1) Choose one type of non-state actor (MNC, NGO etc.

) and compare and contrast the power of that type of organization with that of nation-states in the contemporary world. Multinational companies have been a subject of argument in political theories for over a decade due to their increase in power. Realists would argue that MNCs are not accredited to have a say in international relations; neorealist agree the same way with the difference being their understanding of power which can be in terms of influence. However the main political theory that proclaims that MNCs are as equal to states is liberalism, where it is viewed that they have an equivalent say as to states in world politics and can be observed throughout history. For example, the earliest MNC is the East India Company owned by the British Empire where it had stationed in numerous countries in the Netherlands, the Americas, China and Southeast Asia. The company was viewed as a national treasure due to them turning it into a political administrative unit used by the British to govern India. MNCs like Nike in todays globalized world can have a huge say on internal political policies of states, because the state can benefit just as much as Nike can. Nike will import a foreign direct investment plan onto a state for example Indonesia and that will benefit both parties immensely. It will offer jobs for Indonesians and Nike will benefit by acquiring cheap labour. It will also promote the research and development of Indonesians economy, where they will learn and extract the technology imported from the West and practices it on sectors in the economy. Nike would also be paid by the Indonesian government in terms of a licensing fee which could be worth billions of dollars if they choose to invest in Indonesias economy, where that could only be the beginning, if relations between both parties grow strongly, Indonesia will only use Nikes sport equipment in every sport instead of using Adidas or Reebok, Nikes competitors. Nikes strength and power can also mean that they can influence the national policies of states just as in our example of Indonesia, Nike has exploited their perk of having cheap labour to an extreme level yet due to the revenue that the Indonesian government acquire from them, they are not focusing too much on the problem, where the international community has witnessed Nikes sweat shops. Indonesia are not pursuing to solve this problem because they are going to threaten their relationship with Nike and assuming how Nike does have influence over national decisions, the Indonesian government could be dependent on them and would not wish for Nike to disband their factory and relocate to another country which will in a realist sense be seen to Indonesias threat in terms of the theory of security dilemma. In conclusion, most MNCs would operate in conditions which will be beneficial to them, regardless of them having a realist or liberal political philosophy, and if those conditions are altered or could be subject to change, that MNC would either pack up or leave or find a way keep the conditions as they are or if possible make them even better.

2) What is anarchy? How does the assumption of anarchy effect the proposal of cooperation? Compare and contrast how the Realists, Liberalists and Social Constructivists see anarchy and its effects/consequences. Define anarchy: no higher authority than the state Realists: anarchy does not equal chaos, states are in competition. Security dilemma Liberals: IOs organize international systems, promote peace for economic benefits. As well as it improves international relations Constructivists: anarchy is what states make of it. Only anarchy if you want it to be To understand the state of anarchy, one must recognize political history, in which before nation-states there was first a classical model of empires. The imperial system, where there was a central authority in the periphery in which controlled the peoples of an area. This later turned to the second political phase the Feudal system during medieval times; this was the idea of people being tied to the land and the land owner, through loyalty and belonging. This meant that the landowner had sovereign rights over that person. The problem was that loyalties kept changing throughout time with the movement of property and feudal lords. This is when the concept of nation-states arose, entities governing people, in which they need to be accepted by the people, causing them to be recognized. This meant that the problem of the use of force wouldnt exist if the people didnt recognize the legitimate use of force and the recognition of the government, and then there would also be no recognition of the monopoly of the use of force. Now with the recognition of the international community of legitimacy, this allows power and everyone within the sovereign state territories, the inhabitants, the rules of the state apply no matter what nationality they are. This loyalty does not change and neither does the peripheries. States recognize state sovereign, set by the institutions, and with state cooperation, this brings up the state of anarchy where there is no superior sovereign state. All states are seen as equal, in which there is no interference, no state can control over another states territories or control states behaviour. This is seen as the Westphalian system, a mechanism in which stops countries from doing whatever they want. The state of anarchy is based on a self-defence system; this means with the absence of a superior government overlooking everything, each state must have their own self-help system. With the main goal of each state is to merely survive in an anarchical world, realists believe that no other states can be relied upon to help guarantee the state's survival. Liberals believe that in the international system there are many actors, not only states, such as IGOs, NGOs, MNCs and even individuals are all actors. Whereas, realism assumes that sovereign states, are the primary actors in international affairs. Thus realists see a problem, states, as the highest order, are in competition with one another. Whereas liberals see that states cooperate with one another decreasing the amount of anarchy for their self-interest; it sees a community of states which communicate with one another creating human-links with the idea of rationality. On the other hand realists see states acting as a rational independent actor in pursuit of its own self-interest with a primary goal to maintain and ensure its own securityand thus its sovereignty and survival. Realism holds that in pursuit of their interests, states will attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are determined by their relative levels of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state's military, economic, and political capabilities. This is the problem with the

self-help system, power issues, and self-interest causing expansion of a state into other states to ensure their power. Making it extremely unstable and extremely dangerous. Realists see that institutions are merely based on a power hierarchy, so they are not important as they only mirror the state power hierarchy, whereas liberals see it optimistically, with cooperation, peace will be attained.

