Dear All
In the recent HKU Council pro-vice-chancellor debacle over the appointment of pro-democracy law scholar Johannes Chan was rejected on Tuesday 29 September, after a lengthy process of deliberation and dispute that lasted more than nine months, Since pro-Beijing newspaper Wen Wei Po reported that he was recommended for the position of pro-vice chancellor of HKU in November last year, the newspaper is said to have published more than 300 articles attacking him for ties with pro-democracy Occupy protest. Chan is also the first and only Honorary Senior Counsel in Hong Kong. He was appointed to the position by the then Chief Justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang in 2003 for his “distinguished service to the Law of Hong Kong”.
In this matter, It is sad to see that some friends as intellectuals in HK are divided and frustrated with each other merely on difference of personal opinions.
I prefer Realism in Politics and agree that humankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centred, and more are motivated in predominantly seeking more power.
Politics can be brutal ( as by Tony Abbot) and is frequently muddled with various inherent interests of many different sectors.
I believe that in general, the state emphasizes an interest in accumulating power to ensure security in an anarchic world, and is charged on national interest or avoid something inimical to the national interest.
The democratic peace theory considers Democracies tend to possess greater public wealth than other states , however , if relying upon a voting public alone and without a clear strategy may not generally secure the goal.
Hope that this incidence will be followed up on the right track along with the Proper Purpose with good faith.
Bill
I quote the paper below which original discusses realism in international relations. The different theories are therefore more on international relations, the states' response to peace and war, the empirical phenomena in democracies.
Realism is a school of thought in international relations theory based on four central propositions, namely Political Groupism, Egoism, International anarchy and Power politics.[1]
The basic assumptions are that "All states within the system are unitary, rational actors
* States tend to pursue self-interest.
* Groups strive to attain as many resources as possible ".
*
The state is the most important actor under realism. The power of the state is understood in terms of its military capabilities.
Jonathan Haslam from the University of Cambridge characterizes Realism as "a spectrum of ideas."[2]Regardless of which definition is used, the theories of realism revolve around four central propositions:[1]
* That states are the central actors in international politics rather than individuals or international organizations,
* That the international political system is anarchic as there is no supranational authority That can enforce rules over the states,
* that the actors in the international political system are rational as their actions maximize their own self-interest, and. That all states desire power so that they can ensure their own self-preservation.
Realism is often associated with Realpolitik as both are based on the management of the pursuit, possession, and application of power. Realpolitik, however, is an older prescriptive guideline limited to policy-making (like foreign policy), while Realism is a particular paradigm, or wider theoretical and methodological framework, aimed at describing, explaining and, eventually, predicting events in the international relations domain. The theories of Realism are contrasted by the cooperative ideals of Liberalism.
In summary, realists think that humankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive. This perspective, which is shared by theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, views human nature as egocentric (not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless there exist conditions under which humans may coexist. It is also disposed of the notion that an individual's intuitive nature is made up of anarchy. In regards to self-interest, these individuals are self-reliant and are motivated in seeking more power. They are also believed to be fearful. This view contrasts with the approach of liberalism to international relations.
The state emphasizes an interest in accumulating power to ensure security in an anarchic world. Power is a concept primarily thought of in terms of material resources necessary to induce harm or coerce other states (to fight and win wars). The use of power places an emphasis on coercive tactics being acceptable to either accomplish something in the national interest or avoid something inimical to the national interest.
The state is the most important actor under realism. It is unitary and autonomous because it speaks and acts with one voice. The power of the state is understood in terms of its military capabilities.
A key concept under realism is the international distribution of power referred to as system polarity. Polarity refers to the number of blocs of states that exert power in an international system. A multipolar system is composed of three or more blocs, a bipolar system is composed of two blocs, and a unipolar system is dominated by a single power or hegemon.
Democratic peace theory is a theory which posits that democracies are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies.[1]
Among proponents of the democratic peace theory, several factors are held as motivating peace between liberal states:
* Democratic leaders are forced to accept culpability for war losses to a voting public;
* Publicly accountable statesmen are more inclined to establish diplomatic institutions for resolving international tensions;
* Democracies are less inclined to view countries with adjacent policy and governing doctrine as hostile;
* Democracies tend to possess greater public wealth than other states, and therefore eschew war to preserve infrastructure and resources.
However, Democratic peace theory advocates that realism is not applicable to democratic states' relations with each another, as their studies claim that such states do not go to war with one another. However, Realists and proponents of other schools have critiqued both this claim and the studies which appear to support it, claiming that its definitions of "war" and "democracy" must be tweaked in order to achieve the desired result.
Post-realism suggests that Realism is a form of social, scientific and political rhetoric. It closes rather than opens a debate about what is real and what is realistic in international relations.
The HKU Council pro-vice-chancellor debacle
30 September 2015 15:29 Kris Cheng8 min read--
The appointment of pro-democracy law scholar Johannes Chan Man-mun as pro-vice-chancellor of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) was rejected on Tuesday, after a lengthy process of deliberation and dispute that lasted more than nine months.
Who is Johannes Chan?
