The Interests of Nations

Despite years of western hand-wringing over terrorism, piracy and immigration, Somalia remains a de facto no-go area for international diplomacy; likewise long-suffering Zimbabwe; likewise Thailand's disadvantaged southern Malay minority; the much put-upon Uighurs of China's Xinjiang province ; and the Muslim peoples of the Russian Caucasus. Even where the international community has stepped in, lack of leadership, selfish calculation, and a craven reluctance to make a stand increasingly characterise much of what is happening now.

Georgia's South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions remain under Russian occupation, despite the French-brokered deal for a troop withdrawal; Burma's criminal generals carry on regardless of international sanctions; and even Kosovo, that great test-bed of liberal humanitarian interventionism, is still too weak and divided to leave to its own devices, more than 10 years after its "liberation". It may be this apparent diplomatic drift, this reluctance of individual governments and collectives such as the EU to risk new international entanglements or enforce existing rules and standards, comes in reaction to the ideologically driven excesses of the Bush years.

Perhaps it is linked to the economic downturn in the west, with falling business confidence matched by falling diplomatic and political confidence. But perhaps, more than anything, it is the product of a new, narrow, self-serving national self-interestedness — a sort of Tea Party philosophy writ large in which charity begins at home, the weak go to the wall, and the devil take the hindmost.

Wealth of Nations — Chpt 11 (III, p.3)

Whatever the reason, it's all very short-sighted, and dangerous, too. China Foreign policy Asia Pacific comment. Order by newest oldest recommendations. Show 25 25 50 All. Threads collapsed expanded unthreaded. Loading comments… Trouble loading? With hegemonic stability theory , the concept of the U. The majority of the jurists consider that the national interest is incompatible with the rule of law. While the notion of state reason comes first as a theme of study in political science, it is a very vague concept in law and has never been an object of systematic study.

This obvious lack of interest is due to a deliberate epistemological choice - a form of positivism applied to legal science; and as a result legal science affirms its autonomy regarding other social sciences while constituting with exactness its own object - law - in order to describe it. In doing so it implies deterministic causes which have an influence on its descriptive function.

This method which puts aside state reason is not without any consequence: A fundamental dynamic in modern constitutionalism, "the seizure of the political phenomenon by law" is all the more remarkable when it claims a scientific value, thus a neutrality aiming at preventing all objection. This convergence of legal science and constitutionalism has the tautological character of a rhetorical discourse in which law is simultaneously the subject and the object of the discourse on law. Having as a basis state reason, it allows a reflexion on the legitimacy of power and authority of modern Western societies; this in connexion with the representations which make it and which it makes "state reason and public law.

Today, the concept of "the national interest" is often associated with political realists who fail to differentiate their policies from "idealistic" policies to seek to inject morality into foreign policy or promote solutions that rely on multilateral institutions which might weaken the independence of the state. As considerable disagreement exists in every country over what is or is not in "the national interest," the term is as often invoked to justify isolationist and pacifistic policies as to justify interventionist or warlike policies.

It has been posited that the term is a euphemism used by powerful countries for geopolitical aims such as nonrenewable natural resources for energy independency , territorial expansionism and precious metals in smaller countries. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article includes a list of references , but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.

Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. National Interest is a vague and ambiguous term that carries a meaning according to the context in which it is used. Statesmen and policy-makers have always used it in ways suitable to them and to their objective of justifying the actions of their states. China justified its border disputes with India and the Soviet Union in the name of attempts to secure the national interests of China.

Now the P-5 countries talk of Non- proliferation and arms control in terms of the national interests of all the nations. All these and many more examples can be quoted to stress the ambiguity that surrounds the concept of National Interest. This ambiguity hinders the process of formulating a universally accepted definition of National Interest. However, several scholars have tried to define National Interest. It means desires on the part of sovereign states.

National Interests can as defined as the claims, objectives, goals, demands and interests which a nation always tries to preserve, protect, defend and secure in relations with other nations. In describing the national interests that nations seek to secure a two-fold classification is generally made: According to Morgenthau, the vital components of the national interests that a foreign policy seeks to secure are survival or identity.

He sub-divides identity into three parts: Political identity and Cultural identity.

Physical identity includes territorial identity. Political identity means politico- economic system and Cultural identity stands for historical values that are upheld by a nation as part of its cultural heritage.

Special offers and product promotions

These are called vital components because these are essential for the survival of the nation and can be easily identified and examined. A nation even decides to go to war for securing or protecting her vital interests. A nation always formulates its foreign policy decisions with a view to secure and strengthens its security.

• What My Parents Never Told Me About Vaccines: The Terrible Tales Of Vaccine Sam!
• This dangerous new world of self-interested nations | Simon Tisdall | Opinion | The Guardian.
• Un bebé caído del cielo - Y llegaron gemelos (Jazmín) (Spanish Edition).
• Olivers Tree!
• Luftwaffe in World War II: The Luftwaffe in World War II - Rare Photographs from Wartime Archives (Images of War).

The attempts to secure international peace and security, that nations are currently making, are being made because today the security of each state stands inseparably linked up with international peace and security. Security is, thus, a vital component of national interest.

Product details

Each nation always tries to secure its vital interests even by means of war. The non-vital components are those parts of national interest which are determined either by circumstances or by the necessity of securing the vital components. These are determined by a host of factors—the decision-makers, public opinion, party politics, sectional or group interests and political and moral folkways. Whereas the vital interests may be taken as goals, the secondary interests may be termed as objectives of foreign policy.

These objectives have been listed by V. Dyke and his list includes: Though each state defines these objectives in a manner which suits its interests in changing circumstances, yet these objectives can be described as common to almost all states.

National interest

Thus, national interest which a nation seeks to secure can be generally categorized into these two parts. In order to be more precise in examining the interest which a nation seeks to secure, Thomas W. Robinson presents a six fold classification of interests which nations try to secure.

These are those interests in respect of which no nation can compromise. It includes the preservation of physical, political and cultural identity against possible encroachments by other states.

Follow the Author

A state has to defend these at all costs. These are less important than the primary interests. Secondary Interests are quite vital for the existence of the state. This includes the protection of the citizens abroad and ensuring of diplomatic immunities for the diplomatic staff. These refer to the relatively constant long-term interests of the state. These are subject to very slow changes.

• This dangerous new world of self-interested nations?
• National Interest: Meaning, Components and Methods.
• MicroMiracles: Discover the Healing Power of Enzymes.
• Romeo & Juliet - Coolest Lovers of All?
• Sully [Zeuss Pack 6] (Siren Publishing Menage Everlasting ManLove)?
• Navigation menu.

The US interest to preserve its spheres of influence and to maintain freedom of navigation in all the oceans is the examples of such interests.