Anarchy or Order?
Which do you think is more likely to be the near future of world politics?
This is the question posed to me. So far I've just got my notes, and I have a positive attitude about getting my paper done for Monday.
This is the question posed to me. So far I've just got my notes, and I have a positive attitude about getting my paper done for Monday.
1 comment:
Anarchy and the World of Tomorrow
The popular idea of anarchy is a dissystem of chaos and lack of a ruling body. Anarchy is a facet of international politics, a “territorial state system in which politics comes with the absence of a common sovereign” (Nye 3). Politics between “entities” occurs, as Nye refers, but there is no ruler overseeing such politics. In other words, at the top organizational levels of the world, there are numerous constructs and not a mere few rulers or ruling classes.
While anarchy is defined as an absence of a ruler, it does not mean that there is a lack of governing by those lacking a ruler.
Thomas Hobbes, the renowned philosopher of seventeenth-century England, nurtured an idea of “state of nature” in describing the anarchic system found in international politics.
PART 2
We are maturing globally into a domesticated nature. Not everywhere, of course, but in lots of places. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before it wraps the world progressively and fruitfully.
The world governments are afraid to go to war in this day and age due to the costs and other potential losses and cutbacks caused by war.
Is there a shift from Hobbes' perception of reality to a more communicative, peaceful world?
Is there a shift from competing legal systems to commonality and sharing of systems?
Is there a shift from domestic monopoly and international states to an international monopoly?
Is there a developing sense of global community?
Through this process of globalization, is there going to be a design of global domesticism?
Could this global domesticism be on the horizon? The European Union is attempting such a strategy, but England still is holding true some of its monetary means.
Post a Comment