PSIR Answer Writing Module - Target 2024

Model Answers
Test 13

For any concern related with PSIR Test Series mail at [email protected]

1. Discuss the role of technology in shaping the future of Geopolitics.

Approach
1. Introduction: Context with Thoman Jeffersin statement.
2. Body
a. Present Status of Technology in IR
b. Role of Technology in Shaping the Future of Geopolitics
3. Conclusion: Geopolitics, shaped by technology will lead to strategic re-assessment.

Introduction

According to Thomas Jeffersin, “Technology and ideas banish darkness: because they are non
rival, they light your way without darkening mine.” However, the geopolitical conversation has
instead settled on a zero-sum confrontational approach to technological competition.

Body

1. Present Status of Technology in IR

a. In the phase of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a new picture of the relationship
between technology and geopolitics is emerging. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Blockchain
and 5G technologies are fast becoming the frontlines of either global competition or
coordination.
b. The value of frontier technologies is high. 5G alone is projected to generate $13 trillion in
global economic value and 22 million jobs by 2035. Moreover, AI is projected to add over
$15 trillion to the global economy by 2030.
c. China and the US have announced or are considering large investments in these fields
sends a clear signal of the significant geostrategic role these technologies will play in the
upcoming geopolitics.

2. Role of Technology in Shaping the Future of Geopolitics

a. The biggest concern around technology will be the way it is being nationalized and
weaponized. There is a new power map in the modern world that is no longer defined
 by geography, territory/oceans’ control, rather by control over flows of people, goods,
money, and data and by exploiting technological connections. Thus, every connection
between nations from energy flows to IT standards becomes a tool of geopolitics.
b. Major technological effect on the global geopolitical order will derive from a widening
gap between the transnational nature of communication and growing resistance to
this from nation states. The world is increasingly fragmented and made more so by the
pandemic. So, communication remains the most significant brace of globalization.
c. However, tools for communication are primarily provided by private “big tech”
companies, which on the one hand are scarcely accountable to the states they work in,
and on the other hand, have national roots and can be seen as channels of the outside
influence, be it American, Chinese or anybody else’s.
d. As more sophisticated means of communication are introduced, there will likely be
higher suspicion among governments. The more vulnerable states feel the tighter
control they will try to impose and exercise. As a result, there will be further erosion of
interconnection, something the world is already seeing in the economic and political
field. Companies may struggle for market opportunities. Combined, this may heighten
tensions and prove challenging for the integrity of a globalized world.
e. The prime impact will not mainly come from the technology itself, but rather from the
system that surrounds it. How nations see the world, how they create economic value
and how they drive innovation and thus how they hold power as it has been
concentrated among a few “big tech” companies in what has been called the
“surveillance capitalism.”
f. Therefore, the battleground for geopolitical influence will be centered on who owns
the tech companies and which companies they own. Equally important will be who
governs them and how their supply chains will be integrated.
g. The speed at which countries emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic will have a critical
impact on the future balance of global economic and political power. Those countries
with access to rapid genomic sequencing can stay one step ahead. Those with the most
advanced broadband will adapt fastest to new forms of online economic activity.
h. Technology has emerged as the slayer of conventional geopolitics. The future world
will have to deal with known and unknown technology related challenges. These range
from implications of emerging domains such as AI and robotics, to increasing cyber-
attacks and “Big Tech” challenging national sovereignty.
i. The imponderables will form the proverbial impossible triangle comprising quest for
sustained economic growth, heightened national security concerns and rising demands
for individual rights as the three sides. It is impossible precisely because no
government, community or country can serve all three interests to the satisfaction of
all.
j. At the median of this triangle lies the intersection between technology and geopolitics.
The concept of nations as sole interlocutors is passed. Governments, businesses and
 individuals will have to meet the political challenges posed by technology jointly and
across borders. This, in turn, will have a profound effect on geopolitical trends and
indeed on the arrangements and institutions that moderate global politics.
k. The current splintering of the internet, banning of Huawei and ZTE, and focus on
privacy all revolve around data. The pervasive collection and use of data by public and
private entities affects individual decision-making, human rights, group actions and
social cohesion. The generation, use and control of data will be a significant
determinant of future geo-economics as well as geopolitics.
l. The immediate impact will be amplified geostrategic conflict in reaction to differences
in technology norms across political systems. Of course, the world might be more
efficient with just one technological standard. However, the world needs to be
resilient, not just efficient. Competing standards bring robustness.
m. There will be a reordering of global politics and economics. While variations among
nations on their economic and military capabilities may have been reordered due to
the pandemic, their future course will be defined by their adaptability to technologies
both extant and emerging. More importantly, the level of technological integration
of various sectors of economies will be the key to driving the overall growth.
n. Moreover, technology can quickly change the course of wars, give accurate
information, or bolster defense against enemy. In the post-Ukraine crisis, the
Eurasian continent, as perhaps elsewhere, smaller countries will look to enhance
their bets on bigger enemies through a technological build up. The current Eurasian
crisis may very well drive a weaponization of technology like never before.

