As thoroughness of “orthodox” approaches, other various views

As the major members of the global
politics, realists consider nations and the international arena as the field of
their severe encounters. The primary driving force of the country’s activities
in the global political environment is only the national interest. Partnerships
between diverse nations are being the results of similarities of state
interests and confrontations are the consequence of differences in priorities. Throughout
the past twenty years, the size of theoretical structures in international
relations field has increased substantially. Accompanied by the increasing
analytical thoroughness of “orthodox” approaches, other various views
are emerging. Epistemology and ontology are evolving new theories that are intended
to study traditional issues of country’s behavior in internal and external
arenas. Herein, two main “traditional” directions: neo-realism and
neo-liberalism are discussed in greater detail. To begin with, in order to measure
how rising analytical rigor brought together to the dispute between neorealist
and neoliberals. Game theories can help to “explain” or to “understand”
the behavior of governments and non-state parties in the global political system.

Logically considering this problem that stimulated the borrowing of the terminology
and models of game theory to study international relations, various weaknesses
are provided. As a final point, “psychological experiment” is
conducted to identify what neo-realism and neoliberalism would be if they were
less zealous to be one of the variations of rational choice theory. Therefore, we
analyze “realism of concessions”, a simple but portable group of
statements on the country’s behavior in the modern intercontinental political system.

We Will Write a Custom Essay about As thoroughness of “orthodox” approaches, other various views
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

However, the research study suggested by the “realism of concessions”
varies amply from the program developed during the contemporary discussion of
the neo-realists and neo-liberals. It emphasizes classification issues and
national and transnational “interests” definitions, the problem of “Hobbesian
fear” (Butterfield, 1958) and the empirical research conducted by the theory that
takes numerous actual cases of international policy decisions into account.1

Similarly to the national interest notion,
the major role in the theory of political realism is performed by the balance
of forces concept. It illustrates the equilibrium situation among countries as
a formula for peace and stability perseverance. This theoretical point relies
on Hobbes’s definition of transnational relationships as an aggressive
environment where nations are relentlessly open to the threat of attack. They
are also required to preserve a coercive possible comparable with their opposing
parties. Some countries strive to increase power over others, develop and magnify
their dominant status, and ensure superiority over others with the help of international
political policies. Although, restricting the domineering ambitions of one party
of intercontinental politics is feasible only through the assistance of force
counteraction to its other substance. The global balance of power is perceived
by realists as the utmost effective means of peace perseverance. It is the violation
of the balance of power which causes wars, thus realizing and sustaining a
power balance is the primary objective of international politics.