World politics involve states and nations coming up together with organizations and agencies that cannot be understood independently. In order to understand world politics, we need to grasp the domestic structures that are defined by the ordering of principles. World politics are different and specific in functionality and capabilities and are distributed in the units. Nowadays, some political systems are aimed at giving commands while others obey the commands. World politics are created by some group of self-regarding political units in some period or scale such as empires, cities, and nations. World political systems are differentiated by nations or states’ power, which could be seen as anarchy with disorder and chaos without peace.
Synthesis of the Central Arguments of each Readings
The Melian dialogue involves some accounts of the confrontation that happened in 416 to 415 BC among the Athenians and individuals of Melos. Melos constitutes a small island that is found in the Southern Aegean Sea. The Athenians had the intention of conquering Melos Island in order to intimidate the Spartans. The dialogue in this reading is not the ethics of eventual execution; rather it concerns the Melian’s reply to Athenians first demand that the Melos should submit. In the dialogue, the Athenians give Melians some ultimatum, which is to surrender and send acknowledgment to Athens or otherwise they will be destroyed. On the other side, the Melians argue that they are the neutral city and they are not enemies. Therefore, Athens has no basis of crushing them. The Athenians goes ahead to counter that and points out that they will look weak if they recognize the Melian’s impartiality and sovereignty. The Melian dialogue opened the various arguments about morality of finishing Melos. The arguments involved whether or not the finishing of Melos was a compassionate act.
The second reading, six principles of political realism, points out that politics, just like a society, is quite governed by the objective laws that have roots in the human nature and it is unchanging. Therefore, it is possible to create any rational theory that reflects such objective laws. The reading also points out the chief signpost of political realism, which is the view of interest demand stated in conditions of control that refuses the coherent order into the area under discussion of politics. So, it makes the theoretical understandings possibly easy. Political realism stresses the rational, objective, and unemotional issues (Morgenthau, 1978). In the reading, the author assumes that the nature of a man is constant and that the objective political law emerges from such nature. He simply means that the law of nature acts in creating way and various groups also acts in accordance with such laws. The reading also points out sensible political theory that it must start with some essential character of man, and this is because challenging them is trying to run the risk of failure. Moreover, this reading appeals to the facts and separating out the objective truths from that which is subjective. The author of the reading seems to recognize and state that the realist does take the facts and also makes sense them via reasons (Morgenthau, 1978).
The third reading involves, “what’s the matter with realism?” The reading points out that realism shall be regarded as one of the significant paradigm amongst the IR approaches, which is problematic in various respects. The shortcomings of the paradigm are quite significant. It involves state primitives celebrating the fundamental change in international politics and the problematic principle of realists on the scenery of the international system (Rosenberg, 2009). In essence, the reading shows the problem of a rational man who acts with some utilitarian intentions, pre-accepted imperfect human nature, omission of the domestic politics, and also the social domain limits the conception of the social phenomena. Therefore, it centers much on state, power, security, anarchy, and systems, in which case it limits the ability of approaches to understand the thing with all its respects.
Strengths and Weakness of each Readings
The strength of Melian dialogue involves the fact that it examines the arguments of both the Athenians and Melians. The Melian dialogue puts much weight on the strength of the two parties’ arguments, in which case they are quite clear. The content of the reading is simple and one can easily understand by perusing through it. On the other hand, Melian dialogue contains some weaknesses. This involves the fact that it does not balance the treatments of the alternative viewpoints. From the reading, one can easily point out that the conversation does not mirror the Melian’s building any petition to the possible counterargument that Athens permits the Melians to stay unbiased. The second reading, six principles of political realism, has a clear content and concepts are well explained. The author of the article has listed and explained the six values of political realism. The author also points out the strengths of his arguments, which is by explaining each and every principle. He does not omit any point in his explanation. The reading has quality of evidence in his explanations and also has some balance of treatment on the alternative viewpoints. The only weakness in the reading is its inability to explain the shortcomings and the omissions.
The third reading, what’s the matter with realism? describes realism clearly and also allows divergent points of views. Therefore, its strength lies in the balancing of treatment of alternative viewpoints. The reading has enough strength arguments, which the author elaborates clearly and deeply. The quality of evidence is fair and it balances the treatment of alternative viewpoints. On the other side, the readings do not simply explain the arguments; rather it uses large paragraphs to support the arguments. The reading has a weakness that it does not point out the omissions and the shortcomings of the arguments.
