Monday, February 23, 2015

Session 8- You did it

Allison’s work is an attempt to differentiate between the attributions of effects to the state versus its influential members. The paper talks of how the study of international relations was marked with the tendency to compare the state to an individual. Thereby, attributing the translated policies or its effects to the nation itself and not to the individuals, circles or, effects of internal processes in the government’s machinery that might have contributed to the cause or effect. This tendency to view the nation by the academic as the individual unit in the study of international relations is termed as ‘Model 1’ according to the literature of the time. Allison talks of how this might be an oversimplification and that the field should also be studied according to what he calls the ‘bureaucratic politics model’; which is viewing the actions in in the international and national realms as also having their roots in the individual, interest groups or the workings of the governments processes. Studying the field in this way would provide a better attribution of actions to their original causers. There is a saying which goes as, “Wisdom is calling things by their right names”. In my opinion studying international politics through this lens would also have an effect on the way the history of the field is recorded. In the sense that instead of associating the nation state with historic events, more emphasis would be put on the individuals or entities responsible for it. If we follow the Model 1 lens then the Nuremberg trials becomes very interesting. One of those convicted at the trials, Adolf Eichmann gave his defense statement on the grounds that his actions were in accordance to the states demands and that he was mainly acting out his role. According to this model then Eichmann could not have been convicted of the war crimes he committed. Which raises a question on the way in which the nation state’s concept can cause parties to act in interests; whomsoevers’ they might be, under the guise of the action attributed to the nation state.

3 comments:

  1. Interesting example using Eichmann. How can we distinguish between states interests and individual interests? Do states make individuals do things, or do individuals make state do things?

    Also, use paragraphs!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The distinction in my opinion can be made by seeing ultimately what entity; the state or interested parties, the implemented policy or action ultimately benefits more.
      The relationship in my opinion between the state and individual can be a two way one. Where certain indoctrinations. expectation or incidents pertaining to the state can shape an individuals personality or influence his actions. However, the state is a theoretical concept after all and its ultimately the individual that makes, contributes to, and ensures its survival thereby making it or the 'state' do things.

      Delete
  2. the individuals form the interests of organizations and organizational interests together design interests of the states.

    ReplyDelete