<br />
<p>I am not sure how this happened, but here it is copied below:&nbsp;</p>
<p>Although some of the readings belong to philosophies dated back to early centuries, they still valid in today&rsquo;s world.&nbsp; The ideas presented in each of these pieces effect our understanding of legitimacy and whether it is a matter of morals and granted by natural laws, or by power (man made laws). It definitely speaks of opposing perspectives of peace as unfinished business rather than an end&mdash;as we naively like to understand.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Thuncydides , for instance, in The Melian Dialogue, mirrors ideas of rivalries, animosities, selfishness, competition, as well as war and peace, one realizes that sound morals are not the basis for a strong state nor the means to achieve peace. They could be even an impediment in securing power. The reading of the Melian Dialogue begs for a sense of realism (as harsh as it my sound), or even is a wake-up call for it. The dialogue portrays the negations between the Athenians and Melians. Athenians who value independency and states by how much power the hold, are the opposite of the idealistic Melians who view the the state by the legitimacy it holds, and who understood that they could maintain their state and remain in power simply by being neutral to stronger states like Athens. Much to their shock, when the Melians thought the neutrality is something that can be offered, they were faced with a new reality as stated by the Athenians convoy who replied: &ldquo;No, because it is not so much your hostility that injures us; it is rather the case that, if we were on friendly terms with you, our subjects would regard that as a sign of weakness in us, whereas your hatred is evidence of our power.&rdquo; (Thuncydides, 5.84-116, p. 2) This reality has never disappeared in today&rsquo;s world&rsquo;s affairs.</p>
<p>The reading piece from the Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli is another evidence on new realities for maintaining ones country and emerging as a recognized state in the international arena and what constitutes a state. Machiavelli is clear about setting the standards for a legitimate state or yet a strong state. He maintains that it is necessary for a prince to have tools to be able to emerge as a strong leader, such as armies, weapons, economical resources, and support of majority. He stresses the importance of patriotic feelings.</p>
<p>In his popular piece, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes presents the idea of the state of nature and that competition and wars are the true state of nature of all biological creatures, as naturally things exist to destroy one another. Hobbs tackles the relationship between individuals and their states and how to facilitate this relationship which later came to be known as the social contract theory. Hobbes believes that the only way to maintain order in society is by the existence of a strong government that regulate laws and norms for individuals who naturally are chaotic and selfish. Hobbs established claims that later on John Locke came to refute them by maintain that people are more reasonable and have natural rights and can overthrow a government that fails to secure their freedoms and rights. It goes without saying that both thinkers have opposing views where one relates to realism and the other to idealism. Immanuel Kant&rsquo;s <em>Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch </em>is an idealistic view in which he offers a roadmap for everlasting peace&mdash;only if the world is operating on this ideal. His ideas are: making secret peace treaties public and transparent and not to make treaties after wars with provisions for future wars; no states can be large or small come under the domination of another state by purchase or inheritance or donation; abolishing standing armies; banding national debts; no interference by a state with the constitution of another state; no states shall commit atrocities during wars. These are all idealistic approaches that while would have saved millions of people&rsquo;s lives killed in wars, are unfortunately not the norm in our international world.</p>
<p>Frantz Fanon argument is about decolonization (with the context of Algeria) by actually redefining it as &ldquo;the replacing of a certain species of men&rdquo;, and by acknowledging the fact that it changes the social structure. Then he argues that decolonization is a program of &ldquo;complete disorder&rdquo;, yet he admits that it cannot be achieved magically without side effects.</p>
<p>Jean Beaudrillard in The Gulf War did not take place, argues that the 1991 war was rather an atrocity or yet series of atrocities. While in some people&rsquo;view this may seem unrealistic or idealist position, it remains a quite real interpretation of reality, and how deterrence can take shape in the post-cold war era. Giorgio Agamben, in the Camp as the Nomos of the Modern chapter, he argues with evidence that the world is but a constriction camp where people are expected to live by the ruls and norms set for them by the state or yet the West. He touches on an ontological issues of the western world pertinent to the biopolitics concept introduced by the French philosopher. Doubtless, this has more to do with the realistic world and particularly globalization.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Albeit these readings provide the foundation of understanding international communities and the behavior of human as political species, reading through these texts may make the world seem black or white. However, with progressive societies and evolving technologies, new realities, and probably ideals may take place, which will naturally alter our views and perspectives on international relations.&nbsp;</p>