Neoliberalism and Neorealism




Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations, outlined by Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 book Theory of International Politics. Waltz theory emphasis the importance of the structure of international system and its role as the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike traditional Realism who views states behavior directed by its self-interested nature.
Waltz argues that the international structure acts as a constraint on state behavior, so that only states whose outcomes fall within an expected range survive. This system is similar to a microeconomic model in which firms set prices and quantity based on the market. Waltz also believe that structure directs states conduct. The structure of the international political system is defined first by its organizing principle, which is anarchy. Where every state have similar main interest for survival. However, each state capabilities to pursue their interest is not equal. The unequal distribution of states capabilities create states’ balance of power behavior either multipolarity or bipolarity.
Neoliberalism, refers to a school of thought which believes that nation-states are, or at least should be, concerned first and foremost with absolute gains rather than relative gains to other nation-states. Neoliberalism or occasionally called institutional liberalism that distinguishes itself by contrast and/or selective inclusion with the ideas of "commercial" liberalism (the linking of free trade with peace), "republican" liberalism (the linking of democracy and peace), and "sociological" liberalism (theories of international integration). The more inclusive theories, according to Baldwin (1993), tend to be the best challengers to realist/neorealist orthodoxy, and neoliberalism is best understood as opposed to realism/neorealism orthodoxy (its war-mongering and militaristic thrusts). 
According to Kegley (1988), the classical realist world view places moral standards subservient to the power concerns of international actors. In their favor, some realists sometimes address the issue of morality with seriousness and concern. Meanwhile, neorealist thinking embraces the ultimate conclusion of realist premises that statesmen never act according to moral precepts thus such concerns need not be addressed by a political theory. Strongly opposed to this is the neoliberal position (sometimes called the neoidealist position) that states consistently act according to values more than power concerns. Neoliberalism is the only approach which considers these factors in the way it seeks to expand the notion of self-interest to include the moral sphere. It tries to be a more moral humanitarianism.
In terms of the scope of international relations theory and foreign interventionism, the debate between Neoliberalism and Neorealism is an intra paradigm one, as both theories are positivist and focus mainly on the state system as the primary unit of analysis. So in easy way, the comparation between neorealism and neoliberalism can be explained into severeral point which is :


  1. International Institutions: Neorealists doubt that institutions as able to mitigate international anarchy, while neoliberals believe this.
  2. Achievement of International Cooperation: Neoliberals think that international cooperation is much easier to achieve than do neorealists.
  3. National Security Issues versus Political Economy:  Neoliberals tend to look at political economy, with the result that each sees rather different prospects for cooperation, while neorealists tend to deal with national security issues.
  4. Relative versus Absolute Gains: Neoliberals stress the importance of absolute gains. meanwhile, neorealists stress the centrality of relative gains for decision-makers in dealing with international cooperation.
  5. Nature and Consequences of Anarchy:  Neoliberals see concerns over physical security as producing far less of the motivations of state action than do neorealists.
  6. Capabilities versus Intentions and Perceptions:  Neoliberals look more at intentions and perceptions, while neorealists concentrate on capabilities, rather than intentions.


References :
  • Beitz, Charles, 1997. Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Burchill, et al. eds. Theories of International Relations, 3rd edition, Palgrave 2005
  • liberalism 2012. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 21 March, 2012, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339173/liberalism
  • Political Realism in International Relations 2012. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 14 March, 2012, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
  • AN OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2012. Criminal Justice Mega Links. Retrieved 21 March, 2012, from http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3040/3040lect02a.htm

Neoliberalism and Neorealism




Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations, outlined by Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 book Theory of International Politics. Waltz theory emphasis the importance of the structure of international system and its role as the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike traditional Realism who views states behavior directed by its self-interested nature.
Waltz argues that the international structure acts as a constraint on state behavior, so that only states whose outcomes fall within an expected range survive. This system is similar to a microeconomic model in which firms set prices and quantity based on the market. Waltz also believe that structure directs states conduct. The structure of the international political system is defined first by its organizing principle, which is anarchy. Where every state have similar main interest for survival. However, each state capabilities to pursue their interest is not equal. The unequal distribution of states capabilities create states’ balance of power behavior either multipolarity or bipolarity.
Neoliberalism, refers to a school of thought which believes that nation-states are, or at least should be, concerned first and foremost with absolute gains rather than relative gains to other nation-states. Neoliberalism or occasionally called institutional liberalism that distinguishes itself by contrast and/or selective inclusion with the ideas of "commercial" liberalism (the linking of free trade with peace), "republican" liberalism (the linking of democracy and peace), and "sociological" liberalism (theories of international integration). The more inclusive theories, according to Baldwin (1993), tend to be the best challengers to realist/neorealist orthodoxy, and neoliberalism is best understood as opposed to realism/neorealism orthodoxy (its war-mongering and militaristic thrusts). 
According to Kegley (1988), the classical realist world view places moral standards subservient to the power concerns of international actors. In their favor, some realists sometimes address the issue of morality with seriousness and concern. Meanwhile, neorealist thinking embraces the ultimate conclusion of realist premises that statesmen never act according to moral precepts thus such concerns need not be addressed by a political theory. Strongly opposed to this is the neoliberal position (sometimes called the neoidealist position) that states consistently act according to values more than power concerns. Neoliberalism is the only approach which considers these factors in the way it seeks to expand the notion of self-interest to include the moral sphere. It tries to be a more moral humanitarianism.
In terms of the scope of international relations theory and foreign interventionism, the debate between Neoliberalism and Neorealism is an intra paradigm one, as both theories are positivist and focus mainly on the state system as the primary unit of analysis. So in easy way, the comparation between neorealism and neoliberalism can be explained into severeral point which is :


  1. International Institutions: Neorealists doubt that institutions as able to mitigate international anarchy, while neoliberals believe this.
  2. Achievement of International Cooperation: Neoliberals think that international cooperation is much easier to achieve than do neorealists.
  3. National Security Issues versus Political Economy:  Neoliberals tend to look at political economy, with the result that each sees rather different prospects for cooperation, while neorealists tend to deal with national security issues.
  4. Relative versus Absolute Gains: Neoliberals stress the importance of absolute gains. meanwhile, neorealists stress the centrality of relative gains for decision-makers in dealing with international cooperation.
  5. Nature and Consequences of Anarchy:  Neoliberals see concerns over physical security as producing far less of the motivations of state action than do neorealists.
  6. Capabilities versus Intentions and Perceptions:  Neoliberals look more at intentions and perceptions, while neorealists concentrate on capabilities, rather than intentions.


