4 ms·

here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relatio... your point regardi

here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relatio... your point regarding trade is interesting, but it still falls within the zero-sum selfishness paradigm. trade implies a need which one party helps another to address, so it implies a reduction of autonomy, however small. i agree that the formation of international institutions and a semblance of world order has allowed states to ease up on pushing every interaction to the limit as a result of the interactions being zero-sum. i also agree that human rights etc benefit the people of the world. i think we should have more systems like these, and we should force states to buy into them even more. but these things are theoretically inconveniences for governments because they restrict their range of actions. their ability to preserve the power of the state may be threatened in some cases. like i said, thankfully, governments are starting to recognize that these tiny concessions of power can smooth over a lot of relationships with other states without causing any larger problems. yet they are still making concessions of their power. to be clear, i do not enjoy the idea that international relations are zero sum or that realism is the only way for interstate relationships to be regulated. it's just the model that most states run on when push comes to shove and their power is deeply threatened. but when conditions are very favorable, they can cover up the unsightly edges of the zero sum game.

forapurpose 8y ago
> here you go: [link to Realism in Wikipedia] Realism is just one school of international relations; based on my limited understanding, it's not the most prominent; constructivism may be (and there are others too). > your point regarding trade is interesting, but it still falls within the zero-sum selfishness paradigm. trade implies a need which one party helps another to address, so it implies a reduction of autonomy, however small. Trade implies that the parties each have a comparative advantage in a different area, which is always true. > these things are theoretically inconveniences for governments because they restrict their range of actions The logical inference from the quoted comment is that anarchy provides the most freedom of action, but clearly it does not; it greatly restricts action. International institutions restrict countries' ranges of actions in some cases, and greatly expand them in more. Even the most powerful country, the United States, cannot make and enforce an international rule/law by itself; the United Nations can (though it doesn't always do it). The weakness of international institutions greatly restricts action on many issues, from health to climate change to resolving Russia's invasion of parts of Ukraine, Syria's civil war, and human rights violations in China (to pick just a few examples of very many).

forapurpose 8y ago

> here you go: [link to Realism in Wikipedia] Realism is just one school of international relations; based on my limited understanding, it's not the most prominent; constructivism may be (and there are others too). > your point regarding trade is interesting, but it still falls within the zero-sum selfishness paradigm. trade implies a need which one party helps another to address, so it implies a reduction of autonomy, however small. Trade implies that the parties each have a comparative advantage in a different area, which is always true. > these things are theoretically inconveniences for governments because they restrict their range of actions The logical inference from the quoted comment is that anarchy provides the most freedom of action, but clearly it does not; it greatly restricts action. International institutions restrict countries' ranges of actions in some cases, and greatly expand them in more. Even the most powerful country, the United States, cannot make and enforce an international rule/law by itself; the United Nations can (though it doesn't always do it). The weakness of international institutions greatly restricts action on many issues, from health to climate change to resolving Russia's invasion of parts of Ukraine, Syria's civil war, and human rights violations in China (to pick just a few examples of very many).