World Politics

World Politics

 Structural and agent-based explanations serve as notable approaches that have been constantly used in the comprehensive analysis of international politics. Both structural and agent-based explanation of outcomes offers lenses through which can be used to interpret political outcomes when they occur. Structural explanations always incorporate systemic factors it considers elements not limited to power distribution, economic structures, institutions, and cultural norms. These elements display the behavior of different nations and factors that result in opportunities within international politics. For example, the balance of power theory in a structural-based explanation highlights the Cold War bipolarity which was a result of the structural dynamics between two superpowers who were fighting for influence, superiority, and dominance (Ikenberry, 1996). 

Importantly, agent-based explanations focus majorly on the actions and decisions of individual actors. These individual actors can be states, leaders, or non-governmental institutions. This political structure gives more emphasis on the contribution of these actors in designing international outcomes. Major consideration is made on preferences, beliefs, and strategies that influence prevailing political events (Lecture Note 8). A significant example of an agent-based explanation is evident in cases where key leaders' roles in foreign policy decisions are analyzed. For example, The Cuban Missile Crisis is said to be agent-based after scrutiny. This is because of the decisions and strategies used by President John F. Kennedy who had an upper hand, therefore being in a position to shape international events through his political power and dominance. Under certain circumstances, agent-based explanations of explanations are more likely to be relevant. For example, when agent-based explanations are faced with significant uncertainty in international politics, scenarios where outcomes cannot be easily predicted when structural factors are considered, its application becomes a pivotal consideration. These situations are always characterized by individual decision-making. Here individual leaders or decision-makers remain important since the decisions they make must considerably favor agent agent-based approach. Conventionally, in complex scenarios where several variables exist, agent-based explanations are crucial since they offer an understanding of how individual decisions highly contribute to the desired international outcomes. 

A significant example of the application of agent-based explanations in international politics is the decision-making process that led to the war in Iraq in 2003. President George Bush in his administration was responsible for the structural factors in the post-9/11 security environment and geopolitical considerations. Bush as a key agent shaped the outcome where he only considered his beliefs, personal preferences, and strategic choices to understand why the United States as a country opted for military intervention in Iraq. Therefore, the choice between structural and agent-based explanations in international politics selectively relies on the nature of the situation at hand and the influence of individual actors in the outcomes to be witnessed (Lecture Note 8). Agent-based explanations remain more relevant as compared to the structural-based explanation of outcomes since they use factors of uncertainty and complexity in making decisions. These factors assist in a comprehensive understanding of international politics. 

Question 2 

In relevance to international relations, anarchy can be defined as the absence of a central authority to enforce rules and order among states which in turn leads to a state of lawlessness in the given region. This lack of a significant political institution within a nation can make cooperation between states difficult even with the provision of the best and desirable circumstances. Anarchic systems which some states prefer always make cooperation more difficult. This is because each state prioritizes its interests and survival, which further results in constant concern about security issues and the capability of other states to act in ways that undermine the prevalence of peace between them (Pinker, 2007). Also, anarchy creates a competitive environment where nations rely on their capabilities for their security. This consideration makes cooperation between states difficult even with the provision of the best circumstances. This prioritization of self-interest has always resulted in security breaches. This happens when a given state's efforts to improve its security are regarded as a threat by other states. Intensifying security prompts the other states to increase their security measures in a never-ending cycle in a more competitive manner. This unending suspicion and lack of trust make it difficult for states to cooperate since they constantly worry about being taken advantage of and vulnerable to others' actions without any consideration. 

One key thing that can improve cooperation under anarchy is the establishment of credible and well-structured commitments. Well-structured commitments require states to make trustworthy and binding agreements that serve as remedies for trust within their system. In consideration of an anarchic system, which is characterized by lesser authority to enforce agreements, states always remain alert and skeptical regarding the sincerity of others in observing the structured commitments (Bates, 2001). The establishment of institutions that enhance the credibility of promises is beneficial in building trust among states thus facilitating cooperation. International institutions, treaties, and alliances are notable examples of mechanisms that can used to achieve credibility of commitments. In scenarios when given states actively participate in agreements involving monitoring programs and mechanisms, verification processes, and consequences for non-compliance, cooperation and trust always result. International institutions are in a position to provide a framework that states can use to signal their intentions and make commitments that offer reputational costs in cases of violation. 