References :
  • Beitz, Charles, 1997. Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Burchill, et al. eds. Theories of International Relations, 3rd edition, Palgrave 2005
  • liberalism 2012. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 21 March, 2012, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339173/liberalism
  • Political Realism in International Relations 2012. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 14 March, 2012, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
  • AN OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2012. Criminal Justice Mega Links. Retrieved 21 March, 2012, from http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3040/3040lect02a.htm

Neoliberalism and Neorealism




Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations, outlined by Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 book Theory of International Politics. Waltz theory emphasis the importance of the structure of international system and its role as the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike traditional Realism who views states behavior directed by its self-interested nature.
Waltz argues that the international structure acts as a constraint on state behavior, so that only states whose outcomes fall within an expected range survive. This system is similar to a microeconomic model in which firms set prices and quantity based on the market. Waltz also believe that structure directs states conduct. The structure of the international political system is defined first by its organizing principle, which is anarchy. Where every state have similar main interest for survival. However, each state capabilities to pursue their interest is not equal. The unequal distribution of states capabilities create states’ balance of power behavior either multipolarity or bipolarity.
Neoliberalism, refers to a school of thought which believes that nation-states are, or at least should be, concerned first and foremost with absolute gains rather than relative gains to other nation-states. Neoliberalism or occasionally called institutional liberalism that distinguishes itself by contrast and/or selective inclusion with the ideas of "commercial" liberalism (the linking of free trade with peace), "republican" liberalism (the linking of democracy and peace), and "sociological" liberalism (theories of international integration). The more inclusive theories, according to Baldwin (1993), tend to be the best challengers to realist/neorealist orthodoxy, and neoliberalism is best understood as opposed to realism/neorealism orthodoxy (its war-mongering and militaristic thrusts). 
According to Kegley (1988), the classical realist world view places moral standards subservient to the power concerns of international actors. In their favor, some realists sometimes address the issue of morality with seriousness and concern. Meanwhile, neorealist thinking embraces the ultimate conclusion of realist premises that statesmen never act according to moral precepts thus such concerns need not be addressed by a political theory. Strongly opposed to this is the neoliberal position (sometimes called the neoidealist position) that states consistently act according to values more than power concerns. Neoliberalism is the only approach which considers these factors in the way it seeks to expand the notion of self-interest to include the moral sphere. It tries to be a more moral humanitarianism.
In terms of the scope of international relations theory and foreign interventionism, the debate between Neoliberalism and Neorealism is an intra paradigm one, as both theories are positivist and focus mainly on the state system as the primary unit of analysis. So in easy way, the comparation between neorealism and neoliberalism can be explained into severeral point which is :


  1. International Institutions: Neorealists doubt that institutions as able to mitigate international anarchy, while neoliberals believe this.
  2. Achievement of International Cooperation: Neoliberals think that international cooperation is much easier to achieve than do neorealists.
  3. National Security Issues versus Political Economy:  Neoliberals tend to look at political economy, with the result that each sees rather different prospects for cooperation, while neorealists tend to deal with national security issues.
  4. Relative versus Absolute Gains: Neoliberals stress the importance of absolute gains. meanwhile, neorealists stress the centrality of relative gains for decision-makers in dealing with international cooperation.
  5. Nature and Consequences of Anarchy:  Neoliberals see concerns over physical security as producing far less of the motivations of state action than do neorealists.
  6. Capabilities versus Intentions and Perceptions:  Neoliberals look more at intentions and perceptions, while neorealists concentrate on capabilities, rather than intentions.


References :
  • Beitz, Charles, 1997. Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Burchill, et al. eds. Theories of International Relations, 3rd edition, Palgrave 2005
  • liberalism 2012. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 21 March, 2012, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339173/liberalism
  • Political Realism in International Relations 2012. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 14 March, 2012, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
  • AN OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2012. Criminal Justice Mega Links. Retrieved 21 March, 2012, from http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3040/3040lect02a.htm

Neoliberalism and Neorealism




Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations, outlined by Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 book Theory of International Politics. Waltz theory emphasis the importance of the structure of international system and its role as the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike traditional Realism who views states behavior directed by its self-interested nature.
Waltz argues that the international structure acts as a constraint on state behavior, so that only states whose outcomes fall within an expected range survive. This system is similar to a microeconomic model in which firms set prices and quantity based on the market. Waltz also believe that structure directs states conduct. The structure of the international political system is defined first by its organizing principle, which is anarchy. Where every state have similar main interest for survival. However, each state capabilities to pursue their interest is not equal. The unequal distribution of states capabilities create states’ balance of power behavior either multipolarity or bipolarity.
Neoliberalism, refers to a school of thought which believes that nation-states are, or at least should be, concerned first and foremost with absolute gains rather than relative gains to other nation-states. Neoliberalism or occasionally called institutional liberalism that distinguishes itself by contrast and/or selective inclusion with the ideas of "commercial" liberalism (the linking of free trade with peace), "republican" liberalism (the linking of democracy and peace), and "sociological" liberalism (theories of international integration). The more inclusive theories, according to Baldwin (1993), tend to be the best challengers to realist/neorealist orthodoxy, and neoliberalism is best understood as opposed to realism/neorealism orthodoxy (its war-mongering and militaristic thrusts). 
According to Kegley (1988), the classical realist world view places moral standards subservient to the power concerns of international actors. In their favor, some realists sometimes address the issue of morality with seriousness and concern. Meanwhile, neorealist thinking embraces the ultimate conclusion of realist premises that statesmen never act according to moral precepts thus such concerns need not be addressed by a political theory. Strongly opposed to this is the neoliberal position (sometimes called the neoidealist position) that states consistently act according to values more than power concerns. Neoliberalism is the only approach which considers these factors in the way it seeks to expand the notion of self-interest to include the moral sphere. It tries to be a more moral humanitarianism.
In terms of the scope of international relations theory and foreign interventionism, the debate between Neoliberalism and Neorealism is an intra paradigm one, as both theories are positivist and focus mainly on the state system as the primary unit of analysis. So in easy way, the comparation between neorealism and neoliberalism can be explained into severeral point which is :


  1. International Institutions: Neorealists doubt that institutions as able to mitigate international anarchy, while neoliberals believe this.
  2. Achievement of International Cooperation: Neoliberals think that international cooperation is much easier to achieve than do neorealists.
  3. National Security Issues versus Political Economy:  Neoliberals tend to look at political economy, with the result that each sees rather different prospects for cooperation, while neorealists tend to deal with national security issues.
  4. Relative versus Absolute Gains: Neoliberals stress the importance of absolute gains. meanwhile, neorealists stress the centrality of relative gains for decision-makers in dealing with international cooperation.
  5. Nature and Consequences of Anarchy:  Neoliberals see concerns over physical security as producing far less of the motivations of state action than do neorealists.
  6. Capabilities versus Intentions and Perceptions:  Neoliberals look more at intentions and perceptions, while neorealists concentrate on capabilities, rather than intentions.