Conclusion

Future of geopolitics is likely to be shaped by the technological competition among nations. It

would likely shape economics and politics in equal measure and lead to strategic re-
assessments.

2. Critical theories intent brings fundamental changes in the status quoist approach in
international relations.
Approach
1. Introduction: Brief about Critical theory.
2. Body
a. Understanding Critical Theory
b. How Critical theories bring fundamental changes in the status quoits approach in IR?
3. Conclusion: By underscoring the need and way to end the exploitation of human beings
the theories intent to bring fundamental changes in the status quoits approach in IR.

Introduction
Critical theories are a diverse set of schools of thought in IR that have criticized the “theoretical,
meta-theoretical or political status quo” in IR theory more broadly from positivist as well as post-
positivist positions.

Body

1. Understanding Critical Theory

c. The term Critical theory was coined by Max Horkheimer who made a distinction with
the traditional theory based on specific practical purpose.
d. According to Horkheimer, a theory is “critical” to the extent that it seeks human
“emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating influence”, and works “to create a
world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings.
e. Critical theory is not a single theory. It is rather a wide range of theories like neo-
Marxism, feminism, postmodernism and post-colonialism come under its broad
purview.
f. These different theories take inspiration from different sources like Hegel, Marx, and
Foucault and seek to explain various aspects of world politics. Despite their difference
in focus and theme of study what united these theories is:
i. Their commitment for post positivist methodology, and
ii. To a large extent, their commitment for change and emancipation of subjugated
people and/or class of society.
g. In contrast to rationalist theories of IR, critical theories seek “to interrogate the sources
of exclusion, violence, and subjugation and to devise radical strategies for resisting
such domination”. For this purpose, critical theorists use post-positivist approaches
that take the social context and normative aspect of social life into account.

3. How Critical theories bring fundamental changes in the status quoist approach in IR?

a. Critically theory is deeply suspicious of the positivist method and its assumption that
knowledge is not situated in the social context, and researchers can attain that
knowledge through neutral engagement with objects. Trusting on post-positivist
methods, critical theorists invite researchers to use interpretive, historical and inter-
subjective techniques to gain knowledge.
b. Unlike, the rationalist theories of IR, which assunme that structures are unchangeable,
critical theory believe that structure is changeable. It accuses that those who claim
that structure is unchangeable, want to maintain the “status quo” and perpetuate the
disparity of wealth and power in world politics.
 c. Critical theory learns from and overcomes the weaknesses inherent in Marxism. To find
out the basis of exclusion, critical theory goes beyond the Marxist conception of class.
They also regard the state as a basis of exclusion because, on the basis of citizenship,
the state includes a small part of people as a citizen while excluding a large part as a
non-citizen.
d. Unlike rationalist theories which judge state’s capacity in terms of material capacity,
critical theory judges a “social arrangement (maybe state or cosmopolitan democracy)
by their capacity to embrace an open dialogue with all other” people. The critical
theory believes in using “discourse to determine the moral significance of national
boundaries” of a state.
e. In this way, Critical theorists use Marxist tools and ideas to challenge rationalist
approaches of IR. At the same time, it criticizes Marxism to develop critical theory as
an adequate theory of world politics.
Conclusion
Therefore, by underscoring the need and way to end the exploitation of human being as well as
by realizing their emancipation, the critical theories indeed intent to bring fundamental changes
in the “status quoist” approach in IR.

