I would just like to thank you so much, I'm doing IR and I'm struggling a bit with keeping up and your videos are helping so much with making things clear!!!
There are some grey areas: 1. Who decides that a state is sovereign?And how? 2. Who decides that a government of a sovereign state is a legitimate government? And how? (Since, states deal with each other through their governments.) 3. Does human rights violation(example, genocide) supersede the rule of "no interference" from other countries?
In most cases, there is only one reasonable option. For instance, it would be very silly for New Zeland not to recognize French Sovereignty over the region of Marseille. Even when there's some kind of moral dispute, there is usually one obvious de facto government that even its oponents have to accept, if they want to conduct any business in the land. Take, for example, British sovereignty over the Falklands. In the extreme case where two armies are fighting over one precise territory, you can assume that each army has de facto sovereignty over the territory behind it. When it comes to de iure sovereignty, well, countries recognize other countries, and governments recognize other governments. That's a bit of a circular source of legitimacy. But, in practice, it works fine 99% of the time.
Anarchy means without rulers, it does not mean without rules. It seems to me what you're leading up to with the desire to predict outcomes is some special class of overloads to govern the world, which is not anarchy. With Anarchy when one sovereign feels another isn't following the rules, they would then enlist the help of the others. No predictions necessary. (Predictions makes me think of Orwell's thought police, a road best avoided in my opinion)
Thanx William! I´m a future international relationship student and I´ll go through all the 70 chapters, looks really interesting and its really well explained! Thank you for using your time on other people :) Regards from Japan! (I´m Spanish btw, just spending the year here)
@@davideldred.campingwilder6481 I’ve made an effort to reply to comments anytime I see someone mention that they’re taking a certain class, thinking of taking something, or if they have a test coming up. It’s led to some cool conversations!
Lesson 3 Anarchy It means the lack of political authority =(self-help) BQ : Who is sovereign over the sovereign. - There is no sovereign over the sovereign. There is either no police in the world or weak. (The united nations) In case of domestic affairs, The police take care of it. Violations of sovereignty -Osama Bin Laden -Nato meddling in Lybia -Sobiet IR is closer to the mafia world IR's challenge : If anything can happen, how do we predict or explain outcomes? My opinion : If super power nations sovereign over the sovereign? In case of Russia and Ukraine, could world police take care of it? Or even USA? I think It is the reason that small and weak countries hope to armnate of nuclear weapons. In case of mafia world, mafia holds guns for self-help. So do countries.
Cool! I am doing a massive update to my gametheory101 website as I type this, including the section on international relations. You might want to check that out.
Some anarchist theories do support having elected and supported bodies that ensure mutual prosperity and those that agrees on having common defense. They can also have communal or worker's control over economic processes and have a governing body such s a syndicate. They just don't have territorial boundaries like a classical state would have. I understand that anarchy is a different concept in international relations though.
I'm not sure what you are actually referring to, but let's take what you said as a given. Then this force is not a "police" precisely because it operates under contract...which is precisely the argument from the video. The world is "self-help"; if you want help, then it's up to you to get it, either by doing it yourself or hiring someone else to.
I'm thinking about doing my masters in International Relations because I find it really interesting. But I did my undergraduate degree in Business Studies and, despite understanding that there are aspects of business and economics in International Relations, i'm a little worried it's a too radical switch. These mini-lectures are really interesting and articulate by the way.
@@PunmasterSTP No. I ended up studying a MSc International Business and achieved a distinction, so I guess it was the correct choice. Good thing about IB is that you study a lot of IR related stuff. It's a useful degree to have post-Brexit as well, especially considering the UK government is aiming to turn the UK into a digital economy.
@@mirr1984 Oh that's cool and I'm glad it worked out! I've never traveled outside of my home country (the US), though I really hope to someday. How are things going across the ocean?
So the situation in Burma right now with the Roginya Muslims being oppressed, no outside force is going to do anything, because other soverign nations wont impede on Burma's soverighty?
