International Affairs/Relations

Neorealists and neoliberals both agree that there is a causal relationship between the relevance of relative gains concerns and international government operating, but they highlight different parts of that causal link. For neorealists, relative gains concerns are an independent factor since they believe they have a major influence on international institutions' validity and effectiveness. Strong relative gains considerations stifle collaboration, rendering organizations obsolete. International institutions are more important to neoliberals as an independent variable that influences how important relative gains considerations are. States that have stable institutions are less concerned with who benefits the most. While cryptocurrency offers great privacy to users when it comes to storing and executing transactions, each transaction is recorded on the blockchain (De Filippi, 2016). Numerous crypto exchanges have the authority to restrict specific customers, making it more difficult for sanctioned individuals to buy bitcoin with fiat; on the other hand, there are many exchanges in nations that are not currently punishing their country. VISA, Mastercard, AMEX, and PayPal have all said that they will no longer operate as a result of the invasion, significantly complicating the capacity of regular residents to convert currency into crypto. There is nothing that can be done to prevent crypto from being moved once it has been acquired; nonetheless, the blocking may be quite helpful. The Security Council's sanctions have taken a number of forms in order to accomplish a variety of goals. Sanctions have included export restrictions, travel restrictions, and economic or product limitations, ranging from broad trade and investment consequences to more particular targets such as arms travel bans, economic and commodities restrictions, and embargoes. The Security Council has implemented sanctions to facilitate peaceful revolutions, prevent non-constitutional changes, curb terrorism, protect human rights, and promote non-proliferation.

2. Debate the threat of cyber in the international system. Is it a big threat? Over blown? Is it ongoing or seldom used? Does it affect the process of world politics?

States' perspectives on cyberspace or how it should be utilized are similarly diverse, with a rising number developing aggressive cyber capabilities. Information security has become an essential part of national defense, diplomatic, and security strategies and doctrines, assisting in the establishment of cyber security as a new battlefield. The application of contemporary geopolitical law, potential gaps, the development of standards, optimism measures, and deterrent postures are all part of the attempt to define cyberspace rules of the road (Dany, 2017). There has formed a cyber defense regime complex, encompassing a variety of nationally and internationally bodies that drive policy responses. As a result, there is a growing understanding that resilience is one of the basic pillars of the comprehensive cyber security framework, while the hack-and-leak campaign during the US elections rekindled a decades-old discussion regarding the link between information and cyber operations (Lyer, 2019). Finally, if the past few years have shown us anything, it is that cyber security and its impact on the global relations are fast developing and will continue to be on the minds of global leaders. Meanwhile, it remains a little understood topic that offers opportunities for academic research while also posing substantial obstacles due to the rapid pace of development.

3. Between Realism and Liberalism, which do you feel best describes the US’ behavior in the international system? You can also choose both or pick and choose aspects of each.

Even now, there is a debate about which school is the most pertinent and current in terms of comprehending the international system. Realism, according to some, is politics as it is, while liberalism is political as it should be. We shall, however, continue to hunt for answers to the intriguing foreign policy dilemmas that today's international society faces as the study of IR evolves. Despite their polar contrasts, realism and liberalism both are representations of many characteristics of the global community that we attempt to grasp, regardless of how we choose to rationalize or respond to those difficulties. Both are crucial in their potential to explain opposing phenomena, and while they are clearly diametrically opposed, they may hold the key to solving the global operation problem. One approach of advancing a state that combines realism with faith in humanity's innate possibilities. Despite the differences in the two schools of thought, I feel that merging them is the best answer. Chaos as a state, but harmony as a result, and a society that acknowledges the challenges that all of its members confront while also acknowledging that humanity has always surmounted apparently insurmountable hurdles. At the foundation of realism theory is the idea that anarchy is a basic aspect of the international system, and that political actors, and hence international interactions, are essentially concerned with preserving national life and attaining national goals. As a result, realism emphasizes the importance of countries and their activities in the global system in pursuing competitive self-interest. Realism holds that international organizations and other gender nonconforming or sub-state institutions have very little practical significance in the face of governments as unitary units care for themselves.

