1.0 In the medieval Europe, there was a

1.0 INTRODUCTION

According to Oppenheim state
territory is defined as a portion of the surface of the globe which is subject
to the sovereignty of the state. Crawford J (1979) stated that, a States
without a territory is not possible, although the necessary territory may be
very small. States are generally regarded as having some component. Abraham
Lincoln identified the main component of a States are territory, people and
government. Territory is where a state starts. Territory is element on which
other elements exist. Furthermore, all these frontiers enclose not just territory
but people. They number may and does vary hugely from one state to another.
Government also plays important part in state. By one process or another, some
of the people of a state are designated as its official representatives,
constituting its government.

In the medieval Europe, there was a
hierarchical system of power and authority instead of territorial sovereignty
and sovereign equality under feudalism. Sovereigns were divided into various
categories in the medieval period. They were as some sovereigns were recognized
as independent, both de-factor and de-jure, next some were independent in
practice but not altogether in juridical theory and lastly some states were
separately constituted with their own laws and institutions but dependent. This
show the territorial state system was not introduced during the medieval
period. By the beginning of the seventeenth century there was a demand for the
establishment of norms and rules for peaceful relation.

In order to understand the 1648
Treaty of Westphalia, it is important to understand of the event that led to
the establishment of the Peace of Westphalia. Key historical events prior to
the Treaty of Westphalia was the Thirty Years War. Asch, 2014, the Thirty Year
War was one of the greatest and longest armed contests of the early modern
period. The Thirty Year’s War (1618-1648) began when Holy Roman Emperor
Ferdinand II of Bohemia attempted to curtail the religious activities of his
subject, sparkling rebellion among Protestants. The war came to involve the major
powers of Europe with Sweden, France, Spain and Austria all waging campaigns
primarily on German soil.

Furthermore, this conflict redrew the
religious and political map of central Europe. Began in the Holy Roman Empire,
a vast complex of some one thousand separate, semiautonomous political units
under the loose suzerainty of the Austrian Hapsburgs. Over the previous two
centuries, a balance of power had emerged among the leading states. But during
the sixteenth century, the Reformation and the Counter Reformation had divided
into hostile Protestant and Catholic camps. Each prepared to seek foreign
support to guarantee its integrity if need arose.

The writing of Englishman, Thomas
Hobbes (1588-1645) captured the essence of the modern state. Realist argue based
on his ideas that order in international relation depends upon state power and
the balance of power among state.

Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) in his work
provided a rule based order for commerce and the conduct of war and peace. Hugo
Grotius earning himself the title “father of international law”.

Peace of Westphalia ended the war in
1648. New balance of power emerged in Europe in which Germany, Sweden and
France become the most powerful states in Europe.

 

2.0 OBJECTIVE

1.   
To
analysis the important actor in International Relations.

2.   
To
discuss what is the paradigm that distribute the system of state in                                              International Relations.

3.   
To
examine the chronology of International Relations that has been                                                 dominated by Western paradigms.

 

3.0 LITERATURE
REVIEWS

3.1            Objective
1 : To analysis the important actor in International Relations.

At the
International scene, there are many players engaged in what is regarded as the
game of international relations. One of the oldest and universally acknowledged
actors on the modern world stage is the state. A state is a type of polity that
is an organized political community living under a single system of government.
A Political community is referred to as a government responsible for the
citizens under the government. It has been earlier assumed that international
relations are made up of the relations between states. International relations
can be likened to a series of actions that promote interactions between states.
Actors are entities that participate in or promote international relations. The
two types of actors involved in international relations include State and
non-state actors. State actors represent a government while non-state actors do
not. However, they have impact on the state actors.

 

 

 

3.1.1  Major Actors and Assumptions by Realism

          Realism is based
on four key assumptions. First, states
are the principle or most important actors. States represent the key unit
of analysis, whether one is dealing with ancient Greek city-states or modern
nation-states. The study of international relations is the study of relations
among these units. Realist who use the concept of system defined in term of
interrelated parts usually refer to an international system of states. What of
nonstate actors ? International organizations such as the United Nations may
aspire to the status of independent actor, but from realist perspective, this
aspiration has not in been achieved to any significant degree. Multinational
corporations, terrorist groups, and other transnational and international
organization are frequently acknowledged by realist, but the position of these
nonstate actors is always one of lesser importance. State are the dominat
actors.

