목차
1. realism 요약
2. realism 의 한계
3. liberalism 정의
4. liberalism 가정
5. realism과 liberalism 비교
6. neo-liberalism
7. case study (리비아, 유엔군사개입에 대한 liberalism과 realism의 견해)
2. realism 의 한계
3. liberalism 정의
4. liberalism 가정
5. realism과 liberalism 비교
6. neo-liberalism
7. case study (리비아, 유엔군사개입에 대한 liberalism과 realism의 견해)
본문내용
unchangeably a struggle among self-interested states for power and position under anarchy, with each competing state pursuing its own national interests
This eternal check towards other states for national security caused huge insecurity. This led the whole world fall into the security dilemma. With this problem, other problems started to float to the surface.
As I said already, (클릭)one state’s absolute security means other state’s absolute insecurity. And when we look through realism more deeply, we can see few more limits. Realists (클릭)ignored the possibility that co-operation can make positive progress. Because stability could have been achieved by checking each other’s behavior and with this logic, there was no room for co-operation that has the probability of betrayal. Another limit was related one of the condition that(클릭) state is the only actor. In realism, co-operation which contains the character such as harmony and compromise was not appropriate for realist who wants absolute power. In this point of view, the nation state was the most efficient actor of all. So they shut down all the other possible actors that have some compromising parts in themselves. But in more unexpected and complicated world, quite a few cases tell us that non-state actors could be more efficient than state actors like oil crisis in 1973.
With this extreme and unequal thought. The situation couldn’t help but(클릭)jeopardize the security of all.
At this point, liberalism appealed criticizing all the limitations of realism.
This eternal check towards other states for national security caused huge insecurity. This led the whole world fall into the security dilemma. With this problem, other problems started to float to the surface.
As I said already, (클릭)one state’s absolute security means other state’s absolute insecurity. And when we look through realism more deeply, we can see few more limits. Realists (클릭)ignored the possibility that co-operation can make positive progress. Because stability could have been achieved by checking each other’s behavior and with this logic, there was no room for co-operation that has the probability of betrayal. Another limit was related one of the condition that(클릭) state is the only actor. In realism, co-operation which contains the character such as harmony and compromise was not appropriate for realist who wants absolute power. In this point of view, the nation state was the most efficient actor of all. So they shut down all the other possible actors that have some compromising parts in themselves. But in more unexpected and complicated world, quite a few cases tell us that non-state actors could be more efficient than state actors like oil crisis in 1973.
With this extreme and unequal thought. The situation couldn’t help but(클릭)jeopardize the security of all.
At this point, liberalism appealed criticizing all the limitations of realism.
키워드
추천자료
- Rosenbluth international and bistravel. com
- The international logistics channel
- International Marketing
- 국제통상론 International Economics: Theory and Policy 7판 문제풀이 Krugman & Obstfeld
- International Adoption
- INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS, CONVENTIONS, AND EXHIBITIONS
- 국제 정책 협조 모델(International Regime Model)의 개념 및 생성과 변화
- MIS English - International Communication (Midterm)
소개글