Personal views on the debate and whether the international environment can be changed.

     Addressing the question of whether or not the international environment can be fundamentally changed is a bit more challenging then addressing a question about how it exists today. In asking questions about the current state of the international community, one only needs to consider whether a claim is valid or not; or whether or not we can reject the null hypothesis. When addressing questions of the future, we switch from asking “what is” to “what could be”. In asking the latter type of questions we find ourselves dealing with the probability of whether or not something will occur in the future. Any answer comes with a greater degree of uncertainty compared to questions about the world as it is. For either side to have a superior argument they must be able to prove that the change of the international environment is probable for the pro group or improbable for the con group.

                Both sides presented their arguments with a state focused approach and from the perspective that anarchy is the starting point of the environment. The con side focused more on Waltz while to pro side focused more on Wendt. Both sides were able to use these respective theories effectively in their arguments. However, the con side seemed to do a slightly better job of finding current events and specific examples to back the theories they chose to use. The pro side was able to call on more general examples illustrated by current conditions of the international environment. By this, I mean the existence of IO’s, alliances, and to some extent technology in the form of nuclear technology.

                Going forward, much of the debate seemed to become centered on the nature of IO’s as having agency or only being used by state actors. The con side also brought the question of human nature into question. The Pro side was not able to neglect the lack of agency within the international organizations but was able to emphasize that change is a slow process and the continued development and existence of these organizations seems to indicate that such a change occurring in the future is more probable. Regarding human nature, the con group brought up the Hobbian state of nature and the “predator theory” brought up in both Waltz and Wendt. Given the adaptive nature of humans and the degree to which human behavior and cognitions are based on their environment and culture I found the Hobbian argument to be a somewhat weak. Various social movements in the past have shown us that humans can change their perceptions about themselves and how they relate to others. Furthermore as institutions develop they often develop internal systems for dealing with corruption and other forms of selfish action. As for the predator theory, I find this to be a much stronger argument. However, they didn’t seem to properly address the role of emerging security communities interested in maintaining international security and the value of sovereignty.    

                Giving my own opinion I think that the con group didn’t quite prove that a future change in the international environment was improbable. The Pro group did a decent job of showing that it was a possibility but it wasn’t able to show that such a change was likely to occur soon enough for it to be relevant to today’s world. Proving that something not seen in history can occur in the future is a difficult task. However, proving that something conceivable can’t happen is also fairly challenging.