Give two different explanations, each from a different level of analysis, for the outcome of an international relations event (current or from recent history). (Use different explanations to explain the SAME event.) In your post, bold the title of each explanation (e.g., “System-Level Explanation:”) and the title of the event (e.g., “The trade war with China.”) Which explanation advances our understanding of the event better? Why? Can the explanation you chose be applied to other situations in international relations?
Comment on another student’s post.
In 2020, the United States, under the Trump Administration, pulled out of the Paris Agreement.
State-Level Explanation: Being one of the superpowers of the world and producing 15% of green gas emissions, pulling out of the Paris Accords, is something that is not in the favor of the global climate change pandemic, or the 189 other parties signed to the agreement. However, for the United States, it allowed for the promotion of using fossil fuels, mining for coal and oil, and general energy production gains under the Trump Administration.
System-Level Explanation: As explained in Lesson 2A, the Prisoner’s Dilemma game can be seen with the first move being played by the United States by pulling out of the Paris Agreement. This resulted in many other states fending for themselves, as well as creating a sense of mistrust towards the United States (U.S.) This is because the U.S no longer was contributing to potential solutions for climate change but became committed to areas of self-interest. Some countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait were seen as being affiliated and siding with the actions of the United States. Other countries continued to participate in their own agreements/deals to restabilize the movement against climate change. This included the EU (European Union) green deal as well as the commitments from China, Japan, and Korea to push for carbon neutrality.
Reflection: The system-level explanation gives a clearer understanding of how other countries can be affected by the actions of one state. Through this, it is learned how this specific agreement plays a key role in the climate change crisis and how everyone must be willing to compromise for the “greater good.” This is solely not to say that every state will cooperate because it is the right thing to do for our environment. However, being in an agreement is a lot easier than facing opposition. This can be applied to other international relations (IR) dilemmas because every state is always looking out for its own best interest. However, when alliances are formed and there are consequences eventually for not forming these groups, it politically becomes more difficult to be at war, and not at peace.
For This or a Similar Paper Click Here To Order Now