Write a critically essay on Liberalists view of International

Write a critically on Liberalists view of International relations.Are these views of any relevance in modern day worldJustify your answer - Essay Example These theories can be divided into two. Positivist and the post positivist theories. The difference between these two theories lies in the fact that while positivist theories such as, realism, liberalism, and neo liberalism aim at explaining the simple question of why and how power is exercised in the international realm, the post positivist theories mainly focus on the question of what power really is, what it is, how it is reproduced and/or experienced. (Introduction to international relations, 2008) The liberalists are those in support of the liberal theory/school of thought in international relations. There are various types of liberalism; interdependence, institutional or even sociological and republican liberalism. (Jackson & Sorensen, 2007) The theory has its basis on the idealism theory of international relations. The theory came about soon after World War 1 and is associated with such people as Woodrow Wilson and Emmanuel Kant. The theory sought to explain he causes of World War One and how it could be avoided in future. According to Woodrow Wilson, war only served to destroy. Thus, if countries could avoid war the better for them. They would gain more from the international cooperation than they would from any war. (Introduction to international relations, 2008) Thus, the liberal school of thought operates on certain core assumptions. The first and most fundamental premise of the liberal school of thought is the argument that the relationship that states have with other actors, state and non state, in the international community to a great extent shapes their behavior by influencing their preferences. To the liberalists, how states behave in the international arena has more to do with their preferences rather than their capabilities. Consequently, depending on such internal factors in states such as culture, the economic system or even the type of government therein, the preferences are likely to be different from state to

The Life of David Gale Death Penalty Movie Review

The Life of David Gale Death Penalty - Movie Review Example Proven perpetrators of heinous crimes should be tried in court exhaustively, and when truly found guilty – complete with all the circumstantial evidence to boot – should be convicted relative to the degree of the crime they committed. If a person is found guilty of murder, rape, kidnapping, torture and other similar crimes which could be categorized as â€Å"inhuman†, then immediately, he/she should be sent to the death penalty straight away. Otherwise, if there is some doubt to his/her personal involvement and/or active participation, then it should be lowered to a life imprisonment or a similar long-term prison sentence. David Gale’s arguments are as follows: 1) capital punishment is not a deterrent to the commission of crimes; 2) there is a sprouting of â€Å"phony ‘expert’ testimony† for the convicted felons; 3) it is possible to condemn/convict innocent men; 4) and a flawed justice system, among others, which are agreeable to a certain point. Yes, there is no proof that shows that death as punishment stops crime or the offenders. However, there is still that possibility that actually carrying out capital punishment can somehow instill fear among potential criminals and their devious plans. Fake testimonies are also achievable, and can lead to innocent people being incarcerated, but at the end of the day, this is still a subjective argument. Likewise, there are jurors and judges who could be bought or manipulated, hence, the final verdict can actually be flawed. Still, it all boils down to the right people being placed as part of the jury and how objective they can reall y be. The choice is still done by the judges themselves with a strict screening procedure so if the verdict is faulty, then perhaps, the people who did the selection are themselves unsound with their assessment. As a pro-Death Penalty activist, I would defend my standpoint by stating that even if human life is precious, as being asserted by the con-Death supporters or Abolitionists, it is something which was not respected by the crime offenders, hence, they no longer deserve to be given significance or distinctive worth. The flaws in the justice system cannot be avoided because no system can ever be perfect. The action taken by David Gale in orchestrating the death of Constance was a truly extreme act of proving his point to the Governor of Texas when he had this live interview pertaining to the numerous executions in the locality. Gale was somehow challenged by what the governor stated during this event â€Å"name one innocent man that Texas has put to death in my tenure†. I t is something that not every man can do or attempt to do – which is also related to the class lecture Gale delivered – stating that life should be measured â€Å"not by what you’ve attained in terms of your desires, but those small moments of integrity, compassion, rationality, even self-sacrifice.† Self-sacrifice was the goal taken by both Constance and Gale in order to underscore the advocacy they were fighting for. Gale’s perspective is truly an idealistic way of looking at life, and this, he pushes to the ultimate when he fakes the death of