References :
  • Beitz, Charles, 1997. Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Burchill, et al. eds. Theories of International Relations, 3rd edition, Palgrave 2005
  • liberalism 2012. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 21 March, 2012, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339173/liberalism
  • Political Realism in International Relations 2012. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 14 March, 2012, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
  • AN OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2012. Criminal Justice Mega Links. Retrieved 21 March, 2012, from http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3040/3040lect02a.htm

IR Quote's (Ben Franklin)




They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
(Benjamin Franklin)
Benjamin Franklin (January 17, 1706 – April 17, 1790) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. A noted polymath, Franklin was a leading author, printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, musician, inventor, satirist, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat. As a scientist, he was a major figure in the American Enlightenment and the history of physics for his discoveries and theories regarding electricity. He invented the lightning rod, bifocals, the Franklin stove, a carriage odometer, and the glass 'armonica'. He formed both the first public lending library in America and the first fire department in Pennsylvania.
This was written by Franklin, within quotation marks but is generally accept as his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.
The writer believe that this quotation can make Indonesia to be a better country. Why, because in Indonesia now many people are willing to give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. For example now people are willing to give some money to some broker to make things easier for them. Although the meaning  between the quote is little different with this case. But we can interpret the liberty here as the liberty from corruption, collusion, and nepotism (Korupsi, Kolusi, dan Nepotisme). And safety here can be interpret as peaceful life.  People who help corruption are neither deserve to obtain easy and peaceful life. So if this quote implemented in Indonesia thoroughly and completely, the writer believe Indonesian people can get rid corruption, collusion, and nepotism and make Indonesia to be a better country
Reference :


Liberalism




Liberalism
Liberalism is one of the main perspectives of international relations theory that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberalist typically believes that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.
The theory of classic liberalism is most directly traceable to John Locke, the French philosopher Voltaire and American founding father Thomas Paine who believed in the following idea that if you just give people as much freedom and liberty as possible, authoritarian political patterns would disappear, democracies would flourish, wars would never be fought, and world peace and prosperity would surely follow. 
Liberal international relations theories are based on the idea that humans are perfectible.  In contrast to the greedy man of realism or even the survival man of realism, liberal theories tend to see man as rational as well as learning, striving, and improving over time. The central issues that it seeks to address are the problems of achieving lasting peace and cooperation in international relations, and the various methods that could contribute their achievement.
In easy way, we can conclude that where realists see competition and conflict, liberals see opportunities for cooperation. This is particularly so in their defense of international law, economic cooperation, and the spread of democracy as the most important mechanisms for building world peace. Liberalism has a close but sometimes uneasy relationship with democracy. At the centre of democratic doctrine is the belief that governments derive their authority from popular election; liberalism, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with the scope of governmental activity. Liberals often have been wary of democracy, then, because of fears that it might generate a tyranny by the majority. One might briskly say, therefore, that democracy looks after majorities and liberalism after unpopular minorities.

Liberalism is the first major body of international political theory to focus explicitly on the problem of war and peace with the goal of implementing sufficient reforms to end war and create a democratic world peace. In its neoliberal and trade-oriented variants, liberalism offers a powerful but still traditional body of theory that allows for the analysis of non-state actors like corporations and social movements. Liberalism also holds that interaction between states is not limited to the political/security ("high politics"), but also economic/cultural ("low politics") whether through commercial firms, organizations or individuals. Thus, instead of an anarchic international system, there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation and broader notions of power, such as cultural capital

            Liberalism holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike realism, where the state is seen as a unitary actor, liberalism allows for plurality in state actions. Thus, preferences will vary from state to state, depending on factors such as culture, economic system or government type. In the matter of international relations, liberalist believe that a state's foreign policy is not determined entirely by the international system around it, but rather by its own internal order. So basically liberalist believe that a natural harmony of interests will ensure people and states make rational calculations which make national interest and international interest one and the same and if disputes occur, they should be settled by established judicial procedures under the rule of law. peace as seen as by the liberalist is a preferred condition and therefore ways should be found to foster peace among states.  This allows man to focus on the substantive things that make up the good life: food, art, culture, literature, farming, families. Everything but weapons and the fighting of war.
            Critics of liberalism (and there have been many) generally zero in on the ambivalence in almost all liberal theories over coming to terms with the use of force (for exactly what reasons and for what ends). More radical scholars argue that liberalism ignores the frequently violent foreign policies of imperial democracies (like the British Empire and, arguably, the current United States), as well as the limitations of concepts like "human rights," which are merely Western rather than truly universal. Other critics challenge the spirit of moral omnipotence and self-righteousness that is prevalent in much liberal thinking Critics of liberalism (and there have been many) generally zero in on the ambivalence in almost all liberal theories over coming to terms with the use of force. At the same time, critics allege that liberalism suffers from theoretical incoherence and a Western-centric perspective. Realists argue that liberals are naive to think that world peace is achievable, and wrong to include corporations and international organizations as important actors in international politics.

References :
  • Burchill, et al. eds. Theories of International Relations, 3rd edition, Palgrave 2005
    • liberalism 2012. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 21 March, 2012, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339173/liberalism
    • AN OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2012. Criminal Justice Mega Links. Retrieved 21 March, 2012, from http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3040/3040lect02a.htm
    • Idealism And Liberalism: International Relations Theory in Brief 2012.AndrewVogt. Retrieved 21 March, 2012, from http://www.bukisa.com/articles/335689_idealism-and-liberalism-international-relations-theory-in-brief



.

Realism



Setyo Aji Pambudi
071112044
Realism
In the discipline of international relations there are contending general theories or theoretical perspectives. Political realism is a theory of political philosophy that attempts to explain, model, and prescribe political relations. Realism, also known as political realism, is a view of international politics that stresses its competitive and conflictual side. It is usually contrasted with liberalism, which tends to emphasize cooperation. It takes as its assumption that power is (or ought to be) the primary end of political action.  
Political realism in essence reduces to the political-ethical principle that might is right. The theory has a long history, being evident in Thucydides’ Pelopennesian War. It was expanded on by Machiavelli in The Prince, and others such as Thomas Hobbes, Spinoza, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Then, twentieth-century realism was born in response to the idealist perspective that dominated international relations scholarship in the aftermath of the First and the Second World War. Although the United Nations, founded in 1945, can still be regarded as a product of idealist political thinking, the discipline of international relations was profoundly influenced in the initial years of the post-war period by the works of “classical” realists such as John H. Herz, Hans Morgenthau, George Kennan, and Raymond Aron.
Realism encompasses a variety of approaches and claims a long theoretical tradition. Twentieth-century classical realism has today been largely replaced by neorealism, which is an attempt to construct a more scientific approach to the study of international relations. Both classical realism and neorealism have been subjected to criticism from IR theorists representing liberal, critical, and post-modern perspectives.
Realists consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states, which are concerned with their own security, act in pursuit of their own national interests, and struggle for power. It can be conclude that realism emphasizes the role of the nation-state and makes a broad assumption that all nation-states are motivated by national interests, or, at best, national interests disguised as moral concerns.
At its most fundamental level, the national interest is generic and easy to define: all states seek to preserve their political autonomy and their territorial integrity. Once these two interests have been secured, however, national interests may take different forms. Some states may have an interest in securing more resources or land; other states may wish to expand their own political or economic systems into other areas; some states may merely wish to be left alone.
International relations realists emphasize the constraints imposed on politics by the nature of human beings, whom they consider egoistic, and by the absence of international government. Together these factors contribute to a conflict-based paradigm of international relations, in which the key actors are states, in which power and security become the main issues, and in which there is little place for morality. The set of premises concerning state actors, egoism, anarchy, power, security, and morality that define the realist tradition are all present in Thucydides.
The implications of this refusal to recognize greater authority than the state itself are important to recognize. The political realist fears centralized authority above the state actors, unless that authority is derived from the power of the state actors itself. However, the natural tendency of states is to increase their power, the preservation of a decentralized system must be purchased with force.
The Realist believe that the use of force to preserve the decentralized system is regulated by a system called the balance of power. The balance of power system works if only the major powers agree, at least tacitly, that they agree that the preservation of state autonomy is an important objective. If the major powers do agree, wars will still occur within the system, but those wars will be constrained by the limited objectives of each major state. If one major power does not agree with the limited objectives, then wars will be much larger and more open-ended.

