States are significant actors in world affairs because of their continuous engagement in others’ initiatives and foreign relations tactics intended to facilitate better outcomes within their borders and spearhead development. However, the global political arena features unprecedented factors that influence how states relate to each other and their behaviors. International relations theorists describe states as a system because they react to conditions in their surroundings and are united by their interactions (Mingst et al., 2018). Nevertheless, polarity is the primary variable that dictates states’ behaviors because power enables countries to act freely and encourage others to enhance their supremacy.
Power is a fundamental tool for states because it allows them to command respect and support of other countries in overseeing their interests. Thus, the strength of polarity in explaining state behavior is its accountability for why countries with tangible elements, such as size, geography, natural resources, a robust economy, and military capacity, are powerful. In addition, it sheds light on why states struggle for supremacy (Mingst et al., 2018). Nevertheless, its weakness is that it needs to acknowledge that conflicts occur at all system levels without particularly paying attention to polarity. However, it reasonably explains states’ involvement in foreign relations and international affairs. Although the peace agreement of Westphalia established a global order toward co-existence, polarity is a permanent feature of the global system because of the anarchist nature of states (Mingst et al., 2018). As long as countries are invested in satisfying their interests, power is beneficial, thus encouraging them to adopt solutions to rise and secure their control over others.
Realism is a notion that bases its argument on the anarchic nature of the global environment. Thus, it argues that nations continuously seek power to ensure their security and advance state interests. The argument is reasonable since military and economic capacity can influence countries to wage war on each other. However, its weakness is that it predicts static changes, which might not occur if unit-level variables are omitted (Keohane, 2020). In other words, it cannot account for individual actions, such as the peaceful withdrawal of the social union from the cold war. Liberalism bases its argument on state interactions, shared principles, and interdependence (Mingst et al., 2018). The strength of liberalism is its objective perceptions of individuals’ interactions as contributing factors to their relations. Though, it does not explain why states focus on reinforcing their military capacity. Constructivist theories offer reasonable arguments because they address variables such as international institutions and trade relations, which are often neglected by other theories (Keohane, 2020). Nevertheless, they focus on materialistic facts outside the international system, some of which are not relevant to state interests.
The sin theory bases its argument on the fall of man in the Garden of Eden after he was tricked into eating the forbidden fruit. According to this ideology, humans are not responsible for their evils and have little control over their bad decisions. The second part of the theory suggests that politics constitutes the ongoing psychological struggle between individuals’ will and sins inherited at birth (Paipais, 2019). In a broader sense, the theory explains that state interactions are governed by human factors such as emotions, reason, mind, body, rationality, and passion. The sin theory considers human beings’ nature, which allows them to fit in various situations because all individuals are different and unique yet share some similarities aimed at ensuring theory comfort and thriving (Paipais, 2019). Hence, the theory is commendable since it lays out why individuals act the way they do and the factors that affect their decisions, which translates to their interactions with others. Thus, it explains the roots of systems behaviors and rival theories.
References
Keohane, R. O. (2020). International institutions and state power: Essays in international relations theory. Routledge.
Mingst, K. A., McKibben, H. E., & Arreguin-Toft, I. M. (2018). Essentials of international relations. WW Norton & Company.
Paipais, V. (2019). First image revisited: human nature, original sin, and international relations. Journal of International Relations and Development, 22(2), 364–388. Web.