[국제정치학] International Regimes & Neo-Neo Debate(영문)
등록일 / 수정일- 페이지 / 형식
- 자료평가
- 구매가격
- 2010.09.27 / 2019.12.24
- 19페이지 /
docx (MS워드 2007이상) - 평가한 분이 없습니다. (구매금액의 3%지급)
- 2,100원
최대 20페이지까지 미리보기 서비스를 제공합니다.
자료평가하면 구매금액의 3%지급!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
추천 연관자료
- 목차
-
I. Introduction
II. The Nature of International Regimes
1. Difficulty in Defining International Regimes
2. Definition of International Regimes
1) Stephen Krasner
2) Criticism and development
3. Classification of International Regimes
III. Globalization and International Regime
1. Connection between Globalization and International Regimes
2. IR Theories - Different View on Regime
3. Brief Introduction of Two major Schools: Realism and Neo-Liberalism
1) Common Assumptions
2) Different Assumptions
IV. Neo Realism
V. Liberal and Neo-Liberalism - in International Relations
1. Classical Liberalism
2. Neo-Liberalism
VI. The Neo-Neo Debate
1. The Shared Premises of Neo-liberalism and Neo-realism
2. The Differences between Neo-liberalism and Neo-realism
3. Understanding Arguments of Neo-Realism
4. Case Studies (1): NATO on Neo-Realism View
5. Case Study (2): UN (the League of Nations) on Neo-liberal View
6. Limitation of Neo-Neo Debate
VII. Conclusion
- 본문내용
-
3. Brief Introduction of Two major Schools: Realism and Neo-Liberalism
As the table shown above, realism and liberalism start from different viewpoints. As a result, two rational theories come to a distinct conclusion when it comes to judging international regimes. Even though their basic assumptions are going to largely coincide with each other during the academic neo-neo debate, views on international regimes still remain inflexible.
1) Common Assumptions
Both schools suppose a state, as a rational and unitary actor, is under an anarchic international system. Each state is responsible for establishing regimes, and those regimes are on the basis of reciprocal cooperation. In addition, regimes are empowered to promote international order. Therefore, both schools consider regimes to be the byproduct of states. Meanwhile Social Constructivists think the existence of rule or regime can make identical appearance of the world, but we do not handle Social Constructivism in this article to maintain the arguing point.
2) Different Assumptions
First of all, Liberal Instutionalists consider international regimes as the best mean to achieve peaceful world. In other words, regimes enable states to collaborate in a certain issue, and promote individual and common good. In the world of liberal institutionalists, there is a benign hegemon who is responsible for maintaining these regimes, so that many other states can gather together to discuss a certain common issue and ultimately achieve absolute gains.
On the other hands, Realists insist those kind of benefits are temporary and not absolute one even though they agree with the fact that regimes can make benefits to all participants. They think power is the central feature of regime formation and maintenance, but it is not hegemonic power. On top of that, regimes can make states coordinate together, but it is fragile and vulnerable in front of each country’s self-interests and gains.
IV. Neo Realism
The neo-realism is, on the contrary to traditional realism, emphasizing the structure of the system. The idea of structural realism started from neo-realist’s scholar, Kenneth N. Waltz who defines international and domestic political structures by using the similar method of traditional realists. Although Waltz accepts the realist paradigm of state as a rational actor, he focuses more on system of structure.
According to Waltz (1979), political structure is different between domestic and international. In terms of domestic structure, first, it is organized or ordered in hierarchic, and units are ordered through a central authority. Secondly, by the differentiation of units and the specification of their functions, which are noted through the relations between the supra and subordinate units and their specification. Thirdly, it is defined by the distribution of capabilities across units to the extent to authorities.
By the same token, Waltz believes that international political structure is defined through first the way that its units is arranged, in this case the system is anarchic but balanced through units’ cooperation rather having a central authority. Secondly, the international political structure is defined by the character of the units the functions which they have. This drops out in this case since all units are same in their function. Lastly, the distribution of power among the units is the ‘patter’ where the power is distributed among the states. In addition, Waltz believes that any change in the above variable will lead to change in the system and alters the political structures.
Table 4. Waltz’s definitions of political structure
Domestic Structure International Structure
1. Hierarchic system Anarchic system
2. Differentiation of units/specification Character of unites and same function
3. Distribution of capabilities across units Distribution of power among states
(Source: Waltz (1979))
The distinction between classical realism and neo-realism can be featured as the table below. According to Lamy (2008), neo realism is different from classical realism in several aspects. In terms of international politics, neo realist thinks that it is affected by structure of anarchic system. However, classical realists see international politics as action and interaction of the state in unit level. Neo-realists think that cause of war is due to the features in the structure of international system, yet classical realists analyze as human nature, which is rational and selfish. Moreover, neo-realists see the interest of state as security within the anarchic system. However, classical realists focus on security of national state through accumulation of power. Lastly, power shapes state’s behavior in neo-realists’ point of views, whereas to classical realists, power is a mean and an end itself.