Reffrences :
Beitz, Charles, 1997. Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Political Realism in International Relations 2012. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 14 March, 2012, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
Political Realism 2012. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.. Retrieved 14 March, 2012, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/polreal/
Political Realism 2012. Vincent Ferraro, Resources for the Study of International Relations and Foreign Policy. Retrieved 14 March, 2012, from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/realism.htm






International Relations Theory




Tugas Teori Hubungan Internasional Minggu Pertama

From The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English, theory is described by a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Also from The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English, we get the definition of theory as a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based. Meanwhile, theory, as suggested by Smith and Baylis, is a kind of simplifying device that allows those who use it to decide which facts matter most or do not.
International relations theory is the study of international relations from a theoretical perspective; it attempts to provide a conceptual framework upon which international relations can be analyzed. International Relations theory entails the development of conceptual frameworks and theories to facilitate the understanding and explanation of events and phenomena in world politics, as well as the analysis and informing of associated policies and practices. As such, international relations theory are devices that allow us to make sense of international relations. This is important because ‘theories do not simply explain or predict’ but theories also ‘tell us what possibilities exist for human action and intervention.
There are so many kinds of theory in international relation theory. For the example there are : Balance of Power Theory, Chaos Theory, Complex Interdependence Theory, Complexity Theory, Constitutional Order Theory, Critical Social Theory, Dependency Theory, Deterrence Theory, Domino Theory, Ethnic Conflict Theory, Empirical Theory, Fourth World Theory, Game Theory, Hegemonic Stability Theory, International Order Theory, International Regime Theory. Parallelism Theory, Securitization Theory and many more. Yet, between this so many theory, there is not a single theory who can prove itself as the absolute theory. But, we need to know that none of these theory is proven completely wrong.
Before we can moved to the next subject, we must know that international relation theory is different with perspective in international relation. Although there are so many people confused with those two and often mixed them, there is big difference between international relation theory and perspective in international relation. We can say that international relation theory is derived from perspective in international relation.
There are three “mainstream” perspectives in international relation: realist, liberal, and identity. Each focuses on a different factor as the cause of world events; the realist perspective focuses on power, the liberal perspective on interactions and institutions, and the identity perspective on ideas. A fourth perspective is called critical theory and, unlike the other perspectives, it challenges the idea that we can explain world events apart from the historical and social context in which they take place.

The study of international relations uses perspectives, theories and levels of analysis to help us describe, explain, and predict world events. The perspectives, theories and levels of analysis offer ways of describing the causes of an event, and much of the disagreement over theory and policy-making arises because we are unable to agree on what causes an event to occur.
The discipline of IR was officially established after World War one with a view to avoiding future mass conflicts and ensuring peaceful change. This remains a worthy goal, but today the scope and complexities of world politics demand an understanding of a much wider range of issues. Moreover, new conceptual frameworks and theories are required to improve our understanding and assist in the development of better policies and practices. From that conclusion it’s crystal clear that why we need to study about international relation theory.

Reference :


Nasionalisme




Tugas 6 Pengantar Ilmu Hubungan Internasional

Menurut kamus besar bahasa indonesia nasionalisme adalah 1 paham (ajaran) untuk mencintai bangsa dan negara sendiri; sifat kenasionalan: -- makin menjiwai bangsa Indonesia; 2 kesadaran keanggotaan dl suatu bangsa yg secara potensial atau aktual bersama-sama mencapai, mempertahankan, dan mengabadikan identitas, integritas, kemakmuran, dan kekuatan bangsa itu; semangat kebangsaan[1].

Ada beberapa pendapat dari apa sebenarnya definisi nasionalisme itu sendiri. Ada yang beranggapan nasionalisme adalah suatu proses pembentukan atau penumbuhan bangsa. Ada juga yang beranggapan nasionalisme adalah sebuah kesadaran suatu actor akan akan bangsa yang bersangkutan. Atau beberapa pendapat lain yang menerangkan bahwa nasionalisme adalah sebuah bahasa dan simbolisme bangsa; sebuah gerakan sosial dan politik bagi bangsa yang bersangkutan; sebuah doktrin dan / atau ideologi bangsa, baik umum dan khusus.

Dalam studi ilmu hubungan internasional, ada beberapa perspektif dalam menyikapi pengaruh nasionalisme dalam fenomena hubungan internasional. Beberapa perspektif tersebut antara lain perspektif secara positif dan perspektif secara negatif. Menurut perspektif positf nasionalisme dalam fenomena hubungan internasional dapat diartikan sebagai rasa memiliki atau lebih tepatnya rasa dibutuhkan oleh negara actor tersebut.  Sedangkan secara perspektif negative nasionalisme dalam fenomena hubungan internasional lebih diartikan sebagai gerakan yang akan lebih menuju seuati keadaan yang disebut etnosentrisme.

Nasionalisme dalam hubungan internasional tidak dapat dipisahkan dengan Negara itu sendiri. Dalam hubungan internasional ada 2 pendapat bagaimana sebuah Negara itu terbentuk. Ada yang beranggapan Negara terbentuk karena adanya state dulu baru kemudian nation muncul setelah itu dan hal tersebut sering disebut sebagai state-nation. Ada juga yang beranggapan sebaliknya yaitu suatu Negara terbentuk karena adanya suatu nation dulu baru dibentuk state kemudian dan hal itu kemudian disebut sebagai nation-state.

Sebelum melangkah lebih jauh, ada baiknya kita mengetagui apa itu yang dinamakan nation dan apa itu yang disebut states. Dalam pengertiannya nation dapat diartikan sebagai sebuah unit masyarakat atau unit warga negara yang memiliki alasan yang sama dalam kehidupan yaitu memperat komunitas mereka sendiri di salah satu wilayah di mana mereka tinggal yang kemudian mereka membentuk institusi sosial mereka sendiri yang disebut nation.

Sedangakan states dapat diartikan menjadi sebuah tempat di mana tempat tersebut  memiliki fungsi utama untuk melindungi kedaulatan bangsa yang ada dalam lingkup wilayahnya yang dipimpin oleh sebuah otoritas yang disebut pemerintah.