3. Evaluate the feminist critic of the world capitalist economy.

Approach
1. Introduction: Context with feminist argument against capitalism.
2. Body
a. Issues Related to the World Capitalist Economy
i. Economic Justice
ii. Migration
iii. Human Rights
iv. Democracy and Global Governance
3. Conclusion: In feminist view, World Capitalist Economy presents a number of challenges
to those who seek to develop conceptions of justice.

Introduction

Feminist critics argue “capitalism is at the root of inequality and removing this system would
eliminate inequalities among people, especially between men and women and make world a just
society.”

Body
1. Issues Related to the World Capitalist Economy

a. Economic Justice: Feminist critics argue that the world capitalist economy has created
dramatic economic inequalities, both between the global North and global South and
within countries in both hemispheres. They identify the ways in which capitalist
economy reinforce specific inequalities based on gender, class, race, and nationality.
Moreover, they identify the ways in which gendered practices and ideologies shape the
processes of capitalism.
Free trade policies feature prominently in such feminist critiques. Trade liberalization
has led to the wide scale movement of once well paying jobs in the global North to low
wage in the global South. Consequently, workers who once relied on well paying jobs
are now unable to make livings. These jobs have largely been replaced by contingent
and part-time service sector jobs, which tend to be poorly paid and lack health and
retirement benefits. More importantly, it has a disproportionate effect on women.
b. Migration: According to feminists, transnational migration and various forms of
structural injustice such as gender oppression, racism, global economic inequality,
militarization, colonial legacies etc are linked to each other. Migration regimes tend to
reinforce existing forms of domination and even create new types of oppression. More
specifically, migration, refugee, citizenship discourses, policies, and practices often
draw upon pernicious stereotypes and entho-nationalist tropes to construct gendered
and racialized subjects that are, in turn, mobilized to justify the domination, exclusion,
and marginalization of the individuals they are thought to represent.
c. Human Rights: Feminists argue that world capitalist economy has contributed to
human rights violations against women. Most obviously, neoliberal policies have led to
infringements of specific social and economic rights, such as the right “to a standard of
living adequate for the health and well-being” and the right “to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, and old age” (Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, article 25).
Moreover, by diminishing women’s economic security, capitalist policies have
exacerbated existing forms of gender discrimination and violence. This has made
women and girls more vulnerable to a wide variety of additional human rights violations
like sexual exploitation, child brides, prostitution, etc. The reasons are complex.
However, they are connected to several aspects of world capitalist economy: structural
adjustment policies, which eliminated major sectors of women’s economic activity; the
destruction of the natural environment, which displaced many women; and the
exclusion of women from economic and political decision-making.
d. Democracy and Global Governance: Feminists argue that capitalism has contradictory
implications for democratic governance. On the one hand, neo-liberalism has
diminished national sovereignty, further excluding women and the poor from
democratic processes. Yet globalization also connects people across national borders,
 creating transnational communities that offer new avenues for democratic
participation. Globalization has been accompanied by the establishment of formal
democracy in some countries and the number of women serving in national legislatures
has increased in some nations.
However, some feminist philosophers argue that neo-liberalism has not resulted in
increased political influence for women on the whole, especially at the level of global
politics. One important reason is that global economic institutions are neither
adequately representative nor fully democratic. These institutions tend to be
unofficially dominated by the interests of wealthy nations and multinational
corporations.

Conclusion

From feminist perspective, World Capitalist Economy presents a number of challenges to those
who seek to develop conceptions of justice and responsibility capable of responding to the lived
realities of both men and women. As capitalism under the umbrella of globalization will most
certainly continue, these challenges are likely to increase in the coming decades.

4. Critically examine the causes and the consequences of the phenomena of terrorism in
international politics.
Approach
1. Introduction: UN definition of terrorism to set the context.
2. Body
a. Causes of Terrorism in International Politics
b. Consequences of Terrorism in International Politics
3. Conclusion: Non-Participation and reforms in socio-economic policies are must.

Introduction

1. UNSC defines terrorism “as criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the
intend to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking hostages, with the purpose to
provoke a state of terror in general public or in a group of persons or particular person
intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or
abstain from doing an act.”
2. Margaret Thatcher, “Democratic Nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and
the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.”

