Características laborales del titulado en Ciencias de la Educación

Theories are employed to provide clearer picture on situations that seem hazy and guides researchers‘ actions in relation to the research objectives. Obasi (1999:43) and Nnabugwu (2005) are of the view that a theoretical framework has to do with describing, analyzing, interpreting and predicting phenomena. It provides a veritable tool for linking the problem under study to the assumptions, postulations and principles in the description and analysis of the research problem. It is a mechanism which integrates facts and generalization into a coherent unit.

Thus, the framework of this study is located within the purview of Realist approach to international relations.

3.1:1 Realist Paradigm

This study made use of paradigm theory of international relations. The proponents include; Hedley Bull, Henry Kissinger, Hans Morgenthau, etc.

The realist assumption is that international system is state centric and structurally anarchic. In the realist view, states (in pursuit of their own interests) are locked in a struggle for survival. Conflict is inevitable because states have differing interests and there is no external sovereign to constrain behaviour or mediate disputes. Morgenthau (1948) and Kissinger (1966) opine that the international society as a whole is caught in the web of absolutely basic conditions of conflict and struggle for power. There is no way to extricate the international society from that situation, because conflict is inevitable, unavoidable and desideratum.

To that end, realists believe that power politics especially imperialistic policies always resort to ideological disguise. Realism believes that actions taken in the quest for power are coated with legalistic, moralistic justification and rationalization. Burton (1942:46), Sponeck and Halliday (2001:34) and Schuman (1969:27) in their contributions to this argue that in a civilised life, power is consequent on the ability to move men in some desired fashion, through persuasion, purchase, barter and coercion.

The pursuit of global order has been the principal rationale for states to agree on international treaties. Key treaties such as the Treaties of Westphalia (1648) and Utrecht (1713) and the Charter of the United Nations (1949) have therefore progressively defined the nature of statehood, sovereignty, and the limits of legitimate state action. These principles regulate the interaction of states in the international system. Where no formal provisions for enforcement have been made, enforcement is normally carried out by reciprocity (the threat of retaliation in kind), collective action (such as UN sanctions), or shaming the guilty party (such as exposing human rights violations). International law and treaties therefore can be seen as the building blocks of global governance.

Realists, however, point out that international law is only important when it

serves the interests of powerful states because they cannot be forced to comply by weaker states.

Realist paradigm international law is either a misnomer because there is no sovereign to enforce it, or it is irrelevant because powerful states can ignore it.

(Bevir, 2007: 522). It emphasizes the concept of national interest; it is not the Machiavellian doctrine ―that anything is justified by reason of state‖ (Bull, 1995: 189). Analytically, according to Klaus (1966:123), in international politics, power has appeared primarily as the instrument/force to do harm, to interdict the use of force, by the threat of force, to oppose force with force, to annex territory by force, to influence the polices of other states by the threat or application of force. Such use of force has always been present at least as possibilities in the relations of states. The threats to use military force and their occasional commitment to battle have helped the regulation of states. Besides, the preponderance of power in the hands of the major states has set them apart from others. Gauba (2006: 251) in supporting the above argument maintains that in the international sphere, organised groups of nations do exercise their influence on the ―authoritative allocation of values‖. The constant pressure exercised by the ―third world‖ countries on the superpowers to change their economic and foreign policies is a case in point.

In other words, the realists postulate that power is the basis of international relations and that state only act in national interest. On this basis the realists argue against intervention that is only justified for humanitarian purpose. The international system is portrayed as a brutal arena where states look for opportunities to take advantage of each other and therefore states are suspicious of each other. States are in constant struggle for power where each state strives not only to be the most powerful actor in the system but also to ensure that no other state achieves that of position (Mearsheimer 2006:571). Realists recognize

that states sometimes operate through institutions (Mearsheimer 2006:572);

however they believe that rules governing humanitarian interaction and doctrine like the responsibility to protect are designed in self interest either to maintain or increase its power. The Realists assumptions denotes therefore that intervention in sovereign state is never entirely humanitarian but in the self interest of the intervening state in an attempt to either maintain or increase their power and sphere of influence.

They see the responsibility to protect as a justification used as a cover for selfish national interest of powerful states in seeking to maintain or increase their power base. They argue that this raises the matter of selectivity and arbitrary application, which affects legitimacy. They further view the UNSCs jurisdiction of where to and not to intervene as a conspiracy by an elite group of Western powers to sit in judgment of their own actions.

Realists argue that any intervention even when coated with humanitarianism directly breaches the UN charter and could lead to abuse. This is based on the realist assumption that all states even an intervening states(s) only pursue its national interest (Guraziu 2008:4). Brownlie argues that humanitarian intervention, on the bases of all available definitions, would be an instrument wide open to abuse a rule allowing humanitarian intervention is a general license to vigilantes and opportunists to resort to hegemonic intervention (Brownlie in Guraziu 2008:4). In the same vein, Bellamy and Wheeler (2005:560) in their essay ―Humanitarian Intervention in World Politics‖

highlight some of the realist views. These are that states always have mixed motives for intervening and are rarely prepared to sacrifice their own soldiers overseas unless they have self interested reasons for doing so. Realists therefore believe that humanitarian intervention cannot be free from the national interest of the intervening state(s). They further argue that States should not shed the

blood of their citizens for foreigner in crisis on moral ground. Bellamy and Wheeler (2005:561) further points out that the national interest that guides states behaviour according to realism without doubt cause selective responses to humanitarian intervention as states will only intervene in crises that they have interest. Also, humanitarian intervention is prone to abuse as intervening states only use it as a means of achieving their national self-interest.

The implication of the above stated argument remains that power exercise within the international arena is purely a political struggle among nations for domination and maintenance of supremacy. It finds its expression within the purview of international politics, which defines the nature of relations nations maintain at international level. This explains the current role of NATO within the international system, considering the spate and flagrant violation and abuse of international rules and law of which they have answers to give at all times.

This kind of military prowess demonstrated by United States and NATO in some other countries where their economic interest were limited or refused to flower by the leaders of such states like Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. cannot be quantified. It created a doubt on the import and essence of sovereignty of states in the contemporary era against the abuse and invasion experiences they underwent under the United States of America and NATO.

In sum, these theoretical explanations are believed to have provided the framework upon which the content and context of this research anchored on.

Both exposed the level of power struggle within the international community.

The interplay of power is very obvious to the extent that a rebel group were supported to overthrow a sitting government in an intervention role that turned out to be an incursion. The presence of NATO and America in Libya has presented a complex situation owing to the fact that Libya is not a member of NATO but U. N., still, NATO opted to embark on the peace mission. The situation also defines the powers that be at United Nations, who takes and

influences major decisions within the body. It goes to show how American foreign policy supersedes other states‘ sovereignty with its attendant advancement of US foreign policy through NATO.