In the ultramodern global society characterized by industrialization and technological progress,

the idea of transnational relations (IR) isn't new. People from different corridor of the world
needs to develop similar connections in order to change knowledge, share gests, and to
ameliorate the quality of life at colorful situations of relations. As similar, multitudinous
transnational relation propositions have been created to understand how governments, political
players and diplomats work, including literalism, leftism and constructivism (Bertucci et al.,
2018). In light of the below, this essay endeavours to bandy six crucial transnational relations
propositions while furnishing practical and applicable exemplifications of the places each of
these propositions plays in the transnational relations.
According to Barnet (2018), literalism as one of the most popular propositions of transnational
relations suggests that countries should and do look out for their own interests first. Literalism
presumes that first and foremost, countries are out for themselves. Impliedly, literalism seeks to
maximize the state’s own power and capability to maintain public security and this is regarded
with ultimate significance among all over issues of transnational system.
An illustration would be the way in which realist scholars similar Max Weber and Jean Jacques
Rousseau assay great powers’ suggest that during pre-World War I in Europe. In the view of
realist, according to Julian (2017), the aspiration for power is ingrain within mortal beings and
therefore believes that there should be balance of power in the distribution of military and
profitable capabilities among different countries in order to help anyone state from dominating
another country. This laterally suggests that although a country may have ideas of the intentions
of other countries, no bone state should clearly know the intentions of another state. This is
especially important for a state to guarantee one’s own security and autonomy in an uncertain
world.
In discrepancy, liberalism suggests that countries can peacefully co-occur, and that countries are
not always on the point of war (Linda, 2019). Liberal scholars point to the fact that anyhow of
the continuity of fortified conflict, most states are not at war most of the time. The greater
majority of people around the globe do not get up and start chanting “Death to Africa!” and
trying to figure out who they can bomb on a particular day. Linda (2019) editorialized that
liberalism holds that relations between nations are not always a zero- to- sum game. A zero- to-
sum game is one in which any gain by one player is automatically a loss by another player.
One’s earnings in security, for illustration, do not make another worse off, and another’s
earnings in anything does not make one worse off. Liberal proposition also points to the fact that
anyhow of the conditions of lawlessness in the world, utmost nations are not at war, in many
instances. Therefore, the idea that transnational relations must be conducted as though one were
always under the trouble of attack is not inescapably reflective of reality.
According to Ruiz (2005), liberalism is divided into branches which include liberal
institutionalism, Liberal commercialism and Liberal commercialism. Ruiz (200) opined that
liberal institutionalism puts some faith in the capability of global institutions to ultimately
blandish people into getting along as opposed to going to war. Use of the United Nations, for
illustration, as a forum for interceding and settling disagreement, will ultimately promote a
respect for the rule of transnational law in a way that parallels respect for the law common in
advanced republic. On the other hand Liberal commercialism sees the advance of global
commerce as making less likely. War isn't actually veritably profitable for utmost people, and it
really isn't good for the frugality. Further, liberal internationalism trades on the idea that republic
are less likely to make war than are totalitarianism, if only because people can say no, either in
houses or in choices. Consider that public kick in the U.S. helped end U.S. involvement in
Vietnam — that kind of thing does not always be in non-democratic countries. Although it can.
Argentina’s misfortunes in Las Malvenas — the Falkland islets — led to demurrers that brought
down a longstanding military absolutism and restored republic to the nation in 1982. Together,
these three are occasionally called the Kantian triangle, after the German champion Immanuel
Kant (1724 – 1804), who outlined them in a 1795 essay, Perpetual Peace.
Constructivism is another and also intriguing way of looking at transnational relations. It may
tell us further about why effects are passing the way they do, but kindly lower about what we
should do about it. Constructivism argues that culture, social structures and mortal institutional
are fabrics matter. Stephen (2017) points out Constructivism relies in part on the proposition of
the social construction of reality, which says that whatever reality is perceived to be, for the
utmost part people have constructed it. Of course, if the proposition were entirely true, also the
very idea of the social construction of reality would also be socially constructed, and thus
potentially untrue. To the extent that reality is socially constructed, people can make choices.
Hence the constructivist argument is, in part, that while the world system is indeed a form of
lawlessness, that doesn't demand a realist response to foreign policy. People can choose to else.
So constructivists might argue that the end of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet
Union was at least in part a decision by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to change his
thinking. He tried also to subside down pressures with the U.S., and to liberalize Soviet society.
Bova (2012, p. 26). The fact that the Soviet Union instantly disintegrated does not change that.
Literalism, realism and constructivism may be the three most prominent propositions of
transnational relations, but they are by no means the only bones or the most important. Feminist
scholars look at transnational relations through the prism of gender relations, noting that for
important of mortal history, women have been relegated to a sideline part in politics and
government (Sarah, 2018). This is not wise further than half the people in the world are women.
Nevertheless, males have dominated both the study and practice of transnational relations, but
feminist scholars note that women’s places as women, maters and workers have made all of that
possible. Also, a womanish perspective on foreign policy might be different. Feminist
proposition occasionally argues that having further women in positions of power could change
effects, as women may be more likely to believe peace through transnational cooperation is
possible (Sarah, 2018).
Feminist transnational relations proposition has variants, of course. Liberal feminism wants to
insure that women have the same openings in society as do men, so that means liberal in the
broader sense of general support for popular capitalism. Critical feminism, on the other hand,
sees capitalism as the source of women’s oppression, and seeks to produce new structures for
society. Cultural or essentialist feminism stresses the differences in how women view and
suppose about the world. It argues that women’s approach to the world would be more likely to
bring peace and avoid conflict.
Post-colonial proposition stresses domination caused by social rule driven throughout centuries
assessed upon formerly settled countries performing current albeit circular demarcation aimed at
artistic renewal of distraction sweats. Utmost recent case study affects Rwanda- Tanzania-
Burundi connections considering some ethno verbal grouping despite different post-colonial
involvements.
 References
Julian. K., W. (2017). Political Realism in International Relations. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.

Linda. V. (2019). The Impact of Liberalism in International Politics.

Sarah. S. (2018). Introducing Feminism in International Relations Theory.

Stephen. M. (2017). International Relations Theory. France: Rutledge.

Ruiz. T. (2005). Feminist Theory and International Relations; The Feminist Challenge to
Realism and Liberalism.
https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/honors/documents/journal/soundings/Ruiz.pdf.