International politics involve all people, directly or indirectly. When studying international relations, one may say war is the pivotal worldwide problem. War is described as a violent, chaotic conflict that involves two or more parties, and those parties can range from small groups of people to entire nations. The war of the Falkland Islands is one of the never ending number of conflicts the world has seen. Disputes over the ownership of three islands in the coast of Argentina caused friction between them and the United Kingdom, thus leading to a war. While not full-scale, the war was rather a violent one. When examining international politics, paradigms and theories are essential in order to understand why an event has, or is happening.
…show more content…
A paradigm is just that, a set of assumptions that help people understand how the international system can be analyzed. There are six (out of the infinite) popular paradigms, also termed as lenses, that help one understand world affairs from a specific standing point. They range from economic point of views like Marxism, or social culture such as Constructivism and Feminism. The Falkland Island War can be best looked through the Realist lens. According to the International Relations book, realism is “a major theatrical approach to international relations emphasizing the competitive, conflict-ridden pursuit of power and security among states in world politics” (Scott). In simplest of terms, a state enacts based on power, and examines what benefits they can gain from exerting power. The Falkland Island War, according to the Realism paradigm, was fought for power and this can be proven correct. Before and during the war, Argentina was occupied by a militia that wanted and needed any form of power to maintain its position as head of government, and gaining full control of the islands showed their true capabilities of power. They exercised power by invading the islands, sending a full military, and fighting the war until its end. The realism paradigm can also be applied to Britain, they distinguished the war as an opportunity to showcase their military power, and how swift they can enact on decisions. The comparison of balance of power between the players is also essential when studying cases such as Falkland War. “Because Argentina faced a much more powerful opponent that had strong allies, it faced few options if it was to rule the Malvinas. […] Any other direct military intervention was out of the question due to Britain’s vastly superior firepower” (Fullan). One might
A paradigm is just that, a set of assumptions that help people understand how the international system can be analyzed. There are six (out of the infinite) popular paradigms, also termed as lenses, that help one understand world affairs from a specific standing point. They range from economic point of views like Marxism, or social culture such as Constructivism and Feminism. The Falkland Island War can be best looked through the Realist lens. According to the International Relations book, realism is “a major theatrical approach to international relations emphasizing the competitive, conflict-ridden pursuit of power and security among states in world politics” (Scott). In simplest of terms, a state enacts based on power, and examines what benefits they can gain from exerting power. The Falkland Island War, according to the Realism paradigm, was fought for power and this can be proven correct. Before and during the war, Argentina was occupied by a militia that wanted and needed any form of power to maintain its position as head of government, and gaining full control of the islands showed their true capabilities of power. They exercised power by invading the islands, sending a full military, and fighting the war until its end. The realism paradigm can also be applied to Britain, they distinguished the war as an opportunity to showcase their military power, and how swift they can enact on decisions. The comparison of balance of power between the players is also essential when studying cases such as Falkland War. “Because Argentina faced a much more powerful opponent that had strong allies, it faced few options if it was to rule the Malvinas. […] Any other direct military intervention was out of the question due to Britain’s vastly superior firepower” (Fullan). One might