Setelah memahami penjelasan diatas kita dapat melangkah lebih jauh ke bahasan selanjutnya. Setelah tadi kita bahas tentang apa nasionalisme itu. Maka bahasan selanjutnya adalh apa dan bagaimana nationalism suatu Negara baik nation-state maupun state-nation bisa terpecah belah. Ada yang berpendapat jika suatu nasionalisme dapat terpecah belah melalui yang disebut Self-determination dan ada yang berpendapat bahwa pecahnya nationalisme itu bisa karena decolonization.

Telah dijelaskan bahwa self-determination dapat membuat nasionalisme suatu negara dapat tepecah belah, namun apa sebenarnya self-determination itu ? ? ?. Self-determination dalam konteks kajian studi ilmu hubungan internasional didefinisikan menjadi suatu hak warga negara untuk menentukan atau dan menyatakan kehidupan mereka sendiri atau tujuan hidup mereka berikutnya yang terkait dengan kemerdekaan wilayah mereka sendiri.

Selain self-determination, decolonization juga dapat menyebabkan terpecah belahnya nasionalisme suatu Negara. Decolonization atau dalam bahasa indonesianya disebut dekolonisasi pengertiannya  menurut kamus besar bahasa Indonesia adalah penghapusan daerah jajahan.[2]

Sedangkan dekolonisasi dalam bahasan konteks studi ilmu hubungan internasional adalah aksi perubahan dari kolonial (jajahan) dengan status merdeka independen atau untuk memungkinkan daearah jajahan (koloni) untuk menjadi merdeka (mandiri) dengan pembentukan pemerintahan yang berwenang.

Dari mulai pertama pertama telah dibahas apa nasionalisme itu dan hal hal yang berkenaan dengan nasionalisme. Namun bagaimanakah wujud nasionalisme sekarang ini dan apakah pengaruhnya terhadap globalisasi sekarang ini?. Pengaruh nasionalisme sekarang ini atau sering disebut dengan nasionalisme kontemporer (Contemporary Nationalism ) terhadap globalisasi adalah bagai mana peran nasionalisme itu sendiri. Apakah nasionalisme itu berperan sebagai dari produk (hasil) dari globalisasi, atau kah nasionalisme kontemporer tersebut merupakan hasil reaksi akibat globalisasi itu sendiri.

Setelah panjang lebar membahas nasionalisme dalam bahasan konteks studi hubungan internasional sebernarnya kita dapat menarik kesimpulan bahwa yang namanya nasionalisme itu sangat amat mempengaruhi actor dalam mencapai tujuannya . Dan dari uraian diatas dapat diatarik kesimpulan bahwa nasionalisme sangat erat kaitannya dengan bagaimana suatu Negara menggunakan national powernya untuk mencapai national interest Negara itu sendiri.











Referensi :
Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia
Knutsen, Torbjorn L. (1997) A History of International Relations Theory, Manchester University Press.Miscevic, Nenad (2001) Nationalism and Beyond, CEU Press.
Halliday, J., (1997) “Nationalism” in Baylis, John & Smith, Steve (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, pp. 359-373.
Myall, J. (1994) “Nationalism in the Study of International Relations”, in Groom, A.J.R. & Light, M., Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory, Pinter, pp. 182-194.
Cederman, Lars-Erick (2002) “Nationalism and Ethnicity” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, Beth Simmons [eds.], Handbook of International Relations, SAGE, pp. 409-428


[1] Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia : nasionalisme
[2] Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia : dekolonisasi

power dalam hubungan internasional




Tugas 5 Pengantar Ilmu Hubungan Internasional
National power merupakan salah satu unsur yang  penting dalam kajian studi ilmu hubungan internasional. Sebelum kita mengetahui apa maksu dari pengertian national power, hendaknya kita lebih dahulu mengetahui apa sebernarnya definisi dari istilah “power” dalam konteks kajian studi ilmu hubungan internasional itu sendiri.
Power dalam konteks kajian studi ilmu hubungan internasional itu sendiri dapat diartikan sebagai sebuah alat (tools) untuk mencapai suatu tujuan. Namun tidak jarang juga power dalam hal ini menjadi tujuan itu sendiri. Dapat disimpulkan dari pengertian diatas power dalam konteks kajian studi ilmu hubungan internasional  adalah sebuah alat dan tujuan dari aktor hubungan internasional itu sendiri.
Dari uraian tersebut maka kita dapat menyimpulkan bahwa national power terdefinisikan sebagai suatu alat dan tujuan aktor hubungan internasional atau dalam hal ini negara  (state actor) secara nasional. Meskipun national power tidak memiliki pengartian yang tepat dan pasti dalam bahasa Indonesia namun istilah yang paling mendekati dai definisi national power adalah kekuasaan negara.
National power dalam konteks kajian studi ilmu hubungan internasional secara garis besar dapat dikategorikan menjadi Hegemony, Superpower, Middle-power dan Low-power menurut range dari national power suatu negara.
Suatu negara digatakan menjadi suatu Hegemony ketika pengaruh negara tersebut memiliki dampak yang signifikan bagi semua negara lain dalam sistem internasional. Super power memiliki definisi yang hampir sama namun tingkat pengaruhnya lebih rendah daripada hegemoni.  Hal tersebut juga berlaku dengan pengertian Superpower, Middle-power namun tingkatannya semakin rendah samapai mencapai Low-power yang memiliki pengaruh paling rendah .Dalam hal ini Amerika Serikat sering digologkan menjadi hegemony, namun banyak yang beranggapan bahwa Amerika Serikat masih termasuk negara super power.
Selain itu national power menurut strategies suatu negara juga dapat dikategorikan menjadi soft power dan hard power meskipun dalam perkembangannya muncul kategori baru yakni smart power. Hard power suatu negara adalah power yang berkaitan dengan kekuatan yang bersifat koersif misal kekuatan militer dan kekuatan ekonomi suatu negara. Sedangkan soft power biasanya meliputi hubungan diplomasi dan pengaruh budaya suatu negara dengan negara lain. Smart power banyak yang mendefinisikan menjadi sebuah national power yang merupakan gabungan kombinasi dari soft power dan hard power. Namun dalam kenyataannya definisi pasti dari smart power sendiri merupakan suatu hal yang belum pasti.
Dalam konteks kajian studi ilmu hubungan internasional, national power dapat diukur melalui tiga cara yaitu Conventional Way, The Composite Capabilities Index (CCI), dan  Index of Relative Political Capacity (RPC). Index of Relative Political Capacity (RPC) adalah suatu index yang dibuat berdasarkan pada kapasitas pemerintah untuk mengekstrak kekayaan dari rakyat dalam bentuk pajak.
 Dalam Conventional Way (cara umum)  ada beberapa indikator dalam mengukur national power suatu negara diantaranya : geografi (Size/Land Mass), sumber daya (Food, Crude Oil Production, Oil Production, Energy Export/Import), populasi (Numbers, Literacy Rates) , kestabilan nasional (Stable, moderate, unstable), kepemimpinan (Strong or weak), kehendak politik High or Low), kapasitas industri (GDP, GNP, Export, Trade Balance), dan kapasitas militer (Military spending, Conventional weapons, non-conventional weapons (nuclear & thermonuclear)).
Sedangkan menurut Composite Capabilities Index (CCI) national power suatu negara dapat diukur dari enam indikator utama yakni 1. pengeluaran militer, 2. tenaga kerja militer, 3. produksi besi & baja, 4. konsumsi bahan bakar komersial, 5. penduduk kota, dan 6. total populasi.
Ada kalanya power dari suatu nation atau national power juga dapat dukur dari bagaimana power tersebut mengontrol terhadap sumber daya, mengontrol terhadap aktor aktor dan mengontrol terhadap kejadian dan hasil akhirnya.
Selain national power juga terdapat juga istilah regional power. Regional power sebenarnya memiliki definisi yang tidak jauh beda dengan national power hanya perbedaannya terletak pada lingkuonya saja. Conoh : jika national power lingkupnya adalah negara (Indonesia), maka regional power linkupnya adalah organisasi regional (ASEAN).
Dalam bahasan national power dalam konteks kajian studi hubungan internasional   terdapat istilah penting yakni exercising power. Exercising power dalam hal ini dapat dilaksanakan dengan beberapa car antara lain : Persuasion, Offering or provisioning of rewards, Threatening with Punishment dan Taking Direct Action or Actual Use of Force.
Dari uraian diatas kita dapat menyimpulkan bahwa national power adalah satu hal yang harus ada dan vital bagi berlangsungya suatu negara. Hal itu dikarenakan national power adalah alat yang digunakan suatu negara dalam mencapai national interestnya. Namun dalam kenyataannya ada kalanya “Power” adalah menjadi tujuan (interest) dari suatu negara.


