Q. 1
An important way of looking at international relations theories is by admitting that the theoretical discontentment and disagreements are part of the envisioned explanations. Every world system has a way of meeting the intended goals of the related entities, but only a few people can manage to utilize these attributes for the sake of retaining what is ideal across the system (Bose 17). The normative theory is one that allows for a wider perception of what is right and that implies getting an easier means of handling the transformational changes. The explanation of any events taking place will only be defined by what the normative attribute contains a new change that will segment the entities and push them to meet their demands. The key to any definition of the society is to understand how emotional attributes are received and to what extent these matter (Bose 18).
The root of any prescriptive definition of the normative theory is based on the vision that one creates to establish the basis of what is right in a state or amongst people. Ideally, the basis of changing these attributes makes it an easier means of handling the basis of such developments to develop new ways of handling the changes (Levitt 19). The descriptive aspect is based on uncovering the norms based on the supporting attributes to establish new ways of valuing such relationships or making the right standards. I believe that this is the best platform for anyone seeking to learn something regarding international relations because the normative means of addressing the society is based on the ability to handle obligations as they arise within the workplace (Levitt 20).
Marxism is the least inviting theory for any form of discussion. The theory looks at various ways of empowering the liberal choices of individuals rather than empowering the future worlds that will examine the development of a stronger nationhood (Bose 21). It generates some form of derivations that seeks to connect economics and politics at the expense of nations it is a bad way of expounding on the changes that are required within the society. It defeats the real meaning of shaping the world because the powerful economies benefit at the expense of others. Levitt argues that the powerful force that drives the world is coming together and technology is bringing out the basis of various definitions that have been proliferating various economies (16). The most powerful economies are the owners of the technology and dish it out to the highest bidder. The aspect of such increased technological attention is a basic means of addressing some of the high-tech developments that tend to make economies better, allowing for deliberate tensions across the system (Sen 19). It derives the communication and travel aspects that increase globalization across the world. It brings about the basis for such developments that will increase the chances for better communication, but the economic links to political strategies will not promote development. It will only increase the risks involved in the process (Levitt 17).
Huntington considers such Marxist theories as the basis of intellectual strategies that allows for easier conflict resolution though the technology is a basis for development that will deliver what is ideal in a global platform (37). With such competitions, conflict is expected because the political strength of each country will be the basis for interaction. The fact that globalization is already considered a western aspect is enough to show that the economies with the biggest say in the word are those that are able to control the means of production as well as have a substantial means of western civilization to the world (Sen 16). When working on such developments, it becomes easier to address issues within the system. The important thing is to create an important strategic means of meeting the ideals of the political platforms. Normative theories create a new way of addressing the society and the Marxist only prevents a change that can limit the world as a whole. It only makes the process hard for a country that will increase such changes as part of addressing the developments needed (Huntington 38).
Q. 2
The Economist believes that democracy is basis of what the 20th century states were all fighting about. This problem would later emerge across the world (47). The modern society is already tired of this statehood and the democracy that many sought have seen it wade off to a distant platform. It has created a new platform for a novel way of addressing the fundamentals of statehood. The aim is to make the changes within the system that will bring what is needed. The Economist notes that the democracies were not willing to continue making any more mistakes (47). The concept of having a unified world is quite difficult and it is a challenge to formulate. The capital measures that assist in reacting on such attributes as they remain hopeless when it comes to addressing issues driven by what people are facing in different parts of the world.
The fact that the systems are critical is an ideal means of addressing what is right because it brings out the best of what the world wants. The idea is to boost such derivations and create a new way of addressing the multi-state political structure that will provide various zones that will develop what is ideal in a world divided by what people think as the best way of co-existence (The Economist 48). The basis of any development is a strong relationship across the world. This means creating a strong system that will not crack as the financial crisis of 2007-2008 did across the world. The effects were devastating and this was an issue of concern (The Economist 48).
Sen highlights that global interdependence is important for the growth of various parts of the world (17). It resents various ideas and practices that bring out what is best. It allows an initial attribute that creates various ventures that are educational and have created objectivity in the way such issues are dealt with everywhere. As this operates, it brings out a new way of assuming such ventures for the sake of determining what the global interaction is all about. It presents a new way through which countries regress, an aspect that is counterproductive when it comes to remaining autonomous (Sen 18). Williams notes that democracy is an important aspect that should be considered too because it breaks out the changes needed within the world (1). However, the globalization aspect only applies to those countries that are currently experiencing problems based on their idea of democratization.
As noted, globalization has made democracy one of the hardest things because countries are not taking tough measures to deal with different things. This happens as part of channeling what they consider as the importance of the orderly and organized interactions. In a way, it leads to the increase of perseverance of what is right within the country. The foundation of such popular suggestions creates a new way of delivering what is considered as the means of redeeming their developments (Williams 2). The source of developing what is right can be a hard task as well. Uniting the whole world has shown a new way of meeting what the historic tendencies have been as that allows for easier development of the sacrifice of what is courageous across the system. Making such a development is hard in a world that presents competition for all resources. The idea that one can share with the other seems to be far-fetched but the basis of such developments is not as considerate given the changes witnessed across the world.
Works Cited
“What’s gone wrong with democracy?” The Economist, 47-52.
Bose, Utpal. "An Ethical Framework in Information Systems Decision Making using Normative Theories of Business Ethics." Ethics and Information Technology 14.1 (2012): 17-26.
Huntington, Samuel P. The clash of civilizations? The Debate. New York: Foreign Affairs, 1996.
Levitt, Theodore. 'The Globalization of Markets': An Evaluation After Two Decades." In The Global Market: Developing a Strategy to Manage Across Borders, edited by John A. Quelch and Rohit Deshpandé, 17–32. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2004.
Sen A. How to Judge Globalism. The American Prospect Special supplement, Winter (2002) 17-21.
Williams, Melissa S. “Democracy’s global future” Astenon. 77 (2012): 1-7.
