The popular phrase “the shadow of the future” is common in modern international politics. Ideally, it implies a modified change of behavior among individuals, entities, and nations when expecting positive future interactions. Transnational institutions have augmented the phrase “the shadow of the future” in different perspectives concerning relations among sovereign countries. The most common situation in which global institutions adopt the phrase is in international policies aimed at peace and development. In essence, organizations enhance interstate connections by enacting regulations that determine worldwide cooperation among nations. Member countries of universal institutions are expected to abide by the policy application for future beneficial relations demonstrated in diplomatic procedures. Policy adoption and compliance are objective in enhancing socio-cultural and political development evidenced in dynamic case scenarios. Diplomatic relationships and foreign policies on sustainability and accountable leadership are used by international institutions to influence interstate interaction.
Current international events illustrate the future of collaboration among countries. For instance, developed member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) will help decide how countries access healthcare resources against Covid-19. Levels of collaboration and cooperation will determine interstate interaction on medical services such as treatment of respiratory organs and vaccination against the virus. Additionally, the Paris Climate Accord of 2016 is a widely accepted agreement that forces signatories to engage in environmentally-friendly production practices. Compliance with the document, for instance, will allow wealthy countries from the European Union (EU) to offer the resources required for manufacturing products with organic compounds in developing regions. Essentially, strict compliance with sustainability practices will be the key factor determining the relationship between developed nations such as France and Germany and developing countries Brazil, China, and the U.S. Collective contribution to environmental sustainability and related agreements could decide interstate connections.
Commercial liberalism, on the one hand, is an international approach that advances diplomatic relations between countries by advocating for tax-free transactions. The idea is enhanced by capitalism allowing countries to relate economically through trade. Liberalists, in favor of commercial relations, depict confidence in progressive interstate interaction enabling profit-making institutions to trade as foreign direct investments (FDIs). Structural realism, on the other hand, entails global influence aided by global military power. Individuals advocating for this practice, believe that power is a critical determinant of interstate interactions. Structural realists consider the integration of army activities to communicate power to regional and international enemies. Commercial liberalists of the nineteenth century argued against structural realism claiming that high levels of interdependence might result in mistrust and antagonism among nations. States with free trade agreements (FTA) are likely to engage in a conflict due to fear and doubt leading to betrayal.
Countries with stable commercial relations characterized by fewer economic restrictions acquire useful knowledge and skills on trade efficiency. For instance, professionals working for American technology companies in South Asia benefit from advanced expertise in innovation and invention. To be specific, the U.S. has been vital to commercial development in China due to progressive interstate interaction in employment. The argument of nineteenth-century “commercial” liberals against uncontrolled interdependence among countries has been evidenced in several international economic conflicts. For instance, the U.S. – China trade war emerged after many decades of trade interactions between the countries. The former accuses the Asian country of stealing its intellectual knowledge for profitability. Similarly, South Korea and Japan are engaged in a commercial conflict after decades of trade collaboration in technology resources.
Capitalism is a useful approach for developing economies among partnering countries. Proponents of “the capitalist peace” optimize the influence of economic development in achieving national prosperity. They argue that the countries with diplomatic ties on trade have rarely engaged in conflict or dynamic social differences. In essence, capitalism has been useful in creating job opportunities required to improve individuals’ quality of life. Indeed, people fulfill achieve academic and professional dreams in a commercial economy driven by competition. Capitalist peace is critical in ensuring that individuals advance entrepreneurial ideas beyond political and economic jurisdictions. Globalization aids in attaining the objectives of capitalism allowing efficient movement of goods and people from one economic zone to another. Proponents of capitalist peace dismiss competing for democratic practices to achieve peace against antagonistic human behavior between hostile countries.
Democracy has depicted objectivity and certainty in advancing peace in warzone countries evidenced worldwide. Diplomatic principles of civilization were adopted to resolve international conflicts between hostile countries such as Armenia and Azerbaijan. However, democracy has failed on numerous occasions to ascertain sustainable agreements between differing entities. Treaties and pacts developed from democratic virtues of negotiations and arbitrations fail, resulting in renewed conflicts. Therefore, it is objective to acknowledge that “capitalist peace” through progressive economic relations in trade is more sustainable than democratic frameworks. The argument is evidenced in interstate interaction between the U.S. and EU member countries. For instance, the former accused Airbus of receiving government support against the aviation production industry guidelines. The U.S. sought legal justice against the E.U. from the World Trade Organization (WTO), noting the dismal financial performance of Boeing. The conflict between the two economic zones was settled by progressive trade ties over diplomatic relations. Most importantly, international institutions augment the phrase “the shadow of the future” using global policies and regulations intended for human prosperity.
done in as little as 1 hour