Understanding Middle Eastern Politics and Global Hegemony Essay

Understanding Middle Eastern Politics and Global Hegemony - Essay Example This perspective, according to Verbeek (2003), is strengthened by a traditional realist framework which integrates the positivist handbook reflection of international law and hence believes that international law is either at best simply a rationale for decision made based on interests in power politics or immaterial to concerns for national interest. Existing literature reviews show evidently the meagerness of scholarly attempts to explain the Suez crisis within the context of realist theory. The realist argument that law was quite irrelevant to either American or British foreign policy, outside its ability to give explanation for foreign policy, seems to neglect the historical proof that suggests international law had a greater significant effect on British and American foreign policy conduct (Fawcett, 2009). The realist argument that international law was either an easy alibi for policy motives or lacking relevance, as regards to British policy, seems to be flawed. Historical docu ments indicate that legal concerns were a major component considered by both American and British legislators in the development and execution of foreign policy throughout the Suez crisis (Fawcett, 2009). Realist theory, according to Hansen (2011), with its focus on actual exercises and demonstrations of power, would expect that if ever international law could consider the conduct of the State it would be to defend course of action where law reinforced the favored policy. If the State is somewhat less dominant or influential and in a ‘lower’ legal status, in the sense that its favored course of action would more simply be judged ‘unlawful’, realism would expect that law would become irrelevant to the policymaking process (Mattern, 2005). Realism would expect that... The researcher states argument that law was quite irrelevant to either American or British foreign policy, outside its ability to give explanation for foreign policy, seems to neglect the historical proof that suggests international law had a greater significant effect on British and American foreign policy conduct. The realist argument that international law was either an easy alibi for policy motives or lacking relevance, as regards to British policy, seems to be flawed. Historical documents indicate that legal concerns were a major component considered by both American and British legislators in the development and execution of foreign policy throughout the Suez crisis. Realist theory, according to Hansen, with its focus on actual exercises and demonstrations of power, would expect that if ever international law could consider the conduct of the State it would be to defend course of action where law reinforced the favored policy. If the State is somewhat less dominant or influenti al and in a ‘lower’ legal status, in the sense that its favored course of action would more simply be judged ‘unlawful’, realism would expect that law would become irrelevant to the policymaking process. Realism would expect that international law would become immaterial to a State where law and policy objectives conflict, and particularly in cases where the State is rivaling a quite stronger State and law is not an expression of ‘actual power’ as defined by realism.