Table 5. Difference of Classical Realism and Neo-Realism
Classic Realism Neo-Realism
International pol
- 참고문헌
-
Andreas Hasenclever, Peter Mayer, and Volker Rittberger (1997) “Theories of International Regimes” Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta Marriott Marquis and Atlanta Hilton and Towers, September 2- 5, 1999
Brahm, Eric (2005) “International Regimes- beyond Intractability Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess” Conflict Research Consortium Sep. 2005
Benjamin O. Fordham and Thomas C.Walker (2005) “Kantian Liberalism, Regime Type, and Military Resource Allocation: Do Democracies Spend Less?” International Studies Quarterly Vol.49: 141-157
Helmut Breitmeier, Marc A. Levy, Oran R. Young, and Michael Zürn (1996) “The International Regimes Database as a Tool for the Study of International Cooperation” International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis WP-96-160 December 1996
John Gerard Ruggie (1982) “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order” International Organization, Vol. 36, Issue 2: 379-415
John S. Odell (1999) “The Negotiation Process and International Economic Organizations”
Men Honghua “Critiques of the Theory of International Regimes: The Viewpoints of Main Western Schools of thought”
Robert Crawford. (1996) “Regime Theory in the Post-Cold War World: Rethinking Neoliberal Approaches to International Relations”
Stephen D. Krasner. (1983) “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regime as an intervening variables” International regimes
(Reference: Neo-Realism Part)
Grieco, Joseph. (1988) “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institution” International Organization, 485-507 from Steven L. Lamy (2008) “Contemporary mainstream approaches: neo-realism and neo-liberalism” The globalization of world politics: An Introduction to international relations, ed. John Baylis et al. 126-137
Jervis, Robert. (1999) “Realism, Neo0liberalism and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate” International Security, 42-63 from Steven L. Lamy (2008) “Contemporary mainstream approaches: neo-realism and neo-liberalism” The globalization of world politics: An Introduction to international relations, ed. John Baylis et al. 126-137
Lamy, Steven L. (2008) “Contemporary mainstream approaches: neo-realism and neo-liberalism” The globalization of world politics: An Introduction to international relations, ed. John Baylis et al. 126-137
Mearsheimer (1990) “Back to the Future : Instability after the Cold War” International Security, 5-56 from Steven L. Lamy (2008) “Contemporary mainstream approaches: neo-realism and neo-liberalism” The globalization of world politics: An Introduction to international relations, ed. John Baylis et al. 126-137 (1994/5) “The False Promise of International Institutions” International Security, 5-49 Steven L. Lamy (2008) “Contemporary mainstream approaches: neo-realism and neo-liberalism” The globalization of world politics: An Introduction to international relations, ed. John Baylis et al. 126-137
Snyder, Jack (1991) “Myths of empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition, Cornell University Press from Steven L. Lamy (2008) “Contemporary mainstream approaches: neo-realism and neo-liberalism” The globalization of world politics: An Introduction to international relations, ed. John Baylis et al. 126-137
Waltz, Kenneth. (1979) “Political Structure” Theory of International Politics, Addison-Wesley, 79-101.
(References: Neo-Liberalism Part)
Fukuyama, Fukayama. (1989) “The End of History.” National Interest, 16: 3-28
Fukuyama, Francis. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. NY: Avon.
Jackson, Robert H and Georg Sørensen. (2007) Introduction to International Relations. xford: Oxford University Press.
Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye. (1989) Power and interdependence. Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown series in political science. Glenview, Ill: Scott, Foresman.
O'Rourke, P. J., and Adam Smith. (2006) On the Wealth of Nations. New York, N.Y.: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Shalla, Vivian. (2006) Working in a Global Era. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press, 2006.
(References: Neo-Neo Debate Part)
Baldwin, David Allen. (1993) Neorealism and neoliberalism: the contemporary debate. Columbia University Press.
Glaser, Charles L. (2003) Structural realism in a more complex world. Review of International Studies 29 (3).
Law, Alistair. (2007) NATO's Role In The Neo-Neo Debate. Cardiff University.
Lieb, Doug. (2004) The limits of neorealism: marginal states and international relations theory (World in Review). Harvard International Review.
Mearsheimer, John J. (1995b) A realist reply. International Security 20 (1)
Riim, Toomas. (2006) A constructivist view on a national interest and alliance behaviour. Baltic Security and Defence Review 8.
Alvarenga, Daniel. (2007) Neo-liberalism beats Neo-realism. http://politicsinmoti
자료평가
-
아직 평가한 내용이 없습니다.
오늘 본 자료
더보기
최근 판매 자료
- 한부모가족을 위한 개입과 서비스에 대한 자신의 의견과 앞으로 제안하고 싶은 개입과 서비스, 정책에 대해 논하시오
- 보육교사의 개인적 자질의 덕목에는 어떤 것들이 있는지 제시하고 자신이 생각하는 가장 중요한 보육교사의 개인적 자질 덕목은 무엇인지 이유를 들어 제시하시오 (보육교사론)
- [프랑스예술] 삼미신에 대한 정의와 작품들
- [언어교육] 제 2언어 습득에서 문법 교육이 필요한가 그렇지 않은가에 대한 자신의 입장을 정리하고 이론적 근거를 토대로 의견을 기술하십시오
- 한국어와 친근한 언어를 선택하고 두 언어의 관련성을 설명해보라
- 주4일 근무제 개요와 국내외 시행 사례, 시행에 따른 장단점 및 찬반의견 도출
- 놀이활동계획안(시장놀이)
- 심리적 방어기제의 종류에 대하여 설명하고, 자신이 자주 사용하는 방어기제를 한 가지 선정하여 사례를 들어 서술하시오
- [심리학] 영화 ‘이보다 더 좋을 순 없다’ 에 나타나는 강박행동
- 청소년 개별상담의 이론과 기법으로 인간중심 상담, 형태주의 상담, 현실치료 가운데 본인이 선호하는 상담접근 방법을 한가지 선택하여 주요개념 및 상담과정과 기술을 정리하시오
저작권 관련 사항 정보 및 게시물 내용의 진실성에 대하여 레포트샵은 보증하지 아니하며, 해당 정보 및 게시물의 저작권과 기타 법적 책임은 자료 등록자에게 있습니다. 위 정보 및 게시물 내용의 불법적 이용, 무단 전재·배포는 금지됩니다. 저작권침해, 명예훼손 등 분쟁요소 발견시 고객센터에 신고해 주시기 바랍니다.