Body

1. Causes of Terrorism in International Politics

 a. Psychological Perspective: Some terrorists may do so for purely personal reasons, based
on their psychological state of mind. Their motivation may be nothing more than hate or
the desire for power. E.g. in 1893 Auguste Vaillant bombed the French Chamber of
Deputies. He explained his motivation in terms of hate for the middle classes and wanted
to spoil the sense of economic and social success, by tainting it with his violence.
b. Ideological Perspective: Ideology is defined as the beliefs, values, or principles by which
a group identifies its particular objectives. It may encompass religion or political
philosophies and programs. E.g. the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka,
and the Bader Meinhoff in Germany.
c. Strategic Perspective: Terrorism can be a logical extension of politics’ failure. When
government fails to address people’s grievances, they may resort to violence. From this
perspective, terrorism is the result of a logical analysis of the goals and objectives of a
group, and their estimate of the likelihood of gaining victory. If victory seems unlikely
using more traditional means of opposition, then one might prefer terrorism as a better
option. E.g. in South Africa, the African National Congress only turned to the use of
terrorism after political avenues were explored and failed.
Certainly, not just individuals may feel let down by the political process. States may use
terrorists in the pursuit of their own strategic interests. States may sponsor terrorist
groups, especially when the objectives of the state and the terrorist group are similar.
E.g. Libya used terrorists to explode a bomb aboard Pan Am 103 flying from London to
New York in 1988, allegedly in response to US and British bombing of Libya.
2. Consequences of Terrorism in International Politics
a. Political: Terrorism is dominating global politics due to it negative consequences on
political systems. It is the aspects that are significant for strength/failure of nations-states
or the internal and external erosion of state capacity. Terrorism leads to problem of weak
and failure of states today, such as Somalia, Afghanistan and Yemen. Terrorists interfered
in country’s sovereignty and makes eventual peace efforts more difficult. Terrorist acts
lead to erosion of civil liberties on national level and undermining sovereignty in the
relations between state in the international system. The post 9/11 environment has also
relegated the Israeli/Palestinian to the back burner thereby to a freeze in the peace
process and the result is the renewed cycle of violence and growing tension in the region
having great consequences for global security.
b. Foreign Relation: Terrorism has negative impacts on global security, which affect every
nations of the world because of their interdependence and interconnected nature.
Foreign policies of different countries are changing due to international/cross-border
terrorism. For example, India’s foreign policy towards Pakistan is affected by Pakistan’s
use of terrorism as a foreign policy tool.
 c. Psychological and Socio-Cultural: Terrorism has posed serious bias and ideological beliefs
in the minds of people. E.g. terrorism usually centered on the ideological fundamentalist
of jihad, and rejection of western principles. People are so dogmatized with the idea to
persuade violence. Many leaders of Islamic states/world perceived the US as threat, due
to its policies of globalization and hegemonic culture. Whereas Western world portrays
Islam as its main enemy and the Muslim world as a hotbed of terrorism that threaten
civilization and its democratic values.
d. Economic: After the 9/11 attack, economically many industries had being bankrupted due
to the global stock market and currencies devaluation. Terrorism leads to global inflation
and currency depreciation. Higher levels of terrorism risk are associated with lower levels
of net Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Smaller countries that face a persistent threat of
terrorism may incur economic costs in the form of reduced investment and economic
growth. It affects GDP of countries thereby resulting in economic decline, unemployment,
poverty etc.
Way Forward/Conclusion
1. Noam Chomsky rightly posited that, “everybody is worried about stopping terrorism. Well
there is an easy way; stopping participating in it”. This approach suggest that, there is a
consensus among counterterrorism experts that just as there are conditions, through
which an individual becomes an extremist comes to renounce violence, leave a group or
movement to negotiate or reject radical world view.
2. It is argued that, “Drain the swamp and there will be no mosquitoes.” There is need for
comprehensive socio-economic policy that is oriented towards a just and balanced
international economic order to address the upsurge of terrorism globally. Measure for
the alleviation of poverty and social injustices on the global scale should be provided and
encouraged globally.
3. Education will help to dissociate their psychological thinking by equating religion with
terrorism. The goal should be to advance Muslim nations through Islamic education
system in combination with scientific intervention to meet up with the current trend of
globalization.