3) What is the Peace of Westphalia? What is its significance for those who study international relations? What significance does it hold for those wishing to study international organization and global governance? The Peace of Westphalia that ended the war marked a turning point in European history. Conflicts fought over religious faith ended. The treatise recognized the sovereign independent authority of more than 300 German princes. After the treaty of Westphalia the Holy Roman Empire remained a loosely knit federation. The emperor had to share the power with the princes. The peace agreement acknowledged the independence of the United Provinces of the Netherlands. France acquired the United Province of Alsace. Swedes received a large cash indemnity and jurisdiction over German territories. The agreement also denied the papacy the right to participate in central European religious affairs. In religion the Peace of Westphalia made the Aubsgurb agreement permanent with the sole modification that Calvinism along with Catholicism and Lutheranism would be a legally permissible creed. The north German states remained Protestant and the south German states Catholic. The Thirty Years' War was the most destructive event for the central European economy and society prior to the 20th century. One third of urban residents and two fifths of the rural population died. Entire areas were depopulated by warfare by the flight of refuges and by disease. Typhus, dysentery, bubonic plague and syphilis accompanied the movements of armies. Because the Thirty Years' War was fought on German soil, the empire experienced untold losses in agricultural land, livestock, trade and commerce. All of Europe was experiencing severe inflation due to influx of Spanish silver but the destruction of land and foodstuffs made the price rise worse in central Europe than anywhere else. Agricultural suffered greatly. After the war the nobles prospered because they bought the land of failed small farmers. Other areas prospered from the refugees they attracted. It officially ended the Thirty Years' War, which marked the end of the Holy Roman Empire. Essentially, it ended the old system of the Holy Roman Empire and brought in the modern European state system - creating the basis for the modern international system of independent states. In addition, the Swiss Confederation and the Netherlands were formally recognized as independent states. Furthermore, religious warfare came to an end, establishing religious tolerance in Europe. Four main principles from the treaty: 1The principle of the sovereignty of nation-states and the concomitant fundamental right of political self-determination; 2the principle of (legal) equality between nation-states; 3the principle of internationally binding treaties between states; 4the principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of other states. In fact, it marked the beginning of an international community of law between sovereign states of equal legal standing, guaranteeing each other their independence and the right of their peoples to political self-determination. The two most innovative principles being proclaimed were the principle of sovereignty and the principle of equality among nations. In short, the Peace of Westphalia believed that there is nothing more important than the sovereignty of states.

4) Briefly explain the main reasons that states choose to act through international organizations. Explain how these motives vary depending on the issues areas that organizations may address More help from numerous nation states Validate the conditions that a member states must abide by International cooperation

5) Marxists argue that capitalism drives imperialism. Identify some reasons that support this argument and explain. What do Marxists theorists argue that foreign policy decisions are driven by? Marxist theory is a critical theory developed by the ideas of the two philosophers, Hegel and Marx. They believe that societies are split into two groups; bourgeoisie and proletariat. Eventually a civil war or a revolution will erupt from the hands of the proletariat and create a utopian society where every individual is equal and serves the interest of the state which is a reflection of the interests of the people. Marxist argues that the bourgeoisie (those who own the factors of production) whom are capitalists are taking advantage of the proletariat (wage workers and managers who sell their labor for a salary). The idea that capitalism drives imperialism is due to capitalism promotes cooperation, and many of the strong Western economies have multi-billion dollar MNCs where they are able to influence weak economic countries to benefit themselves. A good example is Nikes factories in South East Asian countries. Marxists argue against the MNCs of the West where they have an abundance of them and thus these companies can influence numerous countries for the benefit of the home country creating a hypothetical and economical imperialistic system. Marx believes that capitalism will collapse due to three assumptions: concentration of capital, overproduction, and falling rate of profit. It was the ideas of Lenin, the founder of the Bolshevik Party in the USSR who argued that Marx had predicted that capitalism would eventually drive imperialism. In his book, The Highest Stage of Capitalasim, Lenin argues that the contradictions of capitaliasm: overproduction, underconsumption and oversaving. Lenin believes that these contradictions were temporarily resolved by the colonial expansion of capitalist states. He argues that the expansion of capitalism through colonialism contributes to economic development internationally. Thus capitalist power leads to economic instability, political conflict and war. Realist would argue that uneven growth rates casue shifts in the balance of power and that can lead to war. however Lenin emphasizes the underlying economic causes of conflict whereas realist stress the political causes. Dependency theory http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxism_class/message/202

6) Select one of the theoretical schools discussed in the lectures/readings (realism, liberalism, Marxism, social constructivism, or critical theory). How does this approach see the prospect of cooperation within the international environment? What (according to them) are the main obstacles to cooperation in international relations? Under a realist approach, a state will not upheld any action if it is not for its own benefit and regarding the problem of the internatioanal environment problem, it is highly unlikely for any realist state to do such an action to help others, due to this contraicting the entire aspect of realist thought.

7) Reconnaissance satellites made peaceful relations between the United States and the USSR possible by giving each major power a way to gauge a way to gauge the others military and economic capabilities. How does this statement fit the rational decision-making model?