Terrorism has many meanings, as well as it serves for multiple purposes. There are different variations on how to define terrorism, the FBI defines terrorism as; “Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance or social objectives.” Terrorism associates with the crime specific conditions of a country or place that reveal the opportunities that allow criminal behavior to become possible. This is insightful as it correlates with the activities of many terrorist organizations like ISIS, whose goal is to establish a state ruled by a single political and religions leader through the use of violence.

The essential features of terrorism ensures it’s importance within international relations because even though terrorism is a transnational crime, all transnational crimes are of international concern and can become an international crime. This raises concerns for security between borders and states. Some of these concerns can be described as, the risk of an attack by criminal groups that can move in between states and spread to several parts of the world. As a result, this threat of security has led to the several responses, like the creation of new criminal offences, broadened legal definitions of terrorism, improved funding for state agencies involved in countering terrorism and the grant of greater authority of the detention and arrest.

I watched a video about Mutually Assured Destruction and it was interesting because this theory in my opinion has a big presence in the world of international relations. There hasn’t been a war between major powers since 1945 and based on this theory of MAD, with the creation of nuclear weapons. It can be said that it a war deterrent because essentially no one wants to die. In the video, it states that a few requirements must be met for MAD to take place, which is states must have a clear sense for survival, states should have a large quantity of destructive nuclear weapons and each state is assured of a second strike meaning no state is able to completely bomb the whole region.

The reason why this is interesting, is because of the current meme between Kim Jong-Un and Donald Trump of where even with MAD. The fear of both states going on a nuclear war was prevalent. I believe this is due to the fact that both states clearly have enough nuclear power to destroy half the world, so one wrong move could lead to the deaths of billions.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLB5965C13F4B0B2DA&v=y1KP9V_I8CQ&feature=emb_title&ab_channel=WilliamSpaniel

In the reading, I learned about International Armed Conflict, which is when two or more states with legal armed forces have a conflict with each other. When this occurs, there is a set of guidelines states follow which is stated on the Geneva Convention. The purpose of the Geneva Convention was to regulate the conduct of armed conflict and to limit the effects of it. They protect people not taking part in hostilities and those who are no longer doing so. However, this raises the question of what happens when states do not follow the guidelines provided by the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Convention dictates how prisoners of war and citizens should be treated during times of war. While there is no punishment stated in the document, violation of it can lead to outrage by many states which leads to different kinds of punishments such as trade sanctions or other forms of economic punishments for the offending state. This was interesting because many states have ignored the protocols, for example, Syria, Libya, or Afghanistan. What would happen if a big power country the U.S. violates it?

Post-Colonialism focuses on how governments, societies, and people of previously colonized parts of the world interact when it comes to international relations. It brings attention of the after effects of colonization that still have an impact on this world. This thinking provides a perspective on the factors that create a hierarchy in international relations. Post-colonialism questions the way states think, why they thrive to obtain more power.

While doing this reading on Post-Colonialism, something that interested me was how they shared similar aspects with feminism. In the reading, “Postcolonialism forces us to reckon with the everyday injustices and oppressions that can reveal themselves in the starkest terms through a particular moment of crisis.”(Chapter 9: Post Colonialism) it sheds a light on the everyday injustices and oppressions that was present in the past and even today. For example, race/gender/class, these are some of the things post-colonialism explores.

Marxism, this is a critical approach that makes us question capitalism itself. Their main goal is provide for the greater good of humanity and it’s environment. It takes a deep dive into the inequalities of workers all around to world and provides a transnational movements for workers. By coming together and opposing the exploitative and unequal effects of capitalism that was caused by the rapid increase the industrial revolution all around the world. Leading to a more equal share of wealth for people.

This is basically, communism. It challenges the inequalities caused by industrial revolution. For example, it states that unlike in the U.S. where the harder you work the more you get, there are other states where factories exploit people and provide them with low wages and poor working conditions allowing them to take the majority of the profit. Marxism helps shine a light on these issues and helps form structures where people can pursue happiness.

Honestly, this whole topic was a little bit confusing for me. This theory claims that the inequality between the capitalists and the working class is a conflict that would lead to a revolution from the working class. Overthrowing the rich and creating their own economy which will better distribute wealth. However, it made me question the current classes today. For example, there are indeed struggles between capitalists and the working class today in the U.S. but to me it seems like it is very easy to obtain a normal happy life with the resources provided to us. What is there to complain about? (this is ignorant of me)

There is a huge misconception on this subject. A lot of people believe that feminists are all those people screaming, “WOMAN POWER”, or “ALL MEN ARE TRASH”. When actually it’s not really like that at all. Feminism, this theory is focused on the deconstruction of gender, by taking into consideration and “challenging assumptions about masculine and feminine gender roles that dictate what both women and men should or can do in global politics and what counts as important in considerations of international relations. “([Reading]Chapter 8: Feminism).