Referensi :
  • Nye, Joseph,” Hard and Soft Power in Global Information age” in Re-ordering The World, pp:
  • Wilson, Ernest J., (2008) Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power, Sage
  • Wood, Bernard, (1987) Middle Powers in The International System : A Preliminary Assessment of Potential, North-South Institute Ottawa.
  • GIGA Germany, (2007) How to Compare Regional Powers : Analytical Concepts and Research Topics, Hamburg.
  • Huntington, Samuel P., (1999) The Lonely Superpower, US Foreign Affairs.


[1] Hart, Jefrey. (1976). Three Approaches to the Measurement of Power in IR. Internasional Organization, vol 30 no 2, 289-309

National Interest




Tugas 4 Pengantar Ilmu Hubungan Internasional

Dalam studi hubungan internasional, istilah national interest merupakan salah satu hal yang vital  dalam fenomena hubungan internasional. National interest sering digunakan untuk menerangkan kepentingan nasional, atau dalam hal ini national interest lebih diartikan sebagai  garis besar tentang apa yang ingin diraih serta motivasi suatu negara untuk mencapai semua tujuan negaranya di mata internasional.

Interaksi antar aktor aktor hubungan internasional (aktor negara dan non negara) yang menyebabkan penggunaan power (kekuasaan) dalam hal ini national power mereka untuk menjaga atau mendapatkan sesuatu yang dianggap aktor aktor tersebut penting. Dan hal yang penting tersebut adalah gambaran atau definisi dari national interest.

Ada beberapa definisi national dari beberapa ahli diantaranya Duke Henri de Rohan, Hans Morgenthau, Michael G.Roskin. Menurut Duke Henri de Rohan National Interest adalah aspirasi dari individu yang dimunculkan melalui perhitungan rasional dan dengan kebijaksanaan lalu  menerapkannya pada tujuan dan tindakan suatu negara. Sedangkan menurut Hans Morgenthau national interest adalah perlindungan atau proteksi dan ekspansi dari suatu negara dengan mengatas namakan rakyatnya. Kemudian Menurut Michael G. Roskin National Interest adalah apa yang baik untuk suatu negara secara utuh dalam berhubungan secara internasional.

Dewasa ini memang masih banyak yang bingung membedakan national interest dengan tujuan negara. Padahal perbedaan antar keduanya merupakan hal yang sangat jelas. Mudahnya National interest ada karena untuk mencapai suatu negara, dan national interest merupakan pengerucutan dari tujuan suatu negara. Dan dari national interest tersebut maka dibuatlah kebiajakan luar negeri (foreign policy) yang merupakan hal hal yang bersifat kongkrit untuk mencapai national interest. Jadi dapat disimpulkan tujuan negara harus ada terlebih dahulu, kemudian untuk mewujudkan tujuan negara dibuatlah national interest, dan dari national interest lalu dibuat hal hal yang kongkrit untuk mewujudkannya yaitu kebijakan luar negeri (foreign policy).

National interest menurut Hartman dapat diidentifikasi menjadi Vital National Interests dan Secondary Interests. Vital national interest menurut Hartman adalah those for which a state is normally willing to fight immediately or ultimately; protection of territorial existence & preservation of massive loss of face. Sedangkan Secondary interest menurut Hartman merupakan interest whose cover all the myriad desires of individual states that they would like to attain but for which they will not fight

Sedangkan menurut pendapat Robinson yang didasarkan oleh pemikiran Morgenthau national interest dapat digolongkan menurut importance, duration dan generality. Secara primacy national interest digolongkan sebagai primer (vital, legitimate, hardcore, necessary) dan sekunder (material, limited interests). Secara tingkat durasi (duration) national interest digolongkan menjadi permanen dan temporary (valuable interest). Sedangkan menurut specificity digolongkan menjadi General Interests dan Specific Interests.

National Interest tidak dapat muncul dengan sendirinya. Untuk itu maka diperlukan Maker motivation dalam memunculkan National Interest. Maker motivation adalah suatu hal yang menjadi motif dalam melakukan kepentingan nasional. Secara umum maker motivation dari national interest suatu negara dapat digolongkan menjadi ideologi, individu, strategi, dan ekonomi.

Kenyataannya national interest suatu negara tidak selalu muncul dari kepentingan (interest) orang banyak atau dalam hal ini common interest. Tapi ada kalanya national interest suatu negara dapat berasal dari kepentingan individu atau self interest, ataupun bisa jadi muncul dari kepentingan kelompok atau group interest. Semua hal tersebut bisa terjadi karena sistem pemerintahan negara yang ada di dunia berbeda beda sehingga tata cara dalam menentukan suatu national interest suatu negara berbeda beda pula.

Adapun fungsi dari national interest itu sendiri adalah sebagai panduan bagi para pemimpin dalam melakukan hubungan luar negeri dan patokan untuk mengevaluasi kinerja pemerintah dalam melakukan hubungan luar negeri.

Selain itu, fungsi dasar dari national interest suatu negara sebenarnya adalah untuk mempertahankan keberlangsungan dan eksistensi suatu negara. Oleh karena itu, national interest meliputi banyak sekali sektor seperti ekonomi, militer, politik, dan lain lain.

Pada akhirnya pencapaian national interest akan menunjukkan peran, kekuatan, dampak dan pengaruh negara dalam sistem internasional. Kekuatan dan pengaruh tersebut dapat muncul dari beberapa macam sektor hal antara lain budaya, militer, ekonomi, dan politik. Sektor sektor tersebut merupakan sektor paling fundamental dari national interest suatu negara.

