Monthly Archives: January 2012

Is anarchy a serious obstacle to co-operation?

In International Relations the concept of anarchy has been broadly discussed for several reasons; some scholars may argue that anarchism can be beneficial among the states and even more beneficial in IR dealings between countries. In opposition other scholars believe that anarchism is a serious obstacle to co-operation. This essay will discuss Is anarchy a serious obstacle to co-operation?

Yes; it is. The reason that makes me get in this position is the following: from the definition anarchy is defined as: “a system operating in the absence of any central government. Does not imply chaos, but in Realist theory the absence of political authority.”[1] Furthermore; in order to answer this question correctly, concepts involving Realism, Critical theory and Constructivism arise because they define the path in IR about anarchy most recently in the last years.

Continue reading


Días de Dragón (El Año Nuevo Chino 2012)

Hoy empieza el Año del Dragón, considerada por mucha gente la criatura más poderosa del zodiaco chino. En la cultura asiática el Año del Dragón es auspicioso para el matrimonio, los nacimientos y el éxito. Pero también trae complicaciones: la mítica criatura tiene grandes poderes relacionados al agua y la lluvia, lo que puede significar ‘según dicen’ buenas cosechas pero también inundaciones y otros desastres naturales. Según comentan algunos astrólogos chinos. Yo personalmente me inclino hacia el hecho de que arranco el año nuevo chino. Para casi 1.500 millones de chinos ha comenzado este fin de semana el año 4.710 del calendario, el año del Dragón.

A nivel mitológico y zodiacal el dragón es un animal muy especial, porque las cabezas de estas bestias ahuyentan el mal. Se augura por tanto un año de tranquilidad en el que habrá cambios positivos y se retomará una “dirección más correcta” en el ámbito económico…pero; para quien? 

Continue reading


Motorsport Autoshow 2012 v.2.1

This sunday 15th 2012 I had the chance to enjoy one of the most exciting and breath taking experiences known to man. Supercars, cars, more cars and of course… women. What a good mix isnt it? I wanted to take the opportunity and share a little my experience. Enjoy! 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


Motorsport Autoshow 2012 v.2.2

Cars, engines, exhausts, tyres….women. Simply awesome!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


Motorsport Autoshow 2012 v.2.3

Last but not least; the saga continues!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


The myth of ‘The Cave’

What people in this situation would take for truth would be nothing but the shadows of manufactured objects’

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

This statement makes allusion to the allegory of the cave. In this case Plato makes reference to the cave we all live in. Is the world of shadows; the world of our own reality. It is to believe that this assertion makes mention to our own perception of this world is not very brightly. At a simply view we can tell that ‘real’ is described as experiences in which we can smell, touch, see and feel; everything that leads to our senses; in this scenario reality is everything we do when we are awake and conscious. The truth of what we believe real when we are trapped inside the cave is described as “dark as a tunnel without lights.” There is only a bright of light at the end, which allow us to see some shadows and some objects that we will say and believe they are real; even when they are not. Therefore, even when we are inside this darkness, how is possible to realize that we are deep in the shadows? I mean; there is a reality without these shadows we live on that we had never seen. The main issue that Plato put into consideration is that we don’t know until what level we have certainty or knowledge about “the world as it really is and not as we think it is”. It is believed that the main purpose in the allegory was to illustrate the perception of objects as we describe them as genuine when in reality they are not.

Continue reading


Can democracy ever be ‘fully’ consolidated?

In democratic theories there is the debate whether democracy can be fully consolidated or not. There is the common argument that consolidation is possible in every democratic regime, but a ‘fully consolidation’ seems to be more unlikely.  This essay will discuss: Can democracy ever be ‘fully consolidated’?

