International Relation Simulation Analysis

The era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy as "the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states is no longer sufficient. Several alternative definitions are more helpful at highlighting aspects of foreign policy

The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.

After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership

Domestic policy differs from foreign policy, which deals with a nation’s relationship with other nations, domestic policy tends to be more visible and often more controversial. The relationship between domestic and the other nations is also commonly linked by the influence of border security, improved infrastructure, surging economy, domestic culture, political, religion, social attitudes, and many other variables. American focus on national security strategies to protect the United States, promoting economic prosperity, creating peace through strength, and gaining American influences in the world. Our relationship with other nations can vary depending on each belief or values. A basic aspect in the relation between domestic and other nations is the importance of national identity and consistent needs to protect such values. Domestic and foreign policy can be distinguished as two separate concepts in international relations, because some nations do not have a similar set of objectives. Domestic sources play their role in the forms of compromises between social structure and elements of the government. The influence of the domestic policy forms the basis of foreign strategy. The relationship between domestic and other nations are separable in the sense that global politics play a major role in the modern global society and the conduct of states in

Three levels of analysis, each with its own distinct strength, reveals three different ways of understanding international relations. The first states that all nation-states behave similarly, the second emphasizes the unique internal factors of a nation-state, while the third level of analysis focuses on the individual deciding a state’s course of action. Each level of analysis is useful in the study of international relations. Indeed, used all together, it is not long before arriving at a point where a vast number of explanations for the actions of a country are brought to light. However, to best understand international relations, one level of analysis is more useful than the rest, because it provides the most comprehensive

The simulation exercise learns the students how to make decisions in the U.S foreign policy. The members of the cabinet are instructed by the president to use one model in their decision making process. The secretaries follow a Bureaucratic Politics model, each Cabinet member instructed to make a particular decision based on his/her organizational agendas. The President is free to follow whatever process he find it appropriate. Several situation updates during the exercise according to the crisis atmosphere of the decision making. In the end, students find out that to make decision in the foreign policy is much harder than they thought. Shortage of information, time, and different personal backgrounds and organizational information all get in the way of reaching a dicission.

Realism has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930’s. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930’s to the end of the cold war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent, a theory of the past.

As with all policy making, many people and organizations have a hand in setting United States foreign policy. The main goals of foreign policy is to use diplomacy — or talking, meeting, and creating agreements — to solve international issues. They try to keep problems from developing into conflicts that require military settlements.

Realism, as a way of interpreting international relations has often been conceived to be closely tied to the Cold War. Realism, rooted in the experience of World War II and the Cold War, is said to be undergoing a crisis of confidence largely because the lessons adduced do not convincingly apply directly to the new realities of international relations in the twenty-first century (Clinton 2007:1) Worse still, if policymakers steadfastly adhere to realist precepts, they will have to navigate “the unchartered seas of the post-Cold War disorder with a Cold War cartography, and blind devotion to realism could compromise their ability to prescribe paths to a more orderly and just system.” (Kegley 1993:141). This paper will demonstrate that

So the theory suggests that because democracies externalise their interstate norms, they resolve disputes with other states like them in a peaceful way. Hence domestic inner-state policies influence their foreign policies. However, this proclamation is disputed by C. Layne who argues that the ‘crux’ of this theory is that if the assumption that democracies promote their peaceful inner-state norms and beliefs, then they shouldn’t ever threaten other democracies, especially not in a crisis. I will use the case study of the ‘Trent affair’ to provide evidence of how war was avoided. I will argue that in this case, war was avoided not because of the domestic pacific influence on foreign policy but because of other strategic reasons.

Although the aspirations and goals of states are often motivated by external political pressures, analysis of recent foreign policy decisions demonstrates how internal political forces can play equally crucial roles in the pursuit and execution of these objectives. Thus, it would be invalid to claim that domestic politics and the nature of regimes play minor roles in either the goals a state pursues or the means it employs to reach them. By understanding how the diffusion of power in governments affect policy decisions, one can develop increased awareness of the linkages that exist between the internal pressures of domestic politics and the external forces of foreign politics.

Contemporary international relations is a complex field. Understanding events and attempting to make sense of them can be a daunting task. There are, however, tools available, which can assist in providing clarity to these complex issues. The first of these tools is historic knowledge. Without historic background of an issue, it is nearly impossible to understand the events driving that issue in modern times. A second tool, the one which will be the focus of this paper, is international relations theory. Theory can be defined as “a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action,” (Merriam-Webster) and can be used “in many cases as a basis of prediction.” (Mingst 56) There are three major theories which we

“It needs to be noted that the circulation of policy ideas often takes place against the backdrop of a range of international and regional settlements, both formal and informal. These settlements are expressed in terms of consensus and conventions, and involve agreements and commitments that expose national policy practices to external dictates and scrutiny” (p. 86).

The purpose of this paper is to summarize the International Trade Simulation, explain the basic concept of International Trade, emphasize the four key points from the reading assignments in the simulation, and apply these concepts to my workplace.

I have always wondered about the affairs between states and political strategies the states apply to determine their relations. My interest and curiosity in affairs between states and their designated policies to determine their affairs became more obvious when I was at high school. I started to read about political history, specifically; political history of Europe between 16th – 20th centuries. Events like Thirty Years War, Treaty of Westphalia, French Revolution, First and Second World Wars in Europe, which shaped today’s international system in many ways, developed my interest in International Politics and their effects to the societies. Throughout high school years, In addition to my readings on European political history; my country, Turkey’s foreign policy influenced me to study on it. Turkey’s geostrategic position is unique and worthy to study. By security perspective, economically and politically stable Turkey is vital for the stability of the Middle East and Caucasus. Also important for the security of EU. By economic point of view, developing energy projects such as; TANAP (Trans Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline Project), which will be passing through Turkey and existing energy projects such as; Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which is passing through Turkey, are important for energy distribution to Europe. Furthermore, Turkey can play an important role to enhance commercial and economic