I understand that this is intended to be very basic, but I think it's been simplified too much: has been dumbed down so it's misleading. There is an implicit assumption here that international relations SHOULD and COULD be similar to what exists in a given country: in this case, the USA. But that's misleading because there are very few similarities. As in, there never has been any sort of joint body that acts as a police force. The UN comes closest to that, but has hardly even been effective. Saying it's like a mafia world is wrong: organised crime does tend to have formalised policies: more so than what exists in global relations. Infighting and gang wars is bad for business. The quoted examples are misleading, take for example saying that NATO "meddled in Libya". Yes, the US/NATO did use force in Libya, but it was BECAUSE Libya itself was already in anarchy. And before that under Ghadaffi, it had funded and committed many terrorist and anti-social acts. The regime had already broken down in Libya BEFORE NATO acted. And it didn't come out of the blue: sanctions existed already. Which was NOT the case in Georgia when Russia interfered. Or recently in Ukraine: again after Russian interference. Or in the Balkans when religious-driven fighting broke out. In the first two cases, there WERE functional governments that Russia SHOULD have worked through. In the Balkans, there was not: it was anarchy, with genocide being committed.
hey great videos for international students.. i found a lil mistake.. in 2008 there is not soviet union anymore.. there is just Republic of Russia.. :)
+Zam Zama Interpol arrests individual criminals, not entire states. Supposedly the UN was supposed to hold up international law, but they aren't very good at that
+Zam Zama The term "No International Police" means there isn't anything that stops or controls a "country or state" actions within the international system. Please keep in mind that the structure of the system is very complex and now in modern era we have international orgs and regimes that foster cooperation and consensus eg UN etcc. But can the UN really stop US, Russia or power houses from invading other countries ?. Please keep in mind there isn't an actual "police officer" involved, it's just used as a metaphor.. Do some reading on anarchy within the international system. Now Interpol, very different from "international police" or "anarchy" & for many is a waste, just as UN peace keeping. Major conflicts and criminals are not resolved and the situation even gets more worst with new emerging security threats. To simplify, International police deals with the structural level of analysis (international) while interpol deals with state level of analysis (inside the state). -I'm a year 2 IR student @ the University of the West Indies btw.
this is mostly inaccurate, you really need to brush up on your international relations. While it is true you could state what your saying in a broad sense, in reality the world does not work as your saying. There is an international policing force or peace keeping force, through the UN, yes its made up of soldiers from various countries but it can form quickly or take time depending on the reason for its forming. Plus states have jurisdiction over other states sovereignty and can use their own policing force to police the situation if there is specific cause to do so. Say like in the security of that nation. Then you have organization like NATO who will also police a situation, and even come to the rescue of another nation that is part of that organization. Lastly, you have NGO's who also have security forces who can be used to be a world police force like Interpol, so anarchy is not as existent as you think we do have some pretty good international order.
I would just like to thank you so much, I'm doing IR and I'm struggling a bit with keeping up and your videos are helping so much with making things clear!!!
I agree these videos are awesome! How did your studies go?
There are some grey areas:
1. Who decides that a state is sovereign?And how?
2. Who decides that a government of a sovereign state is a legitimate government? And how? (Since, states deal with each other through their governments.)
3. Does human rights violation(example, genocide) supersede the rule of "no interference" from other countries?
In most cases, there is only one reasonable option. For instance, it would be very silly for New Zeland not to recognize French Sovereignty over the region of Marseille.
Even when there's some kind of moral dispute, there is usually one obvious de facto government that even its oponents have to accept, if they want to conduct any business in the land. Take, for example, British sovereignty over the Falklands.
In the extreme case where two armies are fighting over one precise territory, you can assume that each army has de facto sovereignty over the territory behind it.
When it comes to de iure sovereignty, well, countries recognize other countries, and governments recognize other governments. That's a bit of a circular source of legitimacy. But, in practice, it works fine 99% of the time.
Anarchy means without rulers, it does not mean without rules. It seems to me what you're leading up to with the desire to predict outcomes is some special class of overloads to govern the world, which is not anarchy.