5. How north south debate has shaped the evolution of International Environmental Politics.
Approach
1. Introduction: What is north-south debate? What are prominent questions in debate?
2. Body
a. Rationale for the Debate
b. Understanding the North-South Debate of International Environmental Politics
c. Role of the North-South Debate in International Environmental Politics
3. Conclusion: Market based mechanism can resolve the north-south debate.
Introduction

1. The debate between the developed and the developing countries to identify, limit and
minimize the ever-increasing threat of global climate change is often known as the North-
South debate in global environmental politics
2. The bigger questions in global environmental politics are: who is supposed to take the
responsibility for climate change? Who will be setting the standards for controlling the
emissions of ever more GHGs? and how can the necessary actions be implemented to
protect and control the environment?

Body
1. Rationale for the Debate

a. Developing nations observe that the north is highly developed and therefore it is their
primary responsibility to reduce the Green House Gases (GHG) emissions.
b. Alternatively, there should be more flexibility for the south/developing world in terms of
using resources as it is their right to be developed and as their emission rate is
comparatively low.
c. However, the north denies this, highlighting that the factors which differentiate the
situations of developing south with the developed north are not the same but different.
d. According to north, the major factors that differentiate the two regions are poverty, poor
environmental education, lack of awareness and development in the south, and that
these are primarily responsible for environmental pollution and degradation.

2. Understanding the North-South Debate of International Environmental Politics

a. The “North-South” debate signifying the differences between the more industrialized
economies of the global “North” and the relatively less developed and developing
countries of the global “South”. This has continued to be a defining feature of global
environmental politics.
b. Global North includes the US, Canada and Western Europe, the developed part of Asia,
Australia and New Zealand. The global South is made up of regions such as Africa, Latin
America and developing Asia including the Middle East.
c. The division between the two is based on their geographies, economies, political
stability, technology, scientific research etc. In addition, environmental politics and
 climate change have become a more significant issue of debate between the two
regions.
d. Inequality and justice have been central issues at every major environmental conference
since the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Nairobi in 1982,
Rio de Janeiro in 1992, Rio+5 in New York; and Johannesburg in 2002.
e. At all these conferences, and particularly in the Kyoto Protocol, it was recognized that
the developed countries are mainly liable for the present high levels of GHG emissions.
Thus, they are bound to tackle it as the Protocol puts an excessive burden on developed
nations under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”.
f. Even so, developed countries are not willing to accept the responsibility and have
refused to curtail their own excesses unless developing nations did the same. Thus, the
debate between the North and South regarding environmental politics has become
prominent, intensified and still prevailing.

3. Role of the North-South Debate in Evolution of International Environmental Politics

a. Moving away from defining the North-South debate as a simple rich-poor divide,
Dauvergne suggests that, “the distinction is not only about the different environmental
priorities of the north and south; it is about the different ultimate goals that each seeks
from the global environmental politics”.
b. The northern view is that the defining goal of enterprise is to improve the state of
global environment. The southern view defines the central problem as the uneven,
unfair and inappropriate state of the global system and particularly of the North-South
relations.
c. These two competing views reflect the different “northern” and “southern”
perspectives on global environmental politics that Dauvergne called as the “North-
South debate.”
d. At present, the emergence of environmental scarcities has added a new controversy
to the longstanding debate over the structure of relationships between the two.
e. The North-South debate, which was grounded on economic division, has become a
“blame game” over who is responsible for GHG emissions and for minimizing the
problem, rather than oriented towards positive action. Neither the North nor the South
is ready to take the responsibility and be accountable for the degrading environment.
f. While sustainable development has probably become one of the most frequently used
phrases in the environment-based summits, the North-South divide has openly
challenged the very idea of “what it would really mean by development”.
g. It is tacit that international environmental negotiations are not immune from the
forces that shape the global playing field and the North-South divide carries the danger
of blurring our understanding of the causes and solutions to standoff in negotiations.
 Therefore, the North-South lens should be used to serve as a means to inform and
enhance our understanding of the issue, but not as an end in itself.