4. How does one define the national interest? Can it be defined? How do we know when it is violated? What makes the nation state such a combustible entity? Are they? Are presidential doctrines useful for understanding the way presidents act in foreign policy?

The interests of a nation as a whole, as opposed to the interests of subordinate areas or groups, as well as the concerns of other nations or supranational organizations, are referred to as national interests. Multilateralism provides governments with the ability to balance their national interests with those of the international community when national interests are violated (Nye, 1999). When it comes to implementing R2P through overseas military deployment, multilateralism is very important. The UN uses multilateralism to try to make its R2P viewpoint respectable and lawful. Such a strategy contrasts with some big countries' policies, such as the Russian Federation's or the United States', which emphasize unilateralism and frequently operate outside of the agreed-upon R2P framework. The nation state is a combustible entity because a country national interests can be violated and action needs to be taken about it. The extent to which the United States' activities contribute to justice and order is a topic of contention in the ever-changing environment of international relations( Brands, 2021). Indeed, it is difficult to recall a time in recent history when the United States and its foreign policy have been the focus of such divisive and heated debate, both at home and abroad. Despite current "decline" arguments and the development of new powers, the United States still has a significant formal power asset advantage over its main adversaries more than twenty-five years after the conclusion of the Cold War. In this setting, because American presidents' foreign policy 'doctrines' remain an essential driver of the country's vision, these doctrines will persist.

V. What does it take to implement a no-fly zone? Why is this problematic in dealing with the possibilities for escalation with nuclear weapon states?

A no-fly zone, also called an air exclusion zone or a no-flight zone, is a region or territory where certain airplanes are not permitted to fly. During a battle, such zones are frequently established in an enemy power's territory, similar to an aerial demilitarized zone, with the goal of prohibiting the opponent's military aircraft from operating in the area. The enforcing state takes military action, which may include preemptive assaults to avoid possible breaches, reactive actions targeted at violating aircraft, or surveillance with no use of force, depending on the provisions of the NFZ. In civilian situations, such as to safeguard sensitive places, air exclusion zones and anti-aircraft defenses are occasionally established. No-fly zones are a relatively new occurrence that began in the 1990s. They differ from regular air power operations in that they solely use coercion to occupy another nation's airspace in order to achieve goals on the land within the target nation. Among the two World Wars, the Royal Air Force (RAF) undertook pioneering air control missions over different controversial colonies, but no-fly zones did not take on their present shape until the conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991. Military intervention as a weapon of US statecraft was undesirable during the Cold War because of the potential of local conflict developing into a nuclear clash. Furthermore, before the operational development of stealth and precision-strike technology, air force remained a very blunt tool. Prior to the Gulf War of 1991, nuanced assaults against transient, hard-to-reach targets were impossible, and air power lacked the potential to inflict major political impacts short of total war. However, with the fall of the Soviet Union and advancements in aeronautical technology, no-fly zones became realistic in both political and military situations. Imposing a no-fly zone would therefore be a big step forward in the war, perhaps leading to a conventional fight with a nuclear state. No-fly zones are expensive, and they risk bringing additional countries into direct combat with the countries at war.

References

Brands, H. (2021). The Emerging Biden Doctrine. Foreign Affairs, 29.

Nye Jr, J. S. (1999). Redefining the national interest. Foreign Affairs, 22-35.

(2022). Retrieved 1 April 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/opinion/us-russia-sanctions-power-economy.htmlsSuperpower/It Must Use That Power Wisely/

Danyk, Y., Maliarchuk, T., & Briggs, C. (2017). Hybrid war: High-tech, information and cyber conflicts. Connections, 16(2), 5-24.

Lyer, R. (2019). The political economy of cyberspace crime and security. Academia. edu.