Hong Kong Protest
‘International relations’ is often short for IR, and it has various definitions by different people. Some people define it as the diplomatic- strategic relations of states and the characteristic focus of international relation is on issues of peace and war, cooperation and conflict. While some scholars see it as about cross-border transactions of all economic, kinds, social and political, and international relation is more likely to study the operation of non-state institution and trade negotiations (Brown and Ainley, 2005). Dahal (2011) viewed the International Relations as the collective interactions of international community, which contains individual nations and sates, inter-governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and multinational corporations. International relation is becoming significantly important for study, as it profoundly influences people’s daily life. People’s lives are being more and more international, there are huge improvements in communications and transportation, which means people come into contact with others, places opportunities, ideas and products form other countries. A better understanding of IR also gives people chances to get the answer why international issues happen in the way in which they do, meanwhile, it enable learners to comprehend the new world (Wolfrum, 2011). This essay examines three theories and their differences and similarities; they are respectively realism, institutionalism and constructivism. The background of Hong Kong, and reasons of this protest have been demonstrated by the following, after that, PEST analysis is shown. In the end, the influences of this protest on 3 levels have been analysed. 2. Literature Review
A realist sometimes names ‘structural realist’, for realists, the international system is defined by anarchy, which means there is no central authority (Waltz, 1979). States are considered as sovereign and autonomous of each other, and there is no inherent structure or society exists to order relations between them. They are only bound by coercion, or by themselves. Institutionalists share loads of realism’s assumptions about international system, which means that is anarchic, that states are self-interested, rational actors want to survive as well as increase their material conditions, also that uncertainty pervades relations between counties. Constructivism is viewed by Wendt (2000) as the assumptions about the world and human, human and agency. Its counterpart is rationalism. By challenging the rationalist framework that enhances many theories, constructivists provide constructivist alternatives in each of the theories. Realism, institutionalism and constructivism have completely different organising principle. For realism, the organising principle is anarchy. For, institutionalism, the interdependence is the principle. While the Norms or ideas are the organising principle of constructivism. However, all of them can have the same main actors, which are states, but for constructivism, the main actors can also be IGOs or NGOs (Bhardwaj, 2014). Considering about the main goals, the survival or power is for realism. Gaining economy and cooperation is for institutionalism, and constructivism’s main goal is solving global problems. On the other hand, core capabilities of these theories are different, the core capability of realism is military, and capabilities of institutionalism are economy and technology, while the knowledge is the core capability of constructivism. 3. The case study
In 1984, China and Britain signed Joint Declaration on the conditions under which Hong Kong will return to Chinese rule in 1997. With the ‘one country, two systems’ policy, Hong Kong will be part of communist-led country; however remain its capitalist economic system and partially democratic political system for 50 years after handover. In July 1997, Hong Kong was reverted to Chinese authorities after more than 250...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document