Referensi:
  • Sitepu, Anthonius P. 2011. Studi Hubungan Internasional. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.
  • Drs R. Soeprapto. 1997. Hubungan Internasional: Sistem, Interaksi, dan perilaku. Jakarta:PT.RajaGrafindo Persada.

Aktor Aktor Hubungan Internasional


Tugas 3 Pengantar Ilmu Hubungan Internasional

Dalam studi ilmu hubungan internasonal terdapat berbagai macam aktor yang terlibat dalam fenomena  hubungan internasional dalam era globalisasi seperti saat ini. Dan tidak dapat dipungkiri jikalau aktor aktor tersebut memiliki peran yang berbeda dalam hubungan internasional dewasa ini. Memang pada mulanya pemerintahan suatu negara dianggap satu satunya aktor yang terlibat dalam hubungan internasional. Tapi dewasa ini aktor aktor non negara juga berperan aktif dalam hubungan internasional meskipun peran utama dalam hubungan internasional masih dipegang oleh pemerintahan suatu negara.

Secara garis besar, aktor aktor yang turut berperan dalam hubungan internasional dapat dibagi menjadi dua kelompok besar yaitu aktor negara atau state actor yang contohnya: pemerintahan berdaulat suatu negara dan aktor non- pemerintah atau non- state actor macam Individu, MNC/ TNC (perusahaan multinasional), NGO (organisasi non- pemerintah nasional), IGO (organisasi non- pemerintah internasional) , Ethno-nationalist group, Religious movement Terroris, dan lain lain

Peran aktor negara memang masih dominan dalam hubungan internasional dewasa ini. Peran tersebut dapat dilihat dari bagaimana kebijakan luar negeri negara tersebut. Kebijakan luar negeri itu dapat mencakup kebijakan politik, ekonomi, pendidikan, pertahanan dan keamanan dan lain sebagainya dalam menjalin hubungan intenasional dengan negara lain di seluruh penjuru dunia.

Konsep state actor atau aktor negara yang berperan dalam hubungan internasional dan sistem internasional dalam hal ini adalah pemerintah berdaulat suatu negara, pertama kali muncul pada saat perjanjian perdamaian Wesphalia pada tahun 1684. Perjanjian perdamaian Westphalia dianggap sebagai suatu peristiwa Hukum Internasional modern yang mendasari terbentuknya  negara-negara secara nasional. Hal itu dikarenakan sebabnya adalah :

  1. Selain mengakhiri perang 30 tahun, Perjanjian Westphalia telah meneguhkan perubahan dalam peta politik yang  terjadi karena perang tersebut di Eropa .
  2. Hubungan antara negara-negara didasarkan atas kepentingan nasional negara itu masing-masing dan dilepaskan dari persoalan hubungan kegerejaan.
  3. Dalam perjanjian Westphalia, kemerdekaan negara Belanda, Swiss dan negara-negara kecil di Jerman diakui
Sebelumnya telah dijelaskan bahwa selain aktor negara, dewasa ini aktor aktor non- negara juga mengambil peranan yang penting dalam era globalisasi saat ini. Aktor-aktor non negara ini secara garis besar terdiri dari aktor individu dan aktor organisasional. Aktor aktor ter sebut diantaranya  :

  • Individu
Pengaruh individu hubungan politik internasional lebih diutamakan untuk dilihat dari pernyataan opini publik, kebijakan-kebijakan, dan pernyataan pendapat yang memiliki dampak terhadap sistem internasional.

  • Multinational Corporation
Secara umum MNC juga dikenal sebagai Transnational Corporations (TNC). MNC merupakan sebuah korporasi yang pusat operasinya berada di dalam sebuah negara dan beroperasi pada banyak negara. Oleh karena itu Multinational Corporation juga memegang peranan penting sebagai aktor dalam hubungan internasional.

  • Non Governmental Organization
Organisasi ini secara sukarela memberikan pelayanan kepada masyarakat umum tanpa bertujuan untuk memperoleh keuntungan dari kegiatannya dan merupakan organisasi yang didirikan oleh perorangan ataupun sekelompok orang.

  • International Governmental Organization
Merupakan organisasi internasional yang beranggotakan negara-negara. Organisasi ini  mempunyai tujuan yang sama dari negara-negara anggotanya dan berlandaskan kepada piagam atau charter.

  • Ethno-Nationalist group
Sebagai salah satu aktor dalam hubungan internasional, peranannya tidak dilihat dari pergerakan mereka dalam mencapai tujuan, tapi lebih dilihat dari hubungan yang mereka kembangkan dengan negara-negara lain untuk kepentingan mencari sumber-sumber persenjataan dan dana.  Contoh  : ANC di afrika, vietcong di Vietnam, RMS di Indonesia.

  • Religious Movement
Adalah suatu gerakan atau organisasi-organisasi religius yang banyak mempengaruhi keputusan-keputusan atau kebijakan-kebijakan negara yang mengarah kepada moral majority dan juga religious policy.

  • Gerakan Terorisme
Secara umum tujuan dari pergerakan terorisme sangat beraneka ragam. Tujuan tersebut antara lain termasuk mengganti sistem sosial, kemerdekaan politik, perebutan kekuasaan dari sebuah negara, dan lain lain

Dari uraian di atas dapat disimpulkan bahwa dalam fenomena hubungan internasional dewasa ini pemerintahan berdaulat suatu Negara atau dalam hal ini state actor atau aktor Negara tidak hanya menjadi satu satunya aktor yang berperan. Namun, peran aktor aktor non Negara atau disini non state aktor juga semakin signifikan dalam hubungan internasional di era globalisasi sekarang ini. Dan setiap aktor aktor tersebut miliki motif dan tujuan yang beraneka ragam dalam hubungan internasional di sistem internasional pada era globalisasi saat ini.


Referensi:
·         Minix, Dean A. & Hawley, Sandra M. (1998) Global Politics, West/Wadsworth, chap 3-4
·         Henderson, Conway W. (1998) International Relations, Conflict and Cooperation at The Turn of Century, Mc Graw Hill International Editions, Chap.3
·         Willets, Peter (2001) “Transnational Actors and the Study of International Organizations in Global Politics” in Bayliss, John & Smith, Steve (eds) (2001) The Globalization of World Politics, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, Chap.17
·         Herz, John H (1999) “The Territorial State Revisited: Reflections on The Future of The Nations State, William, Phill&Goldsetein, Donald M, &Shafritz, Jay M. (eds) (1999) Classic Readings of International Relations, 2nd Edition, Harcourt Brace College Publishing, pp. 119-130.
·         Mansbach, Richard, et al “ Towards a New Conseptualization of Global Politics, The Emergence and Disappearance of Actors” in Wiliam, Phill & Goldstein, Donald M. & Shafritz, Jay, M. (eds.,) (1999) Classic Readings of International Relations, 2nd Edition, Harcourt Brace College Publishing, pp. 191-202
·         Kegley, Charles W. Jr., & Wittkopf, Eugene r., (1997) World Politics, Trend, and Transformation, 2nd edition, St. Martin Press

perkembangan ilmu hubungan internasional

Tugas 2 Pengantar Ilmu Hubungan Internasional

Salah satu manfaat dari pentingnya mempelajari ilmu hubungan internasional adalah untuk lebih memberikan sumbangan pemikiran untuk ikut berperan serta secara nasional maupun internasional pada era globalisasi, studi HI memainkan peranan yang memungkinkannya menjebatani interseksi dan kolaborasi ilmu-ilmu sosial dalam sebuah paradigma global.

