what does realism exclude from the study of international relations?
957384
Realism an inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism?  Is that your understanding of the word?\nIf so, I would hope it excludes wishful thinking.  \nThat seems to be the driving force in our Iraq policy.\nEdit - \nA little extra, maybe the root  of the question.\nRealism promotes short-term gain, often at the expense of long-term security.\nhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009239\n\nAfter reading this I should change my answer.
395938
The current major debate in international relations theory is that between Neorealism and Neoliberalism. The Neorealists believe that the international order is one that is based on anarchy and states are the chief actors. The main goal of states is security and self-preservation and their chief object is power or the balance of power.\n\nNeoliberals believe that states are the chief actors but they claim that there are grounds for states to cooperate, mainly through international institutions and also through a claim called the Democratic Peace Theory - that democracies tend not to fight other democracies. Furthermore, they say that hard power - or military power - is not the only thing that states focus on.
174755
Well, war has always existed, it's a mean for states to expand their area of influence and to assume their security.  However, I do not understand why it is still a common occurrence.  Plenty of international mechanisms have been implemented to regulate relations between states which could resolve conflicts before they are carried on physically.  The bad faith some states constantly demonstrate put a strain on these organization (i.e. UN did not support the war in Irak but the US still carried on)\n\nBut the problem lies deeper, it's intolerance that is at the root of most wars.  States today do not carry wars for expansion (most of the time) but rather to impose their view on others that do not have the same lifestyle.  \n\nPart of the solution would be to allow every states to sit on the UN council whether it is considered democratic or not.  It would also be necessary to allow all ethnicity to use their native languages and practice their culture as long as it does not infringe others liberties.  Some regions of the world are not suited to become democracies, at least not yet, and it is something that westerners have to accept.   Maybe the common denominator should be that everyone should accept that the Western ways are not the absolute best and we should stop to impose them on unwilling populations.
499958
I would argue that it wasn't.  But it certainly was more theoretical.  Marx version never had to be tested in the trenches of reality.  Whenever communism has been lived out (Leninism, Maoism, etc), it has always led to disaster: either mass poverty or mass violence, or a combination of both.  Marx' approach has never had to be tested, since one can always claim that it was the fault of lenin or Stalin or Mao or whoever that it didn't work.  The reality is that it never really works.
760834
Maybe you should redefine your subject. Diplomacy requires multilateralism. No progress towards consensus occurs without it. Two nations may have apparently very unilateral foreign policies adverse to one another, but the moment they conduct any diplomacy even those policies become multilateral or they will likely make no progress in any negotiations.
723092
No.  Can't think that self-actualization came into play in that war.  Perhaps safety needs were the main focus for those that were fighting.
1103857
yes such as?? it is simply the study of political systems in relativity either with one another or versus some hypothetical.
559119
Yes, because it certainly isn't the first cold war. England and France had numerous little cold wars in the late 1700's and early 1800s. The only way to avoid it is to remove superpowers, but since that isn't possible, the answer is no. Why are you complaining? If the cold war didn't happen and finish the way it did, we'd probably be living in a communist world.
531084
You can't, because conflict is sometimes a positive force.  Look at the revolutionary war.
17549
have faith in humanities willingness to survive, the depletion of fossil fuels is but a bump in the road, we may get a flat tire but surely the wheel will survive. Humanities ingenuity is probably its only saving grace. I would be more worried about the current state of international politics in regaurds to humanities ability to exist anywhere.....
78279
No ICBMs, just a lot of cat and mouse play. The closest was the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nothing happened.
1135533
no war can ever really be justified ,unless youre invaded and have to defend yourself.\nbut this does not deter politicians who can justify everything including ,genocide
1056216
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States
1006922
NO IT CAN'T, BUT THE POLITICAL SIDE OF THE UNITED NATIONS CAN SHOW HOW FREE IT IS, BY SIMPLY ALLOWING PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY OF DIFFERENT IDEAS TO THINK ABOUT WITHOUT INTERUPTING.EXAMPLE IF YOU CHOSE H3LL FINE IT DOES'NT MEAN ANYONE ELSE CREATED IT FOR YOU.THAT'S ALSO LIKE SAYING IF YOUR READING YOUR BIBLE AND YOU WIND-UP AT THE PEARLY GATES IT DOES'NT NECESARILY MEAN YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE IS DEAD, OR ALL ANGLES...DIFFERENT TIPS FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS.
723160
-It is "forgotten", because\n-It happened so far away from America\n-It was not as covered by the media as other wars\n-It was not officially a war, but rather a United Nations Policing Action\n\nHope this helps
96510
People say it does not exist:\nhttp://www.routledge-ny.com/ref/developingworld/model.html\n\nPeople trying to model:\nhttp://www.iwgvt.org/files/04Olsen.doc\n\nI saw a better and easier model before but couldnt find it sorry. Try searching Political economy class notes or reading lists.
513144
War is not the answer.