      
Second, the state is viewed as a unitary actor. For purposes of
analysis, realists view the state as being encapsulated by metaphorical hard
shell. A country faces the outside world as an integrated unit. A common
assumption associated with realist thought is that political differences within
the state are ultimately resolved authoritatively such that the government of
the state speaks with one voice for the state as a whole. The state is a
unitary actor in that it is usually assumed by realists to have one policy at
any given time on any particular issue. To be sure, exceptions occur from time
to time, but to the realist these are exceptions that demonstrate the rule and
that actually support the general notion of the state as an integrated ,
unitary actor.

    
Third, given this emphasis on the unitary state-as-actor, realists usually
make the further assumption that the state us essentially a rational actor. A
rational foreign policy decision-making process would include a statement of
objectives, consideration of all feasible alternatives in terms of existing
capabilities available to the state, the relative likelihood of attaining these
objectives by the various alternatives under consideration, and the benefits or
costs associated with each alternative. Following this rational process,
governmental decisionmakers evaluate each alternative, selecting the one that
maximizes utility.

3.1.2 
Major Actors and Assumptions by Pluralism

              For the pluralist, the state is not a unitary actor.
Indeed, the realist view of the state as unitary actor is an abstraction that
masks the essence of politics that is found principally within the state. The
state is not some reified entity an abstraction to be treated as if it were
physical bein that acts with single-minded determination, always in a coherent
manner. Pluralis disaggregate the state break it into its component parts. They
reject the notion of the state as an integrated entity, impermeable to outside
forces. Both governmental and nongovernmental actors pass through this soft
outer shell, sometimes taking actions with policy implications contrary to
preferences of central state authorities. These are not just exceptional cases
from the pluralist Theessence if politics. This is not only in terms of
interactions within the state; equally important, it is the transnational
dimension of state and nonstate actors that operates across national borders.
The pluralist image thus offers greater complexity than the relatively simpler
image of states as unitary actors interacting with one another.

3.1.3  Major Actors and Assumptions by Globalism.

           Globalism, as we
use the term, is a third perspective, fundamentally different from  both realist and the pluralist images.  Globalists typically assume that the starting
point of analysis for international relations is the global context within
which states and other entities interact. Globalists emphasize the overall
structure of the international system or , more colloquially, the “big
picture.” To explain behaviour takes place. This is a dominant theme within the
globalist image, although some realists and pluralists also share this
perspective. To understand the external behaviour of states requires more than
merely examing factors internal to a state. One must first grasp hiw the
structure of the system conditions and predisposes certain actors to act in
certain ways.

                Second, globalist assume that
it is not only useful but also imperative to view international relations from
a historical perspective. For many globalists, Marxists as well as
non-Marxists, the defining characteristic of the international system is that
it is ‘capitalist’. This requires the study of the rise of capitalism as it
emerged is sixteenth-century Western Europe, its development, changes, and
expansion to the point at which today we can speak of a worl capitalist system
that conditions and constrains the behavior of all states and societies. Some
states and societies benefit from this capitalist system; others do not.
Furthermore, the evolution of the world capitalist system supposedly accounts
for the creation of states, not just their behavior. While realist and many
pluralists tend to see states as a given, utilizing them as independent
variables, some globalists view states as dependent variables that wich is to
be explained.

3.2     Objective
2 : To discuss what is the paradigm that distribute the system                                               of state in International
Relations.

In this objective,
the scholar will discuss about what is the paradigms that distribute the system
of the state in the international relations. A paradigms is a theoretical
approach that includes one or more theories that shared similar philosophical
assumptions. A paradigms also a set of beliefs about what should be taken for
granted and what need to be investigated, about what sorts of forces are most
important in the world, and about what assumptions should begin the analysis.
Paradigms that distribute the systems of the state are realism, liberalism, and
constructivism. 

