내 소식

오르비

태그

내 태그
입시
학습
생활
클럽
직업·취업
Epioptimus
Centurion
오르비 랭킹
XDK 누적 복권
XDK 경매
RARE

에밀 싱클레어 [429588] · MS 2012 (수정됨) · 쪽지

2018-09-29 16:04:04
조회수 5,433

대략 2년 전에 제출한 에세이

게시글 주소: https://dev.orbi.kr/00018571058

What are the pros and cons of the realist and liberal view of ‘duties beyond borders’? Which approach is better?



Student Number:  

Name: 



















A state has a sovereignty in its own territory. And as many people know, a state have to use its power to protect and care its people rather than using its power to harm its people. However, if a state is wield its power to harm its people, there is no restraints in the anarchaial international system. In this situation, how could the other states do? Should they be a good samarthian or just care about people in their own people inside the country? To decide how states have to act in this kind of situation like humanitarian crisis, This essay explores the concept of ‘duties beyond borders’ and try to weigh the pros and cons of the realist and liberal view of ‘duties beyond borders’. 

 If you see someone is dying on the street, you may try to help he or she. However, if you are an state-actor and ‘someone’ is a group of civilians in another country, you need to cautiously care about yourself: national interests. Realists think that a state’s prime goal is survive, and sustaining and growing of power. The advantage of realists is, the fact that they know ‘pursuing values can harm their country’, and their country is their community, family, their own people. Intervene to the other country can cost soldier’s lives. And it also costs money and these money can be used for poor people ‘inside’ their own community or be used for empowering their own power like investing money to education, science, military. And a state can achieve competence to survive in highly competitive and anarchic world. However, Realist can be criticized because they can lost moral values. They failed to prevent Rwanda Genocide in 1994, in only 100 days about 800,000 people died. 

 Liberals think the states have duties beyond borders because their thought are base on liberal values, which is the basis or western society. Liberal ideas on duties beyond borders have many advantages.  First, Liberal idea of duties beyond borders have a moral aspect. If liberals fully controlled the US and its allies, Rwandan Genocide could be prevented. Second, liberals can be more easier to avoid the damage on ‘soft power’ than realists. Realist can violent because they focus their interests than morality. However, in the world surrounded by moral people and medias, a country can harm if they are not care its image. In the Gwangju Uprising in Korea, 1980, Gwangju city is blockaded by coup d’état troops and attacked civilians. Then, civilians heard the news that the US carrier strike group is coming. They expected that the US forces will come and liberate them. But they didn’t come. And many progressive people started to regard that the US is on the same team of illiberal Cheon do-Hwan’s regime. As a result, anti US sentiment increased and the US culture centers in Gwangju(1980), Seoul(1982), Daegu(1983), Busan(1982) are attacked by protesters. If the US acted on liberal values, anti US sentiments in South Korea is much lower than nowadays and the US may be easily deployed the THAAD missile system. However, there are some cons of liberals. First, a state can’t intervene if another state have a power. For example, Israel violated 66 UN resolutions. They bombed schools and civilian areas with white phosphorous, air-raided UN schools. But they are not ‘intervened’ by someone. Second, when intervention causes human casualties and money, intervention is very hard and no countries try. Democratic Republic Congo is suffering from civil war but no countries try to intervene by military. And North Korea has artillery and missiles that can destroy Seoul, kill millions of people if South Korea and the US try to ‘intervene’ North Korea to save people in concentration camps. Third, liberal intervention can cause adverse consequences. Although the military intervention to Syria prevented genocide and liberated Libyan people, power vacuum caused catastrophic consequences.

 Which approach is better to treat the ‘duties beyond borders’ problem? Although Realist theory and liberal theory both have pros and cons, liberalist are more suitable to sustain the world. Because realist have a fundamental problem: they are suitable to protect ‘a state’, not an entire world. All human lives are equal and all humans must be respected. This liberal ideas and morality is the base of a world, a country, and each person. However, as written in this essay, liberal ideas have disadvantages too, so to complement these advantages, we must listen the voices of realists. Pursuing values is good. But a state must survive and prosper. Realist and Liberal theory are not only in conflict, but also complementary.


References


Foreign Policy 2nd edition, (Oxford University Press)

http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2012/01/syria-and-un

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21579462-almost-unnoticed-un-about-fight-its-first-war-gamble-worth-taking-art

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21711903-when-interests-triumph-over-values-terrible-things-can-happen-lessons-aleppos-tragic

































Intro : duties stop at the border or not, Rwanda, Somalia,  **R2P


Para 1 : Realist view pro and con

Pro

Prevent wasting money especially state is developing country(???): Protect Community(a state). If western countries intervene Middle East? Refugee crisis can be solved.

Con

Wasting money and blood: Generation Kill(???) Immoral 

Para 2 : Liberal view pro and con

Pros

End/stop the humanitarian crisis like massacre. Compare with the case of china in Darfur, Soft Power: the ability to get what you want by attracting and persuading others to adopt your goals’(Nye 2004), last and only resort? Moral, In a view from liberal internationalism: an expansive notion of American national interest(199p):American leadership(as in the case of Cuba and Rwanda),Gwangju, R2P:Government is sovereign because it protects people Sierra Leone Bosnia 


Cons

Israel has violated 66 UN resolutions, The basic moral presumption of liberal thought is that states should not be subject to foreign intervention, by military or other means, no justification in a conception of equal respect for individuals, North Korea, Uganda, DR Congo, Subjuctive, “These sorts of rights clearly cross-cut wide cultural differences, Are Liberal values right?, Will the intervention actually end the oppression?, Case of Libya and Syria, Countries,any more than villages, cannot be destroyed in order to be saved. Value and Interest?


Conclusion


Foxes and hedgehogs: Archilochus: ‘The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.’ Foreign policy presents both a promise and a warning


References


http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2012/01/syria-and-un

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21579462-almost-unnoticed-un-about-fight-its-first-war-gamble-worth-taking-art

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21711903-when-interests-triumph-over-values-terrible-things-can-happen-lessons-aleppos-tragic



다시 읽은

소감


1.옛날 영어실력이라 영어 수준은 장담 못함

실력이 더 떨어진듯

2.공부 안하면 까먹음

3.레퍼런스 왜 저렇게 써놨지


성적은 B0 나옴

ㅠㅠ

0 XDK (+0)

  1. 유익한 글을 읽었다면 작성자에게 XDK를 선물하세요.

에밀 싱클레어 [429588]

쪽지 보내기

글쓰기
오르비 1455015번째 회원 되기
아이디 찾기 비밀번호 찾기

댓글이 많은 글

오르비 과외시장

2027 수능 D - 128

오르비 플레이
오르비 RARE
Move
our corporate site
Orbi Class
on-line classes
Orbi Books
educational books & resources
Gae9
humor and fun

© 2000-2026 Move Inc.

orbisoptimus (v17-5e1090)