With Anarchy when one sovereign feels another isn't following the rules, they would then enlist the help of the others. No predictions necessary. (Predictions makes me think of Orwell's thought police, a road best avoided in my opinion)
I've just started watching your videos, and man, I am so intrigued.
Thanx William! I´m a future international relationship student and I´ll go through all the 70 chapters, looks really interesting and its really well explained! Thank you for using your time on other people :) Regards from Japan! (I´m Spanish btw, just spending the year here)
That’s awesome to hear! How have your studies been going?
@@PunmasterSTP yeah, I was thinking that...
@@davideldred.campingwilder6481 I’ve made an effort to reply to comments anytime I see someone mention that they’re taking a certain class, thinking of taking something, or if they have a test coming up. It’s led to some cool conversations!
i'm doing a masters course in international business and politics this coming september and these videos are really helpful
How did the course go?
as opposed to Somalia or ... New Jersey *poker face* xD
i was like, what...how is new jersey..., then i'm glad i'm not the only one catching this, lmao
Lesson 3 Anarchy
It means the lack of political authority
=(self-help)
BQ : Who is sovereign over the sovereign.
- There is no sovereign over the sovereign.
There is either no police in the world or weak. (The united nations)
In case of domestic affairs, The police take care of it.
Violations of sovereignty
-Osama Bin Laden
-Nato meddling in Lybia
-Sobiet
IR is closer to the mafia world
IR's challenge : If anything can happen, how do we predict or explain outcomes?
My opinion : If super power nations sovereign over the sovereign?
In case of Russia and Ukraine, could world police take care of it? Or even USA? I think It is the reason that small and weak countries hope to armnate of nuclear weapons. In case of mafia world, mafia holds guns for self-help. So do countries.
Cool! I am doing a massive update to my gametheory101 website as I type this, including the section on international relations. You might want to check that out.
Dang the end of the video got kinda deep. Thanks so much for making these series!
Very interesting video series... I'm not a student, just passionate about the topic! Keep it going!
gratitudes from Chinese future IR student!!!
I’m an engineering student. I got data structures and computer architectures exams coming up tomorrow. Whay am I watching this late at night?
Some anarchist theories do support having elected and supported bodies that ensure mutual prosperity and those that agrees on having common defense. They can also have communal or worker's control over economic processes and have a governing body such s a syndicate. They just don't have territorial boundaries like a classical state would have.
I understand that anarchy is a different concept in international relations though.
Thanks for video! Сan you recomend some literature on this topic, esp about comparing mafia and states?
If everyone in the world could watch these videos, the world would change,.
I'm not sure what you are actually referring to, but let's take what you said as a given. Then this force is not a "police" precisely because it operates under contract...which is precisely the argument from the video. The world is "self-help"; if you want help, then it's up to you to get it, either by doing it yourself or hiring someone else to.
What is the role of inter pol and international laws in anarchic condition?
Thank you very much for the useful information
I came back here for the memes, but I left with a new understanding of Anarchy in IR.
Excellent explanation!
Can you please include views of various scholars also in your next videos?
Winning.
thanks :D i learn alot from your videos
New Jersey :'D
I'm thinking about doing my masters in International Relations because I find it really interesting. But I did my undergraduate degree in Business Studies and, despite understanding that there are aspects of business and economics in International Relations, i'm a little worried it's a too radical switch.
These mini-lectures are really interesting and articulate by the way.
I think you will be fine. I'm starting my masters in IR and we have an intro class on all the terms you need to catch up.
@@MariaCruz-wx8ke How’d your masters go?
Did you decide to do IR in the end?
@@PunmasterSTP No. I ended up studying a MSc International Business and achieved a distinction, so I guess it was the correct choice. Good thing about IB is that you study a lot of IR related stuff. It's a useful degree to have post-Brexit as well, especially considering the UK government is aiming to turn the UK into a digital economy.
@@mirr1984 Oh that's cool and I'm glad it worked out! I've never traveled outside of my home country (the US), though I really hope to someday. How are things going across the ocean?
Cool. Good luck!
Dang. If you were my professor, I'd probably be a genius by now.