In the last decades ‘democracy has been widely recognized as the best political regime yet invented, because its citizens are both treated with respect, dignity and have some say in political decision-making’.[1] In this sense, democracy can be consolidated, but not completely. To understand this: consolidation is seen as a scale; because of multiple different factors that are used to work out whether a democracy is consolidated or not. Therefore, it would be wrong to see democratic consolidation as a dichotomy. For example; if two democracies (A,B) were equal in almost every way sharing similar political institutions, ethnic divisions, size, region, political culture; it would be absurd to classify A as a consolidated democracy and B not just because A has more equality of wealth.  Instead a better classification would be to say that A is more consolidated than B. The bottom-line here is that, democratic consolidation is best understood as a scale; this means that for a country to be ‘fully consolidated’ it must be at the very top of the consolidation scale. Moreover, for a country to be consolidated it would have to be on balance more likely to it to remain a democracy than to revert back to a non-democracy. In this case; it could be argued that for such a state to exist is almost impossible as for it to do so all the possibly relevant factors would have to be a factor strengthening democracy or at least not weakening it. To a national level, even in Britain for example, the lack of a codified constitution, the rise of BNP and declining turnout can all be pointed to as factors which make Britain’s democracy not fully consolidated because under the right conditions they could make the UK slide into authoritarianism.  Although this is not likely the existence of these weaknesses in Britain’s democracy still mean that the UK can’t be called a fully consolidated democracy.

Continue reading


Why was the Major Government such a failure?

John Major and Margaret Thatcher.

In United Kingdom politics during the years of 1990-1994, John Mayor administration has been argued to be a failure because it was unsuccessful in different sectors. For the Conservative party; leadership has been a feature since at least the late eighties with the removal of Margaret Thatcher. Her successor, John Major, has a difficult leadership faced by rebellions, particularly over Europe, and the party appeared unmanageable by the time. On the other side, it has been argued that it was not a completely failure as he handled the issue of domestic policy with Ireland successfully. This essay will discuss:  Why was the Major Government such a failure?

Continue reading


The Ages of Extremes

The Age of Extremes

During the 20th century, the world for the first time in human history witnesses’ global wars, human interest this time crossed national frontiers and even when it was not the end of the world there were moments when the end of a considerable proportion of the human race did not look far off. This essay will discuss first what factors make the 20th century the Age of Extremes and second what lasting impact do they have on international politics in the 21th century.
The concept of “global war” was in first instance an element that influence the 20th century as called the Age of Extremes. The First World War was the first modern, industrialized total war; it began between European states on European battlefields, but extended across the globe, the trigger was the Assassination of Arch duke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28 june 1914 . This time not only many countries were involved in war, even women were involved as Len Scott related “It was a total war in the sense that whole societies and economies were mobilized: men were conscripted into armies and women went to work in factories”

Continue reading


British and US ‘special relationship’ (foreign policy)

 How far does Britain’s special relationship with the US constrain its foreign policy?

The ‘special relationship’ is a phrase used to describe close political, diplomatic, cultural and historical relations between the United Kingdom and the United States. The term was first used in 1946 in a speech made by Winston Churchill. In recent decades, it has been argued that the’ special relationship’ is about control and how to keep both interests aligned. Today, is to believe that to a very large extent Britain special relationship with the United States constrained its foreign policy. This essay will discuss: How far does Britain’s special relationship with the US constrain its foreign policy?

As a concept foreign policy aims to ensure the security of its people and territory, promotes its aims in the international arena, and encourage co-operation with other countries. The special relationship between Britain and United States is close and robust because British and American values are essentially the same, which explains why national interests are often aligned. ‘The US-UK relationship is strong because it delivers for both of us. The alliance is not sustained by our historical ties or blind loyalty. This is a partnership of choice that serves our national interests.’[1] Still, in many aspects for both parties foreign policy is dependant one on each other. At the moment, it is evident that there is a distinctive relationship between Britain and the United States, but it exists at the top and bottom with very little in between. At the top, the common language and a degree of shared relationship and culture between leaders has clearly provided Britain with some extra diplomatic leverage with US policy-makers. At the bottom, there is a degree of detailed co-operation and understanding between the armed services of the two countries and their intelligence organizations. However, Britain and the US perhaps understood one another much less well than they assumed, despite the link of a common language. Britain was a ‘little island’, the US a subcontinent; Britain believed in the committed to the welfare state and massive state intervention in the economy; the US, at least in theory, remained committed to private enterprise. ‘Anti-Americanism in Britain was matched by certain anti-British sentiments in the US, especially among the Irish.’[2]

Continue reading


%d bloggers like this: