Domestically, revolutions cause massive upheavals of the political structures within a state, which affect its relations with neighboring states. On an international level, revolutionaries may actively export their ideology abroad by means of propaganda, by supporting revolutionary movements, or by directly deploying military forces to confront neighboring states. Revolutions threaten the prevailing international order because neighboring states perceive revolutions as a threat to their state’s sovereignty, which may prompt non-revolutionary states to intervene.
Marxism grants social and political theorists a most realistic, dynamic, and comprehensive framework that allows the study of the causes of war in its ‘totality’. Marxist theory applied in conjunction with the ‘three levels’ of analysis, which are, the individual, the state, and the international system, is relevant and significant to the study of international relations.
Ever since the beginning of International Politics as a social science, there has been a perpetual discourse between “realists” and “liberals” about the nature of interstate relations. The two sides cannot agree on whether there is a possibility of progress in the relations between states. In the present essay, the liberal internationalists’ belief that international progress is indeed possible will be critically approached. It will be argued that “liberals” understand progress as a process of spreading a Western model of democracy.
With the end of the Cold War and the rise of global civil society, NGOs have played an increasingly prominent role in world politics. Yet due to the nature of their work, they often struggle to remain effective amid complex political, military and social dynamics. Specifically, NGOs face real problems when operating in ‘violent environments’.
For a long time, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were viewed predominantly as socially and morally progressive organisations. Yet, this dominant perception of NGOs as do-gooders has been challenged in recent decades – especially after 9/11. This essay focuses on two of the many potential challenges to the political claims of NGOs: the inequality in the world polity and regressive globalisation.
Although all oil companies operating in Nigeria have faced the same basic problems, Shell has acquired far and away the worst reputation, particular in the Niger Delta with minority ethnic groups. This stems from alleged exploitation of oil and gas resources and environmental pollution resulting partly from long term gas flaring. Indeed, the company’s activities have not only become central to the dysfunctional politics of the Niger Delta, but may be fuelling rising global oil prices.
I have to wonder why it was so incredibly important that Prince Harry be sent to a war zone in the first place. I have nothing but respect for soldiers who face combat in the front lines of Afghanistan, Harry included. His desire to serve his country and make a difference in the world by putting himself in physical danger is admirably brave, just as it is for any other man or woman who signs up to do the job. However, Harry is not just any other man, no matter how desperately he wants to be considered this way.
During the past decade a growing chorus of energy analysts has warned of the approach of “Peak Oil,” the time when the global rate of extraction of petroleum will reach a maximum and begin its inevitable decline. While there is some dispute as to when it will occur, there is none as to whether. The global peak is merely the cumulative result of production peaks in individual oilfields and in whole oil-producing nations.
In addressing John Redwood’s claims about the European Union and the process of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, I will not dwell on the rank hypocrisy that characterizes much, if not most, British political debate on the latter issue. Suffice to say that it suffuses all three major parties. Rather, in considering what passes for the substance of Redwood’s critique, we must navigate a bewildering mélange of half truth and innuendo.
This essay addresses how the power of national governments is undermined by neo-liberal policies. It argues that power is undermined in all states, although not in all equally. It will show how this fact can explain why strong states promote neoliberal policies even though their domestic power is diminished by it.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.
