Khaliun Munkhuu
The New Interventionism
In the article, David C. Hendrickson argues American international policy has taken completely different and “counterproductive” approach to a notion of external intervention in hopes of promoting democracy by ignoring an old wisdom which opposed such inclination to intervene in countries where there are conflicts both within a state and among states.
His acceptance of ongoing conflicts in international relations and his opposing stance against liberalists idea that intervention which is another form of cooperation leads to peace suggests that he is a realist scholar who believes that war is in human nature and, therefore, there is no room for cooperation in international relations.
Hendrickson’s argument …show more content…
They give historical evidences when the U.S had taken actions involving monetary transactions to prevent possible conflicts with other nations such as French and Soviet Union through the method of purchasing land. Furthermore, they point out several economical decisions that were successfully carried out to resolve already restrained relationships or to set limits on countries that had been behaving against the U.S interest. Thus, these examples seem to show that it is, sometimes, possible to help accomplish certain goals in non-violent ways.
Capitalism & Inequality
Jerry Z. Muller asserts the U.S has to continue to be innovative in creating technologies that are beneficial to the mass while providing support for those who are in need while realizing that neither increase or decrease in government taxing or spending eliminate inequality and insecurity since they are the bi-products of capitalism.
Based on his arguments, it can be inferred that he is a constructivist. In the article, he states, “ It is among the illusions of the age that when it come to government policy, nations can borrow at will from one another.” His belief that each country has its own way of operating and requires its own unique policy because of its unique culture and history suggests that, according to him, reality is not objective, but it is socially …show more content…
Even though they still believe in international order and global governance, they don’t support United Nation’s way of handling certain situations and advocate for new and smaller institution consisting of members who have higher powers. Their aspiration of such organization suggests that are liberalists who believe cooperation among states is possible. Their proposal seems appealing since it promises to make quicker and palpable changes, but it seems to overlook the fact that other states who were not eligible to be part of this elite organization will just have to take a leap of faith and hope whatever the decision that were made will bring greater benefit than the benefits they had been getting before the formation of the institution. It seems when it is not case that they benefit for states, conflicts will eventually rise and struggle for power will continuously
The New Interventionism
In the article, David C. Hendrickson argues American international policy has taken completely different and “counterproductive” approach to a notion of external intervention in hopes of promoting democracy by ignoring an old wisdom which opposed such inclination to intervene in countries where there are conflicts both within a state and among states.
His acceptance of ongoing conflicts in international relations and his opposing stance against liberalists idea that intervention which is another form of cooperation leads to peace suggests that he is a realist scholar who believes that war is in human nature and, therefore, there is no room for cooperation in international relations.
Hendrickson’s argument …show more content…
They give historical evidences when the U.S had taken actions involving monetary transactions to prevent possible conflicts with other nations such as French and Soviet Union through the method of purchasing land. Furthermore, they point out several economical decisions that were successfully carried out to resolve already restrained relationships or to set limits on countries that had been behaving against the U.S interest. Thus, these examples seem to show that it is, sometimes, possible to help accomplish certain goals in non-violent ways.
Capitalism & Inequality
Jerry Z. Muller asserts the U.S has to continue to be innovative in creating technologies that are beneficial to the mass while providing support for those who are in need while realizing that neither increase or decrease in government taxing or spending eliminate inequality and insecurity since they are the bi-products of capitalism.
Based on his arguments, it can be inferred that he is a constructivist. In the article, he states, “ It is among the illusions of the age that when it come to government policy, nations can borrow at will from one another.” His belief that each country has its own way of operating and requires its own unique policy because of its unique culture and history suggests that, according to him, reality is not objective, but it is socially …show more content…
Even though they still believe in international order and global governance, they don’t support United Nation’s way of handling certain situations and advocate for new and smaller institution consisting of members who have higher powers. Their aspiration of such organization suggests that are liberalists who believe cooperation among states is possible. Their proposal seems appealing since it promises to make quicker and palpable changes, but it seems to overlook the fact that other states who were not eligible to be part of this elite organization will just have to take a leap of faith and hope whatever the decision that were made will bring greater benefit than the benefits they had been getting before the formation of the institution. It seems when it is not case that they benefit for states, conflicts will eventually rise and struggle for power will continuously