Explaining the Actions of Actors on the International Stage: Prior Views

The topic of what predicts the actions of state actors in international politics has been covered throughout my studies thus far. As a result I have gone into many of the readings for this modules with some preconceived notions of what the predictors of international state actions are. As this week entails two blog entries, I will post one of my views prior to going into the readings and my views after the readings and class discussion. Having already finished a majority of the reading, my opinion may already be somewhat affected but I will do my best to express my opinion as it was before the readings. First, I will exam the nature of previous class discussion on the topic as that has no doubt influenced my current outlook and then I will discuss my own views based on what information I have been party to prior to this module.  

                Many of the past class discussions on the matter focused mainly on states acting as rational actors or acting on other values and beliefs they may hold. These values and beliefs as discussed then were very similar if not the same as the concepts brought up in the Goldstein and Keohane reading. More specifically, Goldstein and Keohane mention world views, principal beliefs, and causal beliefs (on pages 8, 9, and 10) as the three main beliefs involved in the international policy of state actors. Many past class discussions on the topic focused on the degree to which these kinds of ideas and beliefs influence the decisions of nation states in the international arena. The consensus was generally that most decisions and actions of state actors are based in rational decision making based on self-interest. One lecturer in particular suggested that other reasons for the actions of states such as ideology or religion were really used to justify the often resource drive actions of states only after the fact.

                Going into these readings and bringing those past discussions with me, there is a great inclination to take a similar view. However, I am eagerly anticipating taking the new views and ideas encountered in this module and internalizing them into my own outlook. Currently, my own view on the matter involves a concept similar to that of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Essentially, states are always at least partially motivated by self-interest which can of course result in a desire for international cooperation if it benefits each state. However, the degree to which a state acts on its own self-interest versus working more towards “attunement” as discussed in the lecture is influenced by its current domestic welfare and sense of security. Simply put, the more stable a country is, the more likely it will be to focus on interests that go beyond its own. This sums up my views prior to going into this module and I will re-evaluate this opinion in light of the material and corresponding class discussion in a later post.