Question 1:Question 2:Question 3:Question 3:Question 3:Question 4:Question 4:Question 5:Question 5:Question 5:IR 210 Final Essay QuestionsQuestion 1:The five fundamental flaws are State-centrism, Presentism, Anarchophilia, Ahistoricism, and Euro-centrism. Euro-centrism assumes that what happened in Europe and the broader West is a good representation of what happened everywhere. It fails to recognize how non-European actors understood international relations, as in the Afro-Eurasian system that existed long before the European system. It is also important to know that the West might not always be the world power. Anarchophilia assumes that anarchy is natural, and at root, eternal. In other words natural and unavoidable. Anarchophilia is a consequence of Ahistoric and Eurocentric perceptions. Ahistoricism is studying the past, but only to discover general laws that apply to all times and places. Presentism assumes, or insists, that what prevails today also prevailed in every other time and place. As a consequence modern Europe gets a disproportionate amount of attention, Greece for example. State-centrism assumes that states are and always will be the dominant actors in international relations. This has not always been the case though, as our studies of hunter gatherer bands show. It is exceedingly clear that Realism is most vulnerable to all five of these short comings (this is true according to Buzan and Little). Realism, since the time of Thucydides, has been about power politics as a law of human behavior. In other words, it is in human nature to seek power and domination, and a state seeking power is seen only as a representation of the people of the state. In the case of Euro-centrism, theorists, such as Rostow for example, have made developmental models for developing countries that have failed because of this problem. His “stages of growth” model assumedthat any country can develop if it follows the examples of the developed Western states. He failed to recognize that developing states have different belief systems, cultures, and ways of life that are much different than Europe and the broader West. He failed to recognize how they interpret international relations. His model failed because of this problem. In Anarchophilia realists assume that because it is in human nature to seek power, the international system will always be anarchic because states will always be competing with one another. The prisoner’s dilemma and the security dilemma will take effect. Euro-centric views fuel this thought. But this is not the case. 40 thousand years ago hunter gatherer bands worked together peacefully and mutually. Today the existence of the UN shows that an international non-anarchic structure can exist. In the case of Ahistoricism, which is closely linked to State-centrism and Presentism and the reason why Iwill not talk about each of them separately, it is unwise to think that what happened in the past is a goodway to create general laws that apply to all times and places. To compare the conflict between Greece and Athens and the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union for example, is a mistake. It distorts beyond recognition the underlying social structures that form the Greek city-states. We can’t assume these social structures are the same everywhere. We can’t assume, as realists do, that these different states acted on the same natural instincts of gaining power and domination. The theoretical approach least susceptible is Critical Theory. Knowledge cannot be objective and timeless like realists like to claim. Instead, ideas and values are a reflection of a particular set of social relations.In the case of Ahistoricism, which again is closely tied to Presentism and State-centrism, Critical theorists understand there are no laws applicable to all times and places. In the conflict between Athens and Sparta and the United States and the Soviet Union, Critical theorists realize the social structures of these two conflicts are very different. Critical theorists concern themselves not only with the past; they also deal with a continuing process of change. That is the key. In the case of Euro-centrism, Critical theorists try to understand world orders that grasp both the sourcesof stability in a given system, and also the dynamics of processes of transformation. In other words, they don’t assume what happened in Europe happened everywhere. Instead they analyze world hegemons, and in Cox’ case, come to the conclusion that dominant powers have shaped a world order that best suit their needs. American “free trade” is a good example because it hurts many developing countries, but it is considered a norm because that is what the powers have ensured. In the case of Anarchophilia, Cox suggests developing a theoretical understanding of world orders that grasps both the sources of stability in a given system, and also the dynamics of processes of transformation. So instead of accepting things will always be anarchic, Cox tries to understand why so he can fix the problem. In the end it is the fact that Critical Theory tries to develop understandings and solutions to world problems instead of using the old bench marks of Europe and realist thinking. Question 2:Modern states have made some developments in most sectors. Interaction Capacity increases has driven developments in social and physical technologies, and has been very important to modern states. Process has developed in that a post-modern security community of powerful democracies, and international relations in this community, no longer operate under realist rules. States do not expect or prepare for war against each other, and since this community contains most of the powerful democracies, this is a significant development for the international system. Economies and societies are highly open and interdependent, transnational players are numerous and strong, and international society is well developed. Units have developed in that hard boundaries and strong sovereignty has beenreplaced by permeable boundaries, layered sovereignty, and common international and transnational spaces. Structure has developed in that the shoving and shaping forces of socialization and competition become less driven by military considerations and more driven by economic and societal ones. This shiftsdomination away from military capability to economic prowess, societal dynamism, and the diplomatic skill to build a strong