International Relations

Research Paper

“US led war on Afghanistan (2001-2015): Mistake or a Just War?”

This is a research paper that I wrote for my POL 201 (International Relations) course in the fall 2019 term at Capilano University. As I am eventually hoping to study in the International Relations program at the University of British Columbia, I was very excited to take this Political Science course in my first semester of university. This was the first relatively extensive paper that I wrote in university, and (like with the POL course itself) it was a testament to my needed adjustment to the higher level that university studies are at in relation to high school. This paper acted parallel to my initial transition into university; I put less practical effort and time into the details of the assignment and started writing it closer to the deadline than what would have felt most comfortable. Like in the past, I hoped to bank on my natural interest in politics and social studies in getting me a strong mark (as it likely would have in high school). My first term at Cap taught me to not simply rely on improvising within my own perceived strong academic thinking, instead to channel that energy into a legitimate focus and interest in putting the amount of work in that I could feel proud of. This paper is not my most refined paper, and it did not get me the highest mark ever. However, the amount of research I put into it and my general writing process demonstrate the strong basis that I feel confident will continue to be at my service as I continue in university. The strengthening of study habits, organization, and focus can be developed and worked on; I am grateful that the desire to be at school, the interest in learning, and the pursuit of knowledge and passions (such as International Relations in my case) are already there. I was able to gain a significant amount of insight into the war in Afghanistan through the research process of writing this paper, and I developed an argument that I felt very confident in and sure of being able to support. As it represents an early post-secondary work aspiring to my future post-secondary and career goals, this is a paper that I feel proud to feature. 

Nature of the Current World (2019)

By Etienne Rutkowski

As the human community has globalized, it has become more conflict-prone and competitive from and individual to a global level of analysis. The global leaders and superpowers are able to spread their influence and worldview (for better or for worse), leading more and more nations to adopt competitive economies. American, German, and Chinese brands among others can be found in every corner of the world, and global trade creates worldwide adoption of the dominant practices (competitive, capitalist economies). Simultaneously, cultures have become increasingly lost from their roots as materialism, the desire to accelerate innovation, and integration into the global community make way to conflict around identity and community. On a political scale, the rise of nationalism, the growing issue of and subsequent debate around the refugee crisis and it’s connection to terrorism, and the growing gap between how “left wing” and “right wing” ideology and representation is defined show a furthered “us vs them” mentality. On a geopolitical scale, the involvement of private and corporate global actors through influencing the actions of politicians leads to hidden or classified deals and ambiguous international relations, which put into question the motivations around and the cause of conflict around the world.

What Theoretical Perspective best describes Global Politics? (2019)

By Etienne Rutkowski

While arguments vary greatly as to what perspective of the world the population consensus is, and what perspectives are prevalent in different regions of the world, the theoretical perspective to best describe global politics currently is realism. The central arguments of realism are that global politics are a struggle for power, and that power is a key element of international relations due to its ability to influence others. The four arguably greatest major powers of the last one hundred years; Germany, Russia, China, and especially the United States were or are major influences on the global stage. This is due to their pursuit of maximizing political influence, economic strength, strategic power, and national interest through World War II, the Cold War, and the recent rise of Chinese relevance economically and politically. The nature of global politics is anarchic, which can be seen in revolving door of global power struggles, conflicts, and security dilemma. Many have ambiguous and questionable explanations, as the selfish nature of states contrasts idealistic global norms of peace, cooperation, and diplomacy. Furthermore, the unitarily rational nature of states overshadows truly global issues, such as global warming and human rights.

How to reduce Intrastate Conflicts (2019)

By Etienne Rutkowski

A challenge that arises around reducing intrastate conflicts is a matter of finding a balance between sovereignty and the positive influence that the international community is able to wield on a costly situation. There is significant challenge in suggesting measures to reduce these conflicts without the use of intervention, as they are situationally specific and nuanced in terms of any civil or people-vs-government conflict. For this reason, it is constructive to analyze intrastate conflicts on different levels of analysis. On the individual level, intentions around the leadership figure of a state needs to be considered. If state leadership is engaged in conflict with the people of the state, is the intention of leadership based on achieving the greater good for the people? If so, it is likely possible and beneficial to act as a third party in negotiations to meet the needs of every actor involved in the conflict without escalation. If not, it is primarily the responsibility of the international community to decide which party in conflict stands on higher legal and moral ground, and from there more aggressive intervention may be needed in prevention of human rights violations through means without violating them further. On a state level of analysis, one method in preventing intrastate conflict could be a proactive approach to ensure that states have a system of governance in place where the people have a voice in their representation. Whether it be traditional democracy or otherwise, it would be beneficial for the international community to strengthen support systems of nonviolent influence on leadership for all people so that uprising, violent protest, and warring powers are limited. On a global level of analysis, any means of intervention not first unanimously approved by the international community should be illegal. Often civil conflicts evolve into proxy wars or extra state wars with the intentions of the intervening actor based on national benefit. The only reason intervention (armed or otherwise) should be permissible is on the grounds of preventing violations of human rights while maintaining the protection of them.