Realism

Realism focuses on
the fact that there is anarchy in the international system. Anarchy is where
there is no higher authority governing relationships between states. States are
viewed as the ultimate authority or sovereign over the people and government.
It also mean that no state can rely on other to come on their aids. As said by
Kenneth Waltz, perhaps the most influential neorealist, observes: “people do
not need to prepared defense themselves because public agencies do that/ a
national system is not of self-help, but the international system is”. As a
result, the paradigm focuses on gaining power to ensure a state’s survival from
other enemy states in the world”. Not doing so will lead a state to risk its
security in the international system. Decisions made with a realist mindset
does not focus on the ethical considerations behind the choice. Instead, the
major factor in a decision is whether the state is gaining power over states.
Just like historically example that have happened when it include Spain under
Charles V, France under Louis XIV, France again under Napoleon and Germany in
World War I and again under Hitler in World War II.

Liberalism

Liberalism, like
realism, acknowledges that anarchy in the international system exists. However,
liberalism differs in the response to anarchy as liberals believe that making
alliances will lead to a decrease of anarchy. A famous example of a liberal
organization is the United Nations, and like other organization is the World
Trade Organization, the World Bank and there are thousands more of this. The
organization reduces anarchy in the system as it provides sovereign states with
a higher authority that can solve major issues in the international system. An
additional way that liberalism affects international relations is that greater
economic alliances can lead to a lesser chance of conflict since the states do
not want to risk their economic power in the world. This can be shown in whereas
suspicion, rivalry, conflict and war were once normal among the Europe’s major
powers, war among the Germany, France, and Britain today would be ludicrously
unimaginable in large part because post-World War II institutions such as
European Union have helped nuture and sustain the peace, cooperation, and
commerce so the citizen now day can live peaceful without war anymore. In
summary, liberalism focuses on having reciprocity between states with absolute
gains rather than a power struggle.

Constructivism

Constructivism is
a perspective that stresses the important of identities and shared
understandings in shaping the behavior of social actors. Constructivism
originated after the paradigms of realism and liberalism couldn’t explain the
fall of the Soviet Union. Constructivism believes that individuals with their
personal ideas and norms drive international relations. Just like Daniel Thomas
explains:” According to…constructivist theories of international relations,
actorsstate seek to behave in accordance with the norm relevant to their
identities …which are definitions of the self in relation to other that
provide guidance for how one should behave in a given context.”  If the people within a state have a deep
hatred for an opposing state, then the state itself would not have relations
with the enemy state due to the ideals of the people. Non-government
organizations such as Habitat for Humanity or Amnesty International are
essential to the paradigm as they allow for the diffusion of ideas and norms to
the population within a state.

 

3.3            Objective
3 : To examine the chronology of International Relations that                                                    has      been dominated by Western paradigms.

The choronology of
international relation that has been dominated by the western paradigm since
the started of World War 1, World War 2, Cold War and continued with Liberalism
and Constructivism. World War 1 or Great War is an international conflict that
occured in 1914 – 1918 embroiled most of the nations of Europe along with
Russia, United States, the Middle East and other regions. The central power
mainly from Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey against France,Great Britain,
Russia, Italy, Japan, and United States (from 1917). It was happen cause by the
assassination of the Austrian archduke, Franz Ferdinand and his wife on 28th
June 1914 by the Bosnian revolutionary, Gavrilo Princip. This tragedy set off
the declaration of war. This war was ended with the defeat of the central
power. The war was virtually unprecedented in the slaughter, carnage and destruction
for them. The legacy of the World War 1 is it took about more than 9 million
soldiers, and 21 million more were wounded. Civilian casualities caused
indirectly by the war numbered close to 10 million. Two nation that most
affected were France and Germany. Each of them sent about 80 percent of their
male populations between the ages of 15 to 49 into battle.

World War Two,
also called the second world war, the conflict that involved virtually the
every part of world during years 1939 until 1945. There are about
40,000,000-50,000,000 deaths incurred in World War Two make it the bloodiest
conflict as well as the largest war in history. Both during the war and after
war, there are many conspiracy theories came out. For instance, the Pearl
Harbour attack, Dunkirk evacuation, alien conspiracy theories, Hitler’s sexual
fetishes and even Nazi occult connections. During this World War Two, the
Soviet Union and United States fought together against the axis power. But, the
relationship between the two nations was a tense one.After the war ended, these
grievances ripened into an overwhelming sens of mutual distrust and enmity.