Conclusion

1. The North-South debate on global environmental politics can be minimized through

accountability regarding GHGs emissions and by establishing active global governance with
fair and equitable goals of emission reduction across all countries of the North and South.
2. Marketbased mechanisms could offer an even better approach to resolving the debate. As
per the mechanism, emitters are bound by specific emissions levels and must pay
compensation where their emissions cross jurisdictional boundaries. Such payments should
be “cross-emission based”, such that compensation will increase with the emission rate.

6. Write a critical essay on the relevance of collective security towards realization of the aims
of international peace.
Approach
1. Introduction: Context with scholars’ definition of Collective Security.
2. Body
a. What is Collective Security?
b. Criticism against Collective Security
3. Conclusion: Determined collaboration and contribution of nations can make collective
security purposeful and successful.
Introduction
1. George Schwarzenberger, “Collective Security is machinery for joint action in order to
prevent or counter any attack against an established international order.”
2. Palmer and Perkins define “Collective Security clearly implies collective measures for
dealing with threats to peace.”

Body

1. What is the Collective Security?

a. In simple words, Collective security guarantees the security of each state of the world
against any war or aggression which may be committed by any state against any other
state. It is like an insurance system in which all the nations are bound to protect the
victim of an aggression or war by neutralizing the aggression or war against the victim.
b. The Collective Security System (CSS) has been mentioned in the UN Charter in article
two. It is one of the principles that called for banning the threatening or the actual use
of coercive power against any member country.
 c. Article 51 recommended that any country could, either individually or with the help of
other countries in the form of alliances, to enter another country if the latter country
was posed to coercion or occupation by another country, thus protecting the occupied
country until the Security Council takes a decision in that case.

2. Criticism Against Collective Security

a. Idealistic in Nature and Scope: It is based upon certain idealistic assumptions which
make its operationalization difficult. For e.g. it assumes that there can be a complete
international understanding regarding the nature of all threats or aggressions against
international peace and security. It is assumed that all nations could and would come
forward to name the aggressor and to take up collective security actions against the
aggressor. Also, the concept of “collectivity” means “All acting for one and all” is
basically an idealistic concept since it ignores the fact that all nations are not active in
IR nor can all the nations be expected to join a collective security action.
b. At times it is not possible to identify the Aggressor: It wrongly assumes that in the
event of an aggression against any nation, the aggressor and the nature of its
aggression can be really and easily identified. In practice, it is very difficult to determine
and name the aggressor as well as to identify the nature of aggression. Often the
aggressor acts in the name of self-defense and justifies its aggression as a defensive
action.
c. Admits War as Means: It is self-negating in so far as it first denounces war or
aggression as an illegal activity and then indirectly accepts that wars and aggressions
are bound to remain present in international relations. It wrongly believes the most
effective way to deal with such situations is to undertake a collective security war.
d. Rules out ‘Neutrality’ in times of War: It makes it an international obligation for all
nations to pool their resources and undertake collective action in the event of an
aggression. Thus, rules out neutrality. Many nations often prefer to remain away from
war. It makes Collective Security war an international obligation and wrongly assumes
that all nations are willing to participate in such a war.
e. Limited Concept: The concept as laid down in the UN Charter has 2 inherent
limitations. It accepts nations’ right to undertake war as a measure of self-defense
against any aggression. In practice this provision gives a legal basis to an aggression or
war in the name of action in self-defense. Secondly, it admits nations’ right to establish
regional defense pacts and organizations for protecting their security. It admits
regional security systems (RSS) as devices for preserving peace and security. The
working of RSS has in fact been a source of strain upon international peace and
security.
f. Dependence on Powerful States: The basic principle is that all the states should have
an equal say in arriving at collective security decisions. In reality, it fails to work on the
 principle of equality. Powerful states always dominate collective security decisions and
actions to safeguard their national interests.
g. Absence of a Permanent International Peace Keeping Force: It is only after UNSC’
decision to take military actions against an aggressor is taken, the constitution of a
collective security military force in initiated. This process is so slow and difficult that it
takes long time to raise forces and press it into service. The time gap for restoring peace
is so big. As a result, the aggressor gets enough needed for reaping the fruits of
aggression.
h. Lack of provisions for the termination of Collective Security Action: Whereas
elaborate provisions have been laid down for implementing the system, no provision
has been made regarding the method of terminating the Collective Security action.
i. Dangerous: Critics hold the view that it is a dangerous system as it can transform a
local war into a global war involving all the nations.