Considerably, building diplomatic relationships and improving communication channels always result in improved cooperation. Well-structured dialogue and the creation of mutual understanding assist in reducing misunderstandings and misperceptions that may result in conflict. Confidence-building measures, transparency initiatives, and cooperative security arrangements are notable factors that states use to build trust and cooperation in an anarchic international system of politics (Mansfield & Snyder,1995). Therefore, anarchy in international relations to some extent always makes cooperation between states challenging resulting from the self-help nature of the system (Ball, 2004). The self-help nature has always led to security dilemmas and mistrust between states. The creation of credible commitments using existing international institutions, treaties, and diplomatic relationships is considered important for improving cooperation in states living under anarchy (Eksteins, 1980). Building trust to address the unforeseen uncertainties is important for states that want to address the challenges resulting from an anarchic international system since they will have designed avenues for collaboration. 

Question 3 

A comprehensive examination of past hegemonic transitions offers valuable insights into the future of the relationship between China and the United States. Notably, it is important to recognize the limits of such comparisons within historical contexts. Historical patterns may at times provide valuable context for comparison, where each transition is always unique since they are shaped by the specific circumstances of its time of occurrence. The past hegemonic transitions between China and the U.S. require consideration of factors that distinguish this transition from historical precedents (Lecture Notes 10). A notable historical precedent is the transition from British to American hegemony which occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period, the United States emerged as an economic and military powerhouse, challenging the British Empire. Considerably, the rise of China in the 21st century has been characterized by rapid economic growth, massive technological advancement, and an expansion of global influence. Conventionally, there are notable key differences that shape the China-U.S. relationship. 

Contrary to the past transitions, both China and the U.S. serve nuclear-armed powers, where they introduced a significant element of mutual suppression. The evidence of nuclear weapons creates more complexity in the strategic calculations of both nations, which greatly influences the nature of their competition and cooperation (Schelling, 2006). Currently, the global economy is more interconnected as compared to the past hegemonic transitions. The economic interdependence that has been witnessed between China and the U.S. is more extensive. This has further created complex relationships that are in a position of acting as a stabilizing and destabilizing force. The economic consequences of conflict are worse in consideration of the interconnected world. The contemporary international system which is characterized by a degree of multipolarity, with other significant actors, such as the European Union, Russia, and regional powers, playing influential roles also acts as limits of comparison. This multipolarity nature introduces additional complexities, where several actors shape global affairs and are in a position to influence the hegemonic transitions between China and the U.S. (Huntington, 1993). 

Notably, China and the U.S. have distinct political systems and different ideological foundations. The ideological divergence, characterized by fast-changing views on governance, human rights, and global order, contributes immensely to the complexity of their relationship. Contrary to historical transitions, the existing ideological differences between China and the United States are in a position of impacting the nature of their interactions. Currently, several things might be different. The transition is marked by intense competition in emerging modern technologies such as artificial intelligence, 5G networks, and quantum computing integration. Technological advancement has become a central element of global power. Growth in technology has the capability of influencing economic strength and military capabilities in ways not evident in past transitions. In as much as historical transitions are in a position to offer insights, the limits of comparison remain in the unprecedented nature of certain factors that exist in the current China-U.S. relationship (Feigenbaum, 2016). The existence of nuclear power, global economic interdependence, multipolarity, ideological differences, and technological competition make this transition more distinct from those of the past. The complex nature of the existing international system requires a comprehensive understanding that extends beyond historical transitions in addressing the prevailing challenges and opportunities posed by the China-U.S. relationship in the 21st century.     

References

Ball, P. (2004). Critical mass: How one thing leads to another. Macmillan. 

Bates, R. H. (2001). Prosperity and violence: the political economy of development. (No Title). 

Eksteins, M. (1980). All Quiet on the Western Front and the Fate of a War. Journal of Contemporary History, 15(2), 345-366. 

Feigenbaum, E. A. (2016). China and the World. Foreign Affairs, 12. 

Huntington, S. P. (1993). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century (Vol. 4). University of Oklahoma Press. 

Ikenberry, G. J. (1996). The myth of post-cold War chaos. Foreign Affairs, 79-91. Lecture 10: From the Global to the Local Lecture 8: Domestic Theory of International Politics 

Mansfield, E. D., & Snyder, J. (1995). Democratization and the Danger of War. International security, 5-38. 

Pinker, S. (2007). The surprising decline in violence. TED2007. Available at: https://www. Ted. Com/talks/steven_ pinker_on_the_myth_ of_ violence/transcript. 

Schelling, T. C. (2006). An astonishing sixty years: The legacy of Hiroshima. American Economic Review, 96(4), 929-937.