Great video
Please give me a paragraph, I have a test tmr
Is the Anarchial system the cause of war?
So the situation in Burma right now with the Roginya Muslims being oppressed, no outside force is going to do anything, because other soverign nations wont impede on Burma's soverighty?
I understand that this is intended to be very basic, but I think it's been simplified too much: has been dumbed down so it's misleading.
There is an implicit assumption here that international relations SHOULD and COULD be similar to what exists in a given country: in this case, the USA.
But that's misleading because there are very few similarities.
As in, there never has been any sort of joint body that acts as a police force.
The UN comes closest to that, but has hardly even been effective.
Saying it's like a mafia world is wrong: organised crime does tend to have formalised policies: more so than what exists in global relations.
Infighting and gang wars is bad for business.
The quoted examples are misleading, take for example saying that NATO "meddled in Libya".
Yes, the US/NATO did use force in Libya, but it was BECAUSE Libya itself was already in anarchy.
And before that under Ghadaffi, it had funded and committed many terrorist and anti-social acts.
The regime had already broken down in Libya BEFORE NATO acted.
And it didn't come out of the blue: sanctions existed already.
Which was NOT the case in Georgia when Russia interfered.
Or recently in Ukraine: again after Russian interference.
Or in the Balkans when religious-driven fighting broke out.
In the first two cases, there WERE functional governments that Russia SHOULD have worked through.
In the Balkans, there was not: it was anarchy, with genocide being committed.
Why can't the UN sovereign over the sovereign?
Who watches the watchers? It’s an infinite regress. A decentralized system is better.
ir theorist does not have to predict though, they explain.
Somalia is a country like USA why not Somalia and new Jersey.
But Explaning For these matters we know somalia Have not Anarchy lack of political Authority
We are all know
No united nations standing army... YET
Wow
hey great videos for international students.. i found a lil mistake.. in 2008 there is not soviet union anymore.. there is just Republic of Russia.. :)
+Rubens Vavla he said soviet union in czechslovakia in 1968 :)
you said there is no such thing as a "International Police" then what about INTERPOL aren't they the international police ?
+Zam Zama Interpol arrests individual criminals, not entire states. Supposedly the UN was supposed to hold up international law, but they aren't very good at that
+Zam Zama The term "No International Police" means there isn't anything that stops or controls a "country or state" actions within the international system. Please keep in mind that the structure of the system is very complex and now in modern era we have international orgs and regimes that foster cooperation and consensus eg UN etcc. But can the UN really stop US, Russia or power houses from invading other countries ?. Please keep in mind there isn't an actual "police officer" involved, it's just used as a metaphor.. Do some reading on anarchy within the international system.
Now Interpol, very different from "international police" or "anarchy" & for many is a waste, just as UN peace keeping. Major conflicts and criminals are not resolved and the situation even gets more worst with new emerging security threats.
To simplify, International police deals with the structural level of analysis (international) while interpol deals with state level of analysis (inside the state).
-I'm a year 2 IR student @ the University of the West Indies btw.
+⇒Kashmir⇐ thank you, that makes alot more sense :)
Zam Zama Really ? That's good to hear :)
नमस्कार जय हिंद जय महाराष्ट्र शिवाजी बा .भाष्टे .मुंबई उच्च मा .महोदय माझ्या कडुन हार्दिक शुभेच्छा फोन नंबर 8652679395
this is mostly inaccurate, you really need to brush up on your international relations. While it is true you could state what your saying in a broad sense, in reality the world does not work as your saying. There is an international policing force or peace keeping force, through the UN, yes its made up of soldiers from various countries but it can form quickly or take time depending on the reason for its forming. Plus states have jurisdiction over other states sovereignty and can use their own policing force to police the situation if there is specific cause to do so. Say like in the security of that nation. Then you have organization like NATO who will also police a situation, and even come to the rescue of another nation that is part of that organization. Lastly, you have NGO's who also have security forces who can be used to be a world police force like Interpol, so anarchy is not as existent as you think we do have some pretty good international order.
Where is the un in russia Ukraine war? Or Israel Palestine war?