Conclusion

Despite criticism of the CSS, it cannot be denied that the system has not been totally meaningless
and without positive features. It has brought into vision the possibility of collective steps for the
preservation of world peace through crisis management in the event of a war. There can be
chances for a more purposeful and successful use of Collective Security if nations would
collaborate and contribute determinately.

7. Evaluate the contribution of feminist assertion towards strengthening the global debate on
gender Justice.
Approach
1. Introduction: Context with scholar statement.
2. Body
a. What is Gender Justice?
b. Why there is the need for Gender Justice?
c. Contribution of Feminist Assertion in Strengthening Global Debate on Gender
Justice
3. Conclusion: Feminist assertion has turned the issue of gendered justice from social to
political.

Introduction

1. Dr. Susan Currie Sivek, “Feminism is a movement that seeks equality for people of any
gender. It is founded on the belief that people should be able to pursue any opportunity
and demonstrate any characteristic regardless of gender.”
 2. Feminism aims for equality rather than women’s superiority. AT the normative heart of
feminism lies the belief that nobody should be at disadvantage because of their sex.

Body

1. What is Gender Justice?

a. Gender Justice refers to a world where everybody. Women and men, boys and girls are
valued equally, and are able to share equitably in the distribution of power knowledge
and resources.
b. It seeks to see all people free from cultural and interpersonal systems of privilege and
oppression, and from violence and repression based on gender.

2. What there is the need for Gender Justice?

a. Gender inequality is primarily an issue of unequal power relations between men and
women. It violates human rights, constrains choice and agency.
b. Moreover, it has negative impacts upon people’s ability to participate in, contribute to
and benefit from social, political and economic development.
c. Feminist argue that it is essential to work together and use our influence to create just
and equitable relationships between women and men in order to achieve fair,
sustainable resilient and thriving communities.

3. Feminist’s Contribution in Strengthening Global Debate on Gender Justice

a. Feminist assertion has shown considerable progress in terms of public acknowledgment

of gender inequality, gender discrimination, and gender-based human rights violations.
b. All these have increased the debate on gender justice at various international platforms
and even resulted into many fruitful outcomes.
c. Globally, gender justice as a cause has gained in strength over the years, as it has been
realized that no state can truly progress if half of its population is held back.
d. The struggle for equal rights, freedom and justice has been made by feminists, NGO’s
and through Government support. Even though considerable progress has been made in
this regard, women are still lagging behind.
e. Feminist argue with globalization, there are other complex issues that women face today
along with the elementary issues that have always plagued women. Consumerism and
cultural heterogeneity has brought in its fold more objectification of women.
f. The UN has established a strong mandate for gender justice. The focus on gender justice
has been there since the inception of the UN.
 g. In 1946, a separate body was formed to work on the advancement of women. The
Commission on the Status of Women worked from its inception to collect and compile
data on women's situation around the world, to promote women's human rights and
raise awareness of, and support for, their contribution to development.
h. The Decade for Women (1976-1985) and four world conferences on women (between
1975 and 1995) contributed significantly to raising awareness and commitment to
gender justice.
i. Due to feminist assertion, gender justice is now used in all key international agreements,
from the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW) in 1979 to the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015.
j. It has been picked up by conservative actors who emphasize on the complementarities
of women and men. They talk about “separate but equal” and go far in arguing for
biologically given roles and obligations for women and men in society.
k. The adoption of gender mainstreaming as a critical strategy for achieving gender justice,
intergovernmental bodies – such as the UNGA, the ECOSOC and the Commission on the
Status of Women are working to mainstream gender perspectives as an integral part of
all policy areas.

Conclusion

Gender justice is a social issue. However, feminist assertion has turned it into a political issue as
well. Feminist have indeed brought issue to the mainstream by strengthening the debate on
issue. Nevertheless, what they actually need is proper support from the international community
and implementation of laws and rules at ground level rather than debate and discussion.

