite seamlessly with constructivism within IR. Coupling constructivism with interactional theory allows the building of an imaginary graph on which we can plot the interpretation and understanding of norms and laws within IR. Uta Kohl’s writing pertaining to governance surrounding the internet, specifically the issues of jurisdiction, will be examined in order to show constructivism and interactional theory in practice.
Access to the ability to achieve an elevated sense of livelihood is uneven within the broad process of globalization. This is especially true in a more knowledge-based economy, which seems to be the current norm. Inequality of this kind is not only between nation-states, but for each and every one of us within our respective countries. Using alternative theories such as dependency theory, international political economy and geographical political economy, the dynamics of inequality will be highlighted and explored. Incorporating material pertaining to neoliberal theory, hegemony, regimes, and denationalization will show the discord surrounding the causal effects of uneven development. These theories, however, do not disprove developmental inequality but rather add depth and nuance to the argument. Focused emphasis in the regions of Latin America, and Southeast Asia – including China and Japan – will be used to build a case-study. These regions will illuminate how uneven development looks within international systems, and possible methods of reaching a more sustainable equilibrium.
Is there sound logic and argument for cooperation in the international system? How do you see cooperation in International Relations (IR) applied? Is cooperation a valid from of analysis in IR? These questions set up a debate that forms the foundation upon which IR operates. To make an argument for cooperation you have to put together the game board IR pieces move around. This can be done by understanding the basic premise between Realism and Liberalism. Only then are you able to look at the ideas within Regime Theory and Complex Interdependence and see how they look when analyzed and applied to the international system. Now the arguments for cooperation are more present and clear. Regimes are supported in both Neorealism and Neoliberalism. As well, regimes and international organizations act as intermediaries between actors by creating conduits for connection. Looking at the European Union (EU) as if it were a case study, we can use it to further bolster the argument for cooperation as a form of analysis and as a useable tool.
To what extent has Neorealism or Structural Realism addressed the limitations of Classical Realism? Neorealism has gone so far to address the limitations of Classical Realism that it cannot stand alone without Classical Realism as a theory of IR. Each theory presents a set of challenges that one cannot be overcome without the aid of the other. Where the two theories diverge, Neorealism appears to be a maturing of Realism by accepting a greater importance of structural factors. In the aim for scientific validity, however, Neorealism falls into its own quagmire by denying the composition of the state and simplifying it down to a singular unit.