Essay --

Jonathan Etra professor Eric BlanchardInternational Politics 13 February 2014Word Count 1331Shifting Paradigms An psycho synopsis of Conflict and Cooperation in International PoliticsWhen seeking to understand the profound problems that actors face in multinational politics, there ar no ecumenical tools, including paradigms and levels of analysis, that unilaterally news report for the global state of affairs. However, by utilizing these instruments, political scientists are able to analyze situations autonomously and account for context. Paradigms are statements of the underlying assumptions employ by a school of analysis such as realism, liberalism and constructivism (Nye & Welch, 62). The models frequently explore levels of analysis, which include individual actors, states and the global form. Historically, when considering cooperation and conflict in the international arena, much emphasis has been placed on realist theory. However, it seems that a new geezerhood of tec hnological innovation and rapid globalization has spawned new avenues for liberalism to triumph. This transition is stovepipe explained through the lens of constructivism. By exploring the varying applicability of the paradigms presented, one gains a greater understanding of the ever-evolving international arena. First, it is important to consider the anarchic carcass of states, the current form of world politics. In the anarchical system, states are unboundedly independent and are neither obligated to, nor protected by international natural law (Doyle, 114). In what is often referred to as the Westphalian model, states are political entities that have territoriality and autonomy. Territoriality delegacy that a states authority extends over a delimitate area. Autonomy infers that external act... ... However, the increasingly interdependent nature of the international system has substantially augmented international collaboration. While such cooperation pratnot ensure peace, it for sure has made the cost of war much greater. Constructivism and liberalism, unlike the Hobbesian realist perspective, take mitigating institutions into account when analyzing world order. They reason that self-help theory does not dominate and contend that when a system is more social, laws, rules and norms play a greater role. Yet, there are still situations in which the channels of alleviation do not experience and the realist perspective still dominates. Ultimately, while no universal system of analysis exists, by reviewing conflict and cooperation through varying lenses, namely realism, liberalism and constructivism, one can gain a considerable understanding of international politics.