Hal tersebut dimungkinkan karena studi ilmu hubungan internasional atau yang dikenal juga dengan nama IR (International Relations) adalah suatu studi ilmu yang mengacu pada berbagai bidang seperti ilmu politik, ekonomi, sejarah, hukum internasional, filsafat, geografi, kerja sosial, sosiologi, antropologi, psikologi, kajian wanita / studi gender, dan studi budaya / culturology. Dan akhirnya ilmu hubungan internasional melibatkan beragam masalah termasuk tetapi tidak terbatas pada: globalisasi, negara kedaulatan, keamanan internasional, keberlanjutan ekologis, proliferasi nuklir, nasionalisme, perkembangan ekonomi, keuangan global, terorisme, kejahatan terorganisir, keamanan manusia, intervensi asing dan hak asasi manusia.

Akan tetapi ilmu hubungan internasional tidak langsung menjadi suatu disiplin interdimensional seperti sekarang ini. Melainkan melalui serangkaian perkembangan yang melalui jalan yang amat panjang sehingga menjadi seperti saat ini.

Banyak yang beranggapan perkembangan sejarah ilmu hubungan internasional (ir) berawal dari perjanjian Westphalia pada tahun 1648, ketika pada saat itu sistem negara modern pertama kali  dikembangkan. Perjanjian Westphalia mengatur tentang pembentukan konsep legal tentang kedaulatan, yang pada dasarnya para penguasa, atau kedaulatan-kedaulatan yang sah tidak akan mengakui pihak-pihak lain yang memiliki kedudukan yang sama dalam batas-batas kedaulatan wilayah yang sama.

Selain itu momentum yang dianggap paling berpengaruh terhadap terbentuknya studi hubungan Internasional (IR) adalah Perang Dunia I.  Pada tahun 1914, negara-negara utama di daratan Eropa terlibat perang besar, yang melibatkan setidaknya 19 negara. Lebih 40 juta jiwa (militer dan penduduk sipil) terbunuh dalam perang ini.  Empat dinasti besar (OttomanHabsburgRomanov, dan Hohenzollern) yang telah berkuasa sejak perang Salib mengalami keruntuhan. Untuk pertama kalinya dalam perkembangan sejarah modern, senjata-senjata pemusnah massal juga diterapkan dalam perang ini, dengan penggunaan senjata kimia.

Kerusakan yang sangat besar bagi kemanusiaan telah memotivasi para negarawan dan ahli ilmu sosial untuk berpikir kembali tentang tatanan hubungan antarnegara.  Pertanyaan besarnya adalah mengapa negara-negara di dunia nyaris gagal hidup berdampingan dalam perdamaian? Sejak  itulah muncullah cikal bakal dari permulaan ilmu hubungan internasional yang dianggap sebagai solusi untuk memecahkan persoalan tersebut.

Secara resmi, ilmu hubungan internasional (IR) mulai terbentuk pada tahun 1918, yang ditandai dengan berdirinya Chair of International Relations – Woodrow Wilson Chair at Aberystwyth, University of Wales.  Namun, proses pembentukan tersebut tidak lahir begitu saja.  Terdapat perkembangan yang amat panjang yang membuat para negarawan dan ahli ilmu sosial termotivasi untuk menjadikan bidang studi ini sebagai disiplin ilmu mandiri.

Di Indonesia sendiri khususnya di Universitas Airlangga hubungan Internasional (IR) mengalami perkembangan yang juga amat sangat panjang. Pertumbuhan dan perkembangan Internasional (IR) Universitas Airlangga  tersebut dapat dijelaskan sebagai berikut : 

  • Secara de facto Program Studi Ilmu Hubungan Internasional berdiri tanggal 3 September 1982, sedang pendirian secara resminya tertanggal 24 September 1984 dengan SK Direktorat Jendral Pendidikan Tinggi Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia. Program studi ini bernaung di bawah Jurusan Ilmu Politik, Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik Universitas Airlangga.
  • Melahirkan lulusan S1 pertama dari Program Studi Hubungan Internasional pada tahun 1986
  • Lahirnya Pusat Kajian Masalah Organisasi Internasional pada tahun 1993
  • Lahirnya Jurnal Hubungan Internasional di tahun 2001
  • Perubahan status Unair menjadi BHMN mengakibatkan Program Studi Hubungan Internasional mulai menerima jumlah mahasiwa baru di atas 50 mahasiswa per angkatan dengan dibukanya jalur PMDK Umum di tahun 2003
  • Sejak tanggal 1 September 2004 Jurusan/Program Studi Ilmu Hubungan Internasional terpisah dari Jurusan Ilmu Politik dengan turunnya Surat Keputusan Rektor Universitas Airlangga Nomor: 44446/J03/KP/2004 tertanggal 1 September 2004. Sejak itu diangkatlah Ketua Jurusan dan Sekretaris Jurusan Ilmu Hubungan Internasional.
  • Lahirnya Roadmap 2020 pada tahun 2005
  • Departemen Hubungan Internasional memperoleh Akreditasi A pada tahun 2006
  • Memperoleh Program Hibah A3 sebesar 2, 2 miliar pada tahun 2007
  • Lahirnya Jurnal Global & Strategis pada tahun 2007
  • Perubahan Jurusan Hubungan Internasional menjadi Departemen Hubungan Internasional di tahun 2008
  • Dimulainya program peminatan S1 mulai 2009
  • Mulai dibukanya program Magister (S2) pada tahun 2010
Kesimpulannya studi hubungan internasional (IR) merupakan studi yang mampu menjebatani interseksi dan kolaborasi ilmu-ilmu sosial dalam menykapi globalisasi. Selain itu ilmu hubungan internasional berkembang dati awalnya sekedar solusi agar perang tidak terjadi menjadi suatu ilmu yang interdisipliner untuk menyikapi bagaimana hubungan antar Negara dalam era globalisasi saat ini.






Referensi :
  1. Dept. Hub. Internasional., Roadmap Pengembangan Departemen Hubungan Internasional
  2. Schmidt, Brian C., (2002) “On the History and Historiography of International Relations,” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, Beth Simmons [eds.], Handbook of International Relations, SAGE.
  3. Jackson, R., &. Sorensen, G. (1999) Introduction to International Relations, Oxford University Press.
  4. http://hiunair.com/department/milestone
  5. http://www.fisip.unair.ac.id/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=35&Itemid=106

Thieftheodore Search Engine

About me

anda adalah pengunjung ke

Counter Powered by  RedCounter

Template Brought by :

blogger templates