Similarities and Differences between the Readings
The three readings do have some similarities and also some differences. It suffices to point out that all the readings are about political realism. The six principles of political realism point out the essential elements and elaborate explanations on each principle. Similarly, what’s the matter with realism discusses about realism and explains the same. Moreover, The Melian dialogue is trying to give out a real-world example of realism. The difference here is the six principles of realism that gives supporting viewpoints of realism while, what’s the matter with realism, explains the different views on realism. Even though the Melian dialogue does not discuss realism in the text, it shows the human nature of political realism between the Athenians and Melians. All the three readings contain their own arguments and each of them has provided evidence to support their ideas.
On the other hand, the difference that exists in the three readings involves the way they have put the conversations. The Melian dialogue uses conversation involving the Athenians and the Melos. The parties involved gets into the conversation by arguing their points and evidences. The six principles of political realism list all the principles and explain each of them in detail. What’s the matter with realism? just narrates the arguments in paragraphs. This demonstrates the difference that exists among the three readings. Their respective arguments might not be compatible and this is for the mere reason that it presents different arguments. For instance, the six principles of political realism point the arguments that support political realism while, what’s the matter with realism? points out the wrongs contained in the realism.
Two of the readings analyzes the works of Morgenthau’s laws of politics. In essence, what’s the matter with realism points out a type of realism called axiomatic realism and it uses the Morgenthau’s laws of politics to elaborate it. Unlike the reading of six principles of political realism, the other reading is clear on why there was an attempt by Morgenthau to derive axioms of political conduct from the premise of realism. It explains that realism can be legitimate about any course of action. On the other hand, only the Melian dialogue that argues different view in these readings.
General Reflection on the Readings
The Melian dialogue became the eye opening experience among the readings. The conversation between the Melians and the Athenians was interesting and was full of passion. Before, I had never understood the concept behind the conversation involving the Melians and Athenians. After reading the dialogue, I have a better understanding of the human nature of political realism between the two parties. In fact at one point, The Athenians declared that even the small island of Melians could be a threat to Athens. From the political realism perspective, states and nations would only survive through the increasing power such as conquering others.
The six principles of political realism have made me understand the principles that make up the concept of realism. The reading shows how politics involve the concepts of interest that is defined in terms of power. After reading all the explanations, I have a better understanding on international politics guards against two popular fallacies, which is the concern with ideological preferences and the motives. From the reading, I also learn that power involves social responsibility that serves at the end. I learn that the history of the state-system has some significance that of enhancing understanding of the realm of political glance. People require some conception of historical urgency as the dispersed property of human societies that organizations always appear to mobilize.
I have also learned various definitions regarding the political realism. It involves some theory of international relations that are deeply rooted in western liberal traditions with some strong belief in the inherent good, which is found in the human nature. The idealist often sees the human nature as altruistic and also that the human beings as capable of other interests beyond the selfish needs for power. All these readings are quite relevant to the course material as they are all discussing about the international political analysis. Realism is a significant concept if people are trying to understand the world politics. The six principles of political realism help one to understand how international politics shapes. On the other hand, what’s the matter with realism helps one to understand the assumptions about the world politics.
In conclusion, it should be noted that the world political system institutions follows orders and makes anarchy to be less popular, especially when states crosses border interactions, increase international agencies among others. Anarchies and hierarchies cannot be described fully and explain the whole of social systems. The three readings do agree with the systems. It should also be realized that politicians do strive to maximize their power, and this is while on the international stage. In addition, nation states that are seen as the most significant agents that make best use of, or should to maximize, their authority. The theory is hence scrutinized as either a recommendation of what should to be the case, that is, politicians and nations ought to practice authority or their own welfare, or as an account of the ruling state of the affairs-that country and politicians only practice authority or self-interest.
Duncan, W. Raymond. (2008). World Politics in the Twenty-first Century Brief. Houghton Mifflin College Div.
Morgenthau, H.J. (1978). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York, pp 4-15
Patomäki, H. (2002). After international relations: Critical realism and the (re)construction of world politics. London [u.a.: Routledge.
Rosenberg, J. (2009). What’s The Matter with Realism?. Review of International Studies, 16, pp285-303
Waltz, K. N. (1979). The Anarchic Structure of World Politics. Theory of international politics (pp. 35 - 56). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co..