Qxn 4. Among many roles of international organizations is that of conflict resolution. Assess the effectiveness of both the African Union and the United Nations Organisation in resolving conflicts in the African Continent.

Answer: To assess the effectiveness of the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN) in resolving conflicts in Africa, one would need to analyze their respective roles, actions, and outcomes in various African conflicts. This assessment would involve examining their conflict resolution mechanisms, peacekeeping missions, and diplomatic efforts in the region. It’s essential to consider factors such as the success rate, the level of cooperation among member states, and the challenges they face in their peacekeeping and conflict resolution missions.

Qxn 5. Critically discuss the main theoretical assumptions of structuralism that rich states of the First World use their wealth and power to exploit the poor states of the Third World, without which the prosperity of the former would crumble.

Answer: Structuralism, in international relations theory, posits that the global system is inherently unequal, with powerful states in the First World exploiting the resources and labor of weaker states in the Third World. This theory suggests that the prosperity of the First World depends on the exploitation of the Third World. To critically discuss this theory, one would need to:

• Analyze the historical and contemporary evidence of economic and political exploitation by First World states in the Third World.
• Examine the role of international institutions and policies in perpetuating or mitigating these inequalities.
• Consider counterarguments and alternative theories that challenge the structuralist perspective.
• Evaluate the real-world implications and consequences of structuralism for global politics and development.

Qxn 6. Rationalist, constructivist, and social psychological approaches all attempt to explain conflict and cooperation in international politics. What are some of the most important similarities and differences between these approaches?

Answer: The rationalist, constructivist, and social psychological approaches are three distinct paradigms in international relations theory. Here are some of the key similarities and differences between them:

Similarities:

• All three approaches seek to explain the behavior of states and actors in the international system.
• They all acknowledge that states pursue their interests, but they differ in how they define and understand those interests.
• Each approach recognizes the role of ideas, beliefs, and norms in shaping international outcomes, albeit to varying degrees.

Differences:

• Rationalism emphasizes the role of self-interest and assumes that states act rationally to maximize their utility, often using game theory and mathematical models.
• Constructivism focuses on the influence of ideas, norms, and identities, arguing that these factors shape state behavior and international outcomes.
• Social psychology examines the impact of individual and group psychology, including factors like emotions, biases, and cognitive processes, on decision-making and conflict resolution.

Qxn 7. How insecurity situations in countries like Nigeria and Somalia shed light on the debate between liberalists and realists over the role non-state actors play in international politics?

Answer: Insecurity situations in countries like Nigeria and Somalia provide valuable insights into the ongoing debate between liberalists and realists regarding the role of non-state actors in international politics.

• Realist Perspective: Realists tend to emphasize the primacy of states in international politics. They argue that non-state actors, such as rebel groups or terrorist organizations, can disrupt the international system’s stability. In the cases of Nigeria (Boko Haram) and Somalia (Al-Shabaab), realists might argue that these non-state actors challenge state sovereignty and contribute to regional instability.
• Liberal Perspective: Liberals, on the other hand, believe that international institutions and cooperation can mitigate conflicts and insecurity. They might argue that addressing the root causes of insecurity in Nigeria and Somalia through international cooperation and development aid can help stabilize the regions.

By examining these two perspectives in the context of real-world cases like Nigeria and Somalia, one can better understand the ongoing theoretical debate and the practical implications of non-state actors’ roles in international politics.

Qxn 8. There are a number of approaches in International Politics that offer some hope for the attainment of the New World Order. Assess the validity of two of these approaches.

Answer: To assess the validity of two approaches in International Politics that offer hope for the attainment of the New World Order, let’s consider two popular perspectives:

1. Liberal Institutionalism: Liberal institutionalism emphasizes the role of international organizations, diplomacy, and cooperation in maintaining global order. It argues that by strengthening international institutions like the United Nations, promoting free trade, and fostering intergovernmental cooperation, states can work together to prevent conflicts and promote peace. The validity of this approach can be assessed by examining its track record in preventing major conflicts and facilitating international cooperation. For example, the relative peace and stability in Europe since World War II, partly attributed to institutions like the European Union and NATO, can be seen as a validation of liberal institutionalism.
2. Constructivism: Constructivism argues that international order is shaped by shared norms, beliefs, and identities among states. It suggests that by changing these ideas and identities, it is possible to create a more peaceful and cooperative world order. To assess the validity of constructivism, one could examine instances where shifts in norms and identities have led to positive changes in international relations. For instance, the end of apartheid in South Africa and the subsequent peaceful transition to majority rule can be seen as an example of how changing international norms contributed to positive change.

In both cases, it’s essential to consider counterarguments and limitations, but these approaches have shown promise in contributing to the idea of a New World Order based on cooperation and peace.

Qxn 9. Discuss the different approaches taken by Realism and Liberalism to manage global insecurity. And compare and contrast liberal and realist theory approaches to managing global insecurity.

Answer: Realism and Liberalism are two prominent theories in international relations, and they have different approaches to managing global insecurity:

Realism:

• Assumption: Realists assume that states are primarily motivated by self-interest and the pursuit of power in the international system.
• Approach to Managing Insecurity: Realists advocate for a balance of power among states as a means to manage global insecurity. They argue that a strong and militarily capable state should protect its interests and deter potential aggressors.
• Emphasis on Sovereignty: Realists prioritize state sovereignty and national security, sometimes at the expense of international cooperation.
• Critique of Multilateralism: Realists are often skeptical of international institutions and alliances, seeing them as instruments for powerful states to advance their interests.

Liberalism:

• Assumption: Liberals believe in the possibility of cooperation and that international institutions and norms can mitigate insecurity.
• Approach to Managing Insecurity: Liberals advocate for multilateralism, international organizations, and diplomacy as means to manage global insecurity. They emphasize cooperation, free trade, and diplomacy to address common challenges.
• Emphasis on Interdependence: Liberals highlight the interdependence of states and the benefits of economic and political cooperation.
• Critique of Power Politics: Liberals criticize the realist emphasis on power politics and argue that mutual gains through cooperation are possible.

Comparison and Contrast:

• Both theories acknowledge the existence of global insecurity but offer different solutions.
• Realism relies on the balance of power and military strength to maintain security, whereas liberalism places more emphasis on cooperation and diplomacy.
• Realism tends to be more pessimistic about the prospects for long-term peace, while liberalism is more optimistic and believes in the potential for lasting cooperation.
• Realism prioritizes state interests and sovereignty, while liberalism places