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2015/09/30/explainer-hku-council-rejects-johannes-chan-appointment-to-pro-vice-chancellor/
In the recent HKU Council pro-vice-chancellor debacle over the appointment of pro-democracy law scholar Johannes Chan was rejected on Tuesday 29 September, after a lengthy process of deliberation and dispute that lasted more than nine months, Since pro-Beijing newspaper Wen Wei Po reported that he was recommended for the position of pro-vice chancellor of HKU in November last year, the newspaper is said to have published more than 300 articles attacking him for ties with pro-democracy Occupy protest. Chan is also the first and only Honorary Senior Counsel in Hong Kong. He was appointed to the position by the then Chief Justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang in 2003 for his “distinguished service to the Law of Hong Kong”.
In this matter, It is sad to see that some friends as intellectuals in HK are divided and frustrated with each other merely on difference of personal opinions.
I prefer Realism in Politics and agree that humankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centred, and more are motivated in predominantly seeking more power.
Politics can be brutal ( as by Tony Abbot) and is frequently muddled with various inherent interests of many different sectors.
I believe that in general, the state emphasizes an interest in accumulating power to ensure security in an anarchic world, and is charged on national interest or avoid something inimical to the national interest.
The democratic peace theory considers Democracies tend to possess greater public wealth than other states , however , if relying upon a voting public alone and without a clear strategy may not generally secure the goal.
Hope that this incidence will be followed up on the right track along with the Proper Purpose with good faith.
Bill
I quote the paper below which original discusses realism in international relations. The different theories are therefore more on international relations, the states' response to peace and war, the empirical phenomena in democracies.
Realism is a school of thought in international relations theory based on four central propositions, namely Political Groupism, Egoism, International anarchy and Power politics.[1]
The basic assumptions are that "All states within the system are unitary, rational actors
* States tend to pursue self-interest.
* Groups strive to attain as many resources as possible ".
*
The state is the most important actor under realism. The power of the state is understood in terms of its military capabilities.
Jonathan Haslam from the University of Cambridge characterizes Realism as "a spectrum of ideas."[2]Regardless of which definition is used, the theories of realism revolve around four central propositions:[1]
* That states are the central actors in international politics rather than individuals or international organizations,
* That the international political system is anarchic as there is no supranational authority That can enforce rules over the states,
* that the actors in the international political system are rational as their actions maximize their own self-interest, and. That all states desire power so that they can ensure their own self-preservation.
Realism is often associated with Realpolitik as both are based on the management of the pursuit, possession, and application of power. Realpolitik, however, is an older prescriptive guideline limited to policy-making (like foreign policy), while Realism is a particular paradigm, or wider theoretical and methodological framework, aimed at describing, explaining and, eventually, predicting events in the international relations domain. The theories of Realism are contrasted by the cooperative ideals of Liberalism.
In summary, realists think that humankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive. This perspective, which is shared by theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, views human nature as egocentric (not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless there exist conditions under which humans may coexist. It is also disposed of the notion that an individual's intuitive nature is made up of anarchy. In regards to self-interest, these individuals are self-reliant and are motivated in seeking more power. They are also believed to be fearful. This view contrasts with the approach of liberalism to international relations.
The state emphasizes an interest in accumulating power to ensure security in an anarchic world. Power is a concept primarily thought of in terms of material resources necessary to induce harm or coerce other states (to fight and win wars). The use of power places an emphasis on coercive tactics being acceptable to either accomplish something in the national interest or avoid something inimical to the national interest.
The state is the most important actor under realism. It is unitary and autonomous because it speaks and acts with one voice. The power of the state is understood in terms of its military capabilities.
A key concept under realism is the international distribution of power referred to as system polarity. Polarity refers to the number of blocs of states that exert power in an international system. A multipolar system is composed of three or more blocs, a bipolar system is composed of two blocs, and a unipolar system is dominated by a single power or hegemon.
Democratic peace theory is a theory which posits that democracies are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies.[1]
Among proponents of the democratic peace theory, several factors are held as motivating peace between liberal states:
* Democratic leaders are forced to accept culpability for war losses to a voting public;
* Publicly accountable statesmen are more inclined to establish diplomatic institutions for resolving international tensions;
* Democracies are less inclined to view countries with adjacent policy and governing doctrine as hostile;
* Democracies tend to possess greater public wealth than other states, and therefore eschew war to preserve infrastructure and resources.
However, Democratic peace theory advocates that realism is not applicable to democratic states' relations with each another, as their studies claim that such states do not go to war with one another. However, Realists and proponents of other schools have critiqued both this claim and the studies which appear to support it, claiming that its definitions of "war" and "democracy" must be tweaked in order to achieve the desired result.
Post-realism suggests that Realism is a form of social, scientific and political rhetoric. It closes rather than opens a debate about what is real and what is realistic in international relations.
The HKU Council pro-vice-chancellor debacle
30 September 2015 15:29 Kris Cheng8 min read--
The appointment of pro-democracy law scholar Johannes Chan Man-mun as pro-vice-chancellor of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) was rejected on Tuesday, after a lengthy process of deliberation and dispute that lasted more than nine months.
Who is Johannes Chan?
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2015/09/30/explainer-hku-council-rejects-johannes-chan-appointment-to-pro-vice-chancellor/
No comments:
Post a Comment