By the time World
War Two ended, , most American officials agreed that the best defence against
the Soviet Union threat is by a strategy that called ‘containment’. In 1946, in
his famous long telegram, the diplomat George Kennan (1904-2005) explained the
policy which is ‘a political force commited fanatically to the belief that with
the US there can be no permanent modus vivendi (agreement between parties that
disagree)’. In result, America’s only choice was the ‘long term, patient but
firm and vigilant containment of policy of the United States’, he declared
before Congress in 1947. The Cold War closed when President Richard Nixon
(1913-1994) began to implement a new approach to IR. He suggested the using of
diplomacy instead of military action to create more poles. He encourage the
United Nations to recognize the communist Chinese government and after a trip
there in 1972, they began to establish diplomatic relation with Beijing.  He also adopted a policy of ‘detente’ or
relaxation toward the Soviet Union. In 1972, Richard Nixon signed the Strategic
Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT 1) with Soviet premier called Leonid Brezhnev.
This strategic prohibited the manufacture of nuclear missiles by both sides and
took a step toward reducing the decades old threat of nuclear war.

However, the Cold
War heated up again after under the President Ronald Reagan (1911-2004). Reagan
believe that the spread of communism anywhere will threatened freedom
everywhere.  He worked to provide
financial and military aid to anticommunist governments and insurgencies around
the world.  This policy particularly
applied in the developing world places like Grenada and El Salvador was known
as the Reagan Doctrine. Reagan fought communism in Central America, but the
Soviet Union was disintegrating. Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (1931) took office
in 1985 to severe economic problems and growing political ferment in the USSR
and he introduced two policies that redefined Russia’s relationship to the rest
of the world for political openness and economic reformation. In 1991, the
Soviet Union had fallen apart when they influence in Eastern Europe waned.
Every other communist state in the region replced their government with a
noncommunist one. In November 1989, the Berlin wall is the most visible symbol
of the decade-long cold war finally destroyed after two years reagan had
challenge the Soviet premier in a speech in Berlin. With that, the cold war was
over.

After all the war
ended up, the liberalism start to take place. The liberal paradigm shares some
basic option. Liberals usually regard the modern West countries as the
universal standard, which used in their theoritical thinking. This liberalism
in IR theory based on an important statement which is ‘democracies don’t attack
one another’. This democratic regimes are concern to each other as the citizens
in the states. They are based on peaceful competition, right priority and the
rationalizaton of any relations and actions. This IR theory is not the fight of
all against all and satisfying one’s own egoism. There are some main principles
of IR theory in liberalism such as for 
the liberals, national states are important but they are not the only
and in some cases not the main actors in international relations. Then, a
special institution may exists which may have control over sovereign national
states. The anarchy also can be eliminated or harmonized, pacified and
modernized (if it possible). Democratic states are also in a state of
relatively firm and guaranteed peace, and only non-democratic states and other
world political actors such as terrorists threaten them with war and so on.

For decades,
international relation theory fields was comprised with liberalism and realism
theory. However, in recent decades, there has emerged one another theory called
constuctivism. Constuctivism focuses on ideas or norms, the development of the
structures, the relationship between actors and how identity influences actions
between actors. In 1992, Alexander Wendt publish an article for international
relation theory titled ‘Anarchy is what states make of it:the social
construction of power politics’. In this article, he argues that anarchy can be
a stuctural fact about the world that state inhabit, but that it is up to
politicians (and IR scholars) to decide how to deal with the anarchy. This
constuctivism theory focus on the idea of anarchy but they depart from prior
positions on the anarchial system. These constuctivisms disagree with the
realist position that anarchy inherently leads to competition and war. For the
constructivists, the anarchial system is whatever the actor want to be. There
is no reason that anarchy brings about war or peace. The actor will play the
major roles how to manage the system.

 

4.0       CONCLUSION

In conclusion, states
are the principal or most important actors on the international political stage
and represent the key unit of analysis. State are viewed as unitary actors that
behave in a generally rational manner. National security issue dominate the
hierarchy of the international agenda. Furthermore, the significant system of
international relations has been dominated by western paradigm since
Westphalia(1648), based on the discussion and by the history the international
relation that has been dominated by the western paradigm and not by the East
or etc paradigms since the started of World War 1, World War 2, Cold War and continued
with Liberalism and Constructivism. World War 1 or Great War is an
international conflict that occured in 1914 – 1918 embroiled most of the
nations of Europe along with Russia, United States, the Middle East and other
regions.