Feminists are focused on making women more visible to the world. They demonstrate the inequalities between the two genders, masculine and female. For example, nowhere in this world do women share the same status in almost every aspect as the men. Furthermore, women are more subject to many violations of their basic human rights and are often subjected to many things for example rape, domestic violence, and even human trafficking. This is not an issue that is only present in one part of the world but all around the world. Which is why many feminists can argue why this theory is beneficial to international relations. As for myself, I believe in gender equality, but it’s crazy that a new perspective can rise out of nowhere the same way feminism did. Challenging the old ways of thinking and exposing the flaws in any aspects.

Constructivism, it’s the basis on how our world is shaped and formed by societies. The reading of “Introducing Constructivism in International Relations Theory”, was wide opening as it talks about everything that is today, it was formed under the idea that if a large group of people decided that a certain part of land was important. That piece of land would be important. This brings up the whole topic of the norms and how it affects the decisions made by society. The reading talks about three types of norms; regulative norms, constitutive norms and prescriptive norms, these norms are essentially the type of norms that are present in our society. For example, regulative norms are rules that keep order and restrict certain behaviors, constitutive norms are the rules that tells people how to act, and prescriptive norms are norms that common knowledge. A constructivist would say that society’s norms can change, as well basically anything is subject to change. The reason why I bring up how norms affect society is because, in the reading, I read how many states came together to solve the issue with climate change. Several people of power or with an authority have advocated for climate change, this led to a social norm of doing things to keep climate change at bay.

The way constructivism is related to international relations, was confusing for me as I was unable to understand how it was important to international issues. But it states that constructivism allows actors to look at things from a diverse viewpoint. Which makes sense to me, it addresses things that are neglected the mainstream for example, climate change. I don’t think I have ever heard about the importance of climate change was until Leonardo DiCaprio gave a big speech on it. Suddenly, all around the world, the idea of keeping the earth from over heating was not so crazy.

Liberalism is the theory that the human rights of life, liberty and property is a top priority to the government. For this reason, liberalist believe that power is to be given to the people through democracy, furthermore they believe that authoritative power should be divided in many forms. As a result, many institutions are formed in order to protect the basic human rights of the people. The way this is connected to international relations is that the actions of a state abroad can affect the liberty of it’s own people. In the reading of, “Introducing Liberalism in International Relations Theory”, it states that war requires a strong military. This power while it can be used to fight foreign states it can also be used to oppress it’s own people. This is why whenever a state chooses to go to war, the liberty of it’s own people are at risk.

This is an interesting point because in my perspective, no matter which side starts the war. Where there is war, the basic human rights are always put at risk. Furthermore, if the military was controlled by the people, what would happen if there is a division of interests in the state. This could lead to a civil war. Which is why, I strongly believe that there needs to be an authoritative power that can decide for the people even if it may risk the rights of the people during war times.

Starting on the topic of Realism, it is a theory that explores the conflictual side of international relations. It claims that states are the principle actors in international relations, that they are the unitary actor of it’s own state as a whole, and that the ones who decide the actions of the state are all based on the pursuit of the national interests. The ultimate goal of this theory is ultimately the survival of it’s own state. In Realism, it is believed that states live in anarchy, meaning that there is no ultimate power that can control everything internationally to keep all the states in check. As a result, all states can only rely for themselves. It is the thought that humans are evil and as stated on the reading of “Introducing Realism in International Relations Theory”, “humans are essentially held hostage to repetitive patterns of behavior determined by their nature”, which is very interesting due to it’s idea being related to Thomas Hobbes, an English Philosopher, who firmly believed that all human by nature are ‘solitary, poor, nasty brutish, and short’.

This made me wonder, how would a government run using the theory of Realism. The purpose of Realism is to guide and provide an insightful perspective for leaders to focus on the survival of the nation. They put the nation’s interest as its priority, and you could say that they abandon the morality of the actions or decisions made by realist leaders. Another thing that stood out to me was that, from a realist perspective it is essential to get prevent any future threats from taking place for example, with ISIS, using this theory it would be assumed that this group should be removed but at the same time it recommends you to take extreme caution as one wrong move could lead to the downfall of the state. Overall, in my opinion, I feel that this theory is something that should always be considered when running a country.

This is the second week, so far I have read “the Making of the Modern World” by Erik Ringmar and honestly I have only read roughly some parts of the other reading. I am talking about this because I want to talk about the current situation of long distance learning. Without a doubt, this whole system is very difficult for any normal student to learn or at least it has been for me. I am used to learning in a controlled environment with a teacher in front of me, so a sudden change to a habit that was formed as a kid for me is very difficult. Other than that, I have a few questions, that I hope I will learn or find out in the next couple of weeks.

In countries or states, where there are corrupt or no political institutions, who do the people look for assistance? The United Nations is too weak to assist any third world country with a corrupt government or weak economy. The U.S. just sends out money/weapons to these countries in hopes they solve their own problems. For example, Venezuela, the country itself is in anarchy. Everyone is out for themselves, people can’t even trust the authorities because they are corrupt. So my next question is this, in a world of anarchy, if anarchy allows anything from chaos to even order, will countries, whose economy is weak and the government is too weak, just collapse and wait for a wealthy country to take over?