Theory Critique Paper

5

1250

Pevehouse, "Democracy from the Outside-In”, Moravcsik, "The Origins of Human Rights Regime”s and Checkel, "Why Comply?” According to Pevehouse, he tries to relate how international organizations influence the political systems of a nation. These international organizations are doing this to try to acquire democracy all around the world. Theoretical consideration and pragmatic investigations have been used to show if the relationship between the international organizations and politics of a nation exist. In his article, he addresses of the scantiness of the theory and pragmatic evidence and as well separates three reasons that would relate the international organization and the local actors involved in politics, as they termed them (Pevehouse 519). According to Jeffry Chekel, intellectuals have given two theories to explain the reason as to why people comply with the standards put into place in administrations and international organizations. These theories include the rationalist and constructivist. Constructivists emphasize on socialism, involving social customs, and learning whereas rationalists are specific on compulsion, benefits, and materialism. Chekel then issues a confrontational persuasion and communal education (Checkel 554). He uses the philosophies of social choice and interaction to explain the theory of constructivist. For the rationalist, he looks at it by focusing on the instrumental and non-instrumental via which people comply. He further proposes a line of attack that will assist the two groups to review their compliance claims. Chekel used the circumstances of Ukraine and Germany as examples of custom socialization and persuasion. He suggests three ways through which institutions influence the progression of submission. These include the following. for instance in Ukraine, the heritages of institutions can exasperate the local agents to comply. Another way that the agents are influenced to comply is through the domestic institutions. The structure of these institutions increase the likelihood of compliance occurring (Checkel 558). Moravcsik also forms a basis for comparison. According to him, international human rights pressure the sovereignty of a nation. His argument is based on the theories of constructivists and the realist theory. Considering the realist theory, a nation is compelled to accept these constraints if it is a more powerful party that is compelling them. In accordance to the ideational theory or the constructivist theory, the constraints are accepted only when the people in authority set up norms to accept the constraints (Moravcsik 227). Though he differs with these theories, he agrees that a newly established democracy follows international human rights due to local political concerns. He is also of the feeling that dictatorships more often than not accept the regimes of international