The Melian Dialogue is one of the most cited works in international studies. If this writing is treated with such esteem, and if it inspires modern international relations theorists, it is because it documents a rivalry between two of the most prominent cities in ancient Greece and the manner in which such rivalry sparked a war that saw a collapse of their civilizations. The most fundamental lesson learned from the story of Sparta and Athens concerns the politics of international relationships. For instance, the dialogue raises a concern on the possibilities of the existence of states that consider power as a critical element of their existence while being guided by norms that inspire justice. It appears that the quest for power might compromise moral justice, which the Melian dialogue thoroughly depicts. For example, the rapid rise of Athens threatened the political existence of Sparta, and a failure to resolve their issues of rivalry amicably resulted in a war that was fought between 431 and 404 B.C.E. The modern world is similar to the case Sparta and Athens since major economic and political powers strive to protect their superiority yet different in the fact that international organizations help in conflict resolution.
The Melian dialogue and the Sparta-Athens war create two issues that characterize the modern global politics. Specifically, it highlights the fact that global leaders are always driven by their egoism and that the absence of an international government might compromise the international justice (Stanford University 2017). The modern world remains unchanged in both facts. First, each of the states in the world is concerned with the expression of its sovereignty while some of them, the most economically and politically powerful ones, are concerned with expressing their supremacy. As the Melian dialogue documents, modern political realists argue that the egoistic human nature is the reason for discarding moral principles. It means that global leaders are more likely to push for their agendas against those of others (Bell 2010). The cases of the US and Russia, US and Northern Korea, and the US and China are among the contemporary examples of egoism as an inherent human character. In each of the cases highlighted, the rivals have been fighting to protect their political and economic supremacy. Take for example, the ongoing wrangle between Seoul and Washington in which both Presidents Bush and Kim are pushing for their agenda (Bell 2010). Specifically, the existence of strong nuclear power in Korea threatens the political relevance and capacity of the US, which is why fierce war of word has ensued between the two presidents. The cases of the two presidents are indicators of the egoistic nature of humans, and the fact that they can breed conflict.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is also imperative to argue that the Melian Dialogue indicates that realism suggests that because there is no international government, anarchy takes its place as the primary method conflict resolution among states. The absence of a common form of rule-making as well as authorities of law enforcement suggests the international arena is more of a self-help system than it is a jurisdiction of laws (Stanford University 2017). It means, therefore, according to the essentials of the Melian Dialogue, that each country is supposed to fight for its own survival and that it has the freedom to define its interests as well as explore its own supremacy (Lawson 2017). For this reason, anarchy results from situations that could mean that the power of one nation threatens to override the determination of interstate issues. It is by no surprise, therefore, that some nations have been accused of meddling in the affairs of others, which the wrangle between the US and Korea depicts. In this conflict, President Kim has warned President Trump against interfering with his internal politics concerning the development of and testing of nuclear weaponry. As explained, therefore, President Kim feels that he is tasked with protecting the interests of Koreans against the possibilities of an American infringement.
Insofar as the Melian Dialogue indicates that the global states are anarchic, it likewise posits that security is an issue of central concern. For example, each of the states, Sparta and Athens was aware of the need to pronounce its supremacy and protect it. In the modern world, nations strive to attain security through increasing their power while engaging in power balancing for the avoidance of probable aggressors (Stanford University 2017). The wars in the contemporary world are waged with the purpose of preventing the competing nations from emerging as stronger in military terms. The case of Athens and Spartans is a classic example of the manner in which the fear of political compromise may cause nations to engage in wars. While the example of the Second World War may be almost too old to be cited, it is a perfect example of issues being addressed in this paragraph. For instance, Hitler was critical in spreading propaganda that the existence of the Jews in Germany and Europe threatened the freedom of Germans and Europeans (Bell 2010). The propaganda soon became too strong to dispel, which sparked the Holocaust and the Hitler moved to suppress the potential emergence of political rivalry from other nations such as France.
The case of Athens and Sparta further suggests and depicts the fact that modern realists could be skeptical concerning the relevance of upholding moral standards of morality in international politics. This argument can be a cause of arguing that international politics does not have a place for morality, or that a tension exists between the demands of such morality and the requisitions of successful political establishments. It is also possible to suggest that states consider that they have their forms of morality, which is distinct from the customary one, and that when applied, the morality is used in justifying the conduct by small states (Ozette 2008). It is notable that the US is one of the most cited nations in literature because of its reactiveness in economic and political issues, which is why even though repetitive, citing it for this point is plausible. In this regard, President Trump’s assertion to ‘make America great again’ is enshrined in the element that morality does not have a place in international relations. In elaboration, the decision by the President to deal with illegal immigration is geared at protecting the interests of Americans even while such a move might mean deporting some of them and barring others to travel to the US (Ozette 2008). Some people might consider such a move as the ignorance of morality, at least to some sense, but that does not hold according to the perceptions of the President since he feels that America is for Americans.
However, as much as the case of Athens and Sparta is similar to the events of the contemporary world, it is notable that they are different in one aspect. The fact that there is an established body concerned with international conflict resolution, the United Nations, means that governments are restricted in the manner they approach issues (Bell 2010). The history of the United Nations traces to the end of the Second World War when it was established to take over the role of the League of Nations that had failed in maintaining global peace. Therefore, the primary function of the United Nations was to provide a platform for conflict resolution that would ensure that states do not get as far as they did before, or as the issue of Sparta and Athens went out of proportion. Therefore, despite the similarities that have been established between the Melian Dialogue and modern international relations, it is plausible to argue that the situations are dissimilar since there is some form of ‘international government’ that listens to the grievances of member states. Therefore, governments around the world have learned to deal amicably with their issues since they are required to stick to a strict code of conduct that prevents them from meddling into the affairs of others.
In conclusion, the Melian Dialogue described the realist ideologies of international relations. According to this dialogue, governments around the world are only motivated in the protection of their own interests, which is a product of the egoistic nature of their leaders. Such egoism has resulted in the perception that conflicts could be solved through anarchy. While such a scenario was manifested in the war between Athens and Sparta happened because of the three concepts, they have been prevented from happening for the fact that the absence of an international government has been offset by the presence of the United Nations. It means, therefore, that while most of the elements of the realist ideologies presented in the Melian Dialogue are present in the contemporary world, they differ in the element of international conflict resolution.
Bibliography
Bell, Duncan. 2010. “ Political Thought and International Relations” . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lawson, Stephanie. 2017. International Relations . [S.l.]: Polity Press.
Ozette, Murielle. 2008. "Reclaiming the Critical Dimension of Realism: Hans J. Morgenthau on the Ethics of Scholarship." Review of International Studies 34(01).
Stanford University. 2017. "Political Realism in International Relations (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Plato.stanford.edu . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/ (16 October 2017).
