World war 1 left leaders and ordinary ppl aghast. The balance of power- the relative equality of strength among all the contending major states and the shifting alliances to preserve equilibrium when one state threatened to become dangerous- had provided a very substantial degree of peace in Europe since the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. That system was violently upset by a war that lasted four years and left 9 million soldiers dead. Many, perhaps foremost among them U.
S. president Woodrow Wilson, concluded that the balance-of-power system was fatally flawed and a new world order had to be constructed. These ppl became known as idealists because they had a vision, or ideal, of how a new and peaceful world order might be constructed. The idealists supported the formation of the League of Nations and other institutions of international law, hoping to build a system of collective^1^2’In otu”A security in which democratic nations to defeat unjust aggression.
The events leading to World War 2, however, disillusioned many of the idealists. Democracy was overthrown ” IE. – in Germany, Italy, Spain, and elsewhere. The United States never joined the League. The US and members of the League failed to band ” Aao”I together against the fascists and Nazis until it was almost too late. After WWII, ppl once again vowed that global wars must b prevented.
Idealists supported the creation of a new globalization – the United Nations (UN), to replace the League of Nations, again they emphasized the benefits of collective security and the rule of international law, which limited countries! actions. US joined this time, became a member, may because have leaned a lesson, would cooperate. They continued to trust in democratic forms of government, which respected individual rights, and they hoped that the s[read of democracy would lead to more peaceful relations among states. These ppl, many of them intellectual descendants of the idealists, are often called liberals. Their faith in human progress and social harmony was extended to the! ^0 social of states! +/-, an arena where institutions and other linkages between states could facilitate and promote cooperation, coordination and nonviolent modes of conflict resolution. Liberals believe they are already much more that some distant! ^0 ideal! +/-.
... suffered substantial life loss and casualty. Those wars included World War 1, World War 2, the Korean War and Vietnam. Did Australia have to involve ... not respect the neutrality of Belgium. In the first world war, Australian soldiers participated in some of the bloodiest and ... so we could play the willing accomplice to the United States, or previously, to Britain? However, under whose control would ...
Realists! ais more sceptical. According to realism! athe central approach since ages! appl are self-interested and selfish and seek or dominate others. They cant be depended on to cooperate, and if they do cooperate, they will stop when it no longer serves their immediate interests. The view of human relations is extended to relations be tw states. They consider nation-states by far the most important actors in world politics, with international organisation like the UN only as important as their most powerful members wish them to be. States are assumed to be national, unitary actors pursuing essentially the same goals of national interest, regardless of their form of government or type of economic organization.
According to realists, a system of competing nation-states is basically an anarchic system; literally a system without a government or ruling authority. States struggled with one another for power, must look out for their own interests, and ultimately depend upon! ^0 self-help! +/-; they cannot appeal to some higher authority to ensure their national security. World Politics- the menu for choice 6 th edition by Bruce Russet t, Harvey Starr, David Kinsella.