8. What are the salient features of structural realism? What are the main criticisms leveled
against structural realists by post modernist?
Approach
1. Introduction
2. Body
a. Salient Features of Structural Realism
b. Criticism Leveled Against Structural Realists by Post Modernists
3. Conclusion: Structural Realism will remain relevant since states remain the dominant
player in IR

Introduction

1. New ideas emerged in the 1970s. Some of them were critical of “Classical Realist”
assumptions. Together these ideas are known as “Neo-realism” or “Structural Realism”.
 Kenneth Waltz wrote his Theory of International Politics in 1979 and used the expression
Structural Realism.
2. According to Waltz, theories of international politics could be developed at three levels of
analysis i.e. individual, the state and the international system. He explains the behaviour of
the state in terms of the anarchic structure of the international system.

Body

1. Salient Features of Structural Realism

a. Anarchy is the organizing principle of the International System: Two points bear
significance:
i. States in the anarchic international system are interconnected. Change in some
units or change in their mutual relations produces notable changes in other parts
of the international system.
ii. International system is not the sum total of its parts. Rather, it exhibits properties
and behaviors that are different from its parts. Because systems are generative,
the international political system is characterized by complex non-linear
relationships and unintended consequences. Outcomes are influenced by
something more than simply the aggregation of individual states’ behaviors, with
a tendency toward unintended and ironic outcomes. As a result, there is a gap
between what states want and what states get.
Simply put, according to structural realism, international system from outside and above,
impacts and shapes the behaviors of the states.
b. Security Dilemma: It points to the anarchical structure of the international system as the
main reason for the persistence of war. It asserts that states are victims of the “security
dilemma”, in which effort of a state to ensure its survival threatens the security of other
states around it. Following realism’s concept of self-help, Waltz argues that the only
rational course of action for a state in an anarchic international system is to maintain
enough military and political power to defend itself against aggression. Balance of Power
(BOP), alliance system, and arms race are few of the strategic tools of the states in this
game of survival.
c. Balance of Power, Polarity and Stability: The fact that states are inclined to treat other
states as enemies does not inevitably lead to bloodshed and open violence. Rather, it
believes that conflict can be contained by the BOP. However, while “Classical Realists”
treat BOP as a product of prudent statecraft, Neo-realists see it as a consequence of
structural dynamics of the international system, and distribution of power between and
among states. The principal factor affecting the likelihood of a BOP, and therefore the
prospect of war or peace, is the number of great powers operating within the
international system. Neo-realists see bipolar systems with stability and a reduced
 likelihood of war, while multi-polar systems have been associated with instability and a
greater likelihood of war.

2. Main Criticism Leveled Against Structural Realism by Post-Modernists

a. The approach puts an overemphasis on the power-centric configuration of IR. It stretches

the power seeking tendency of the states to the extent that it makes occurrence of conflict
and war inevitable.
b. As power seekers, states are aggressive in their external conduct. This approach denies
that states capable of cooperation and mutual help. Whereas, the new perspectives see
states both as aggressive and cooperative.
c. Similarly, its assumption of IR as anarchic negates the possibility that there could be a
transnational institutional arrangement for cooperation and even enforcement of
international decisions.
d. Structural realists could call the other world-visions as “utopias” but the very existence of
the UN since 1945 and its role in preventing another world war did not qualify the political
condition of anarchy exactly as neo-realism had imagined it.
e. The UN is not synonymous to a world government but definitely it represents the global
aspiration for peace and cooperation. It provides for collective security and entrusts the
Security Council to authorize “use of force” in adverse security scenario.
f. It is criticized for treating state as the sole actor in international politics. Even in the context
of a post-Cold War political environment where the actors have become pluralized with
blurred boundaries of participation, neo-realism’s state as the sole wielder of power was
heavily challenged.
g. Jeffrey Legro and Andrew Moravcsik, for example, observed that the approach was
degenerating as its conceptual foundations were being stretched beyond recognition or
utility. They ask, “Is anybody now a realist?”

Conclusion

Criticism does not mean that neo-realism as an approach to IR has ceased to exist. Despite far
reaching changes in the world, state remains the dominant and deciding actor in international
politics. Its relevance continues to surface in the contemporary discourse on the nature of IR. The
events of 9/11 in the US and the pre-emptive measures that US took thereafter have been seen
as developments favoring the neo-realists enterprise of theory building.