p.p1 theory that best suits the Korean War. Realism

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 10.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 10.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
span.Apple-tab-span {white-space:pre}

The Korean War was a military conflict involving Russia, China, North and South Korea, and America. It lasted between 1950 and 1953. This war impacted the countries involved and changed their perspective on war tactics and interpretation of triumph. When the Second World War ended, Korea was divided into two states, North and South Korea. Unfortunately, the conflict carried on up to 1950 forcing North Korea to seek military collaboration with Chinese and Russian forces. South Korea, on the other hand, collaborated with UN and the American forces. This marked the beginning of the second stage of the Korean War. However, the United Nations was involved in matters concerning Korea even before its division. The United Nations was to supervise the country’s general election to ensure credibility and fairness of elections. The UN eventually became a party to the war rather than a neutral arbiter. IFKWVA (International Federation of the Korean War Veterans’ Association) was one of the non-state actors involved in the Korean War. 
Several philosophers and visionaries came up with theories to explain international relations. These theories explain social and bureaucratic aspects of international relations. Several theories try to explain how countries interact with each other. They give reasons why nations go to war and strategies to create and maintain harmony between nations. There are several IR theories that explain the possibility of peace and how conflicts can be resolved in international relations. This essay will explain the theory that best suits the Korean War. 
 Realism is the theory that best explains the Korean War. By description, realism states that states’ strive to increase their power drives the international relations agenda. Realists explain that power is significant when it comes to international politics. Classical realists perceive international politics as unprincipled effort corrupted by conflict due to the nature of human behavior (Victor & Kang). Their main argument is that “man lived in environments with no rules and regulations to hinder them from behaving inappropriately” (Cha, Victor D, and David C Kang, pp. 2). According to Thomas Hobbes, this kind of environment shaped man to be competitive, constrained and made man seek triumph amongst themselves. For traditional realists, if this type of behavior is put in matters regarding international politics, where every country is pursuing safety and there is no power to ensure country’s morality, then they engage in competition which leads to conflicts i.e. “war of all against all” (Thomas Hobbes, 1985, p.185).
The theory of realism best explains the nature of conflicts and wars. According to realists, states are on constant lookout to take advantage on other states weaknesses causing conflicts. However, if both rival states maintain equilibrium in military power, neither state will initiate war. The situation in the Korean Peninsula after 1953 evidently supports this logic. After the peace treaty and formation of a border, both countries deployed massive military forces along their respective borders. Each state ensured their military forces had necessary resources and was capable of tackling the rival. After all these efforts, there was no conflict in the peninsula during the Cold War. 
Equilibrium of power brought peace between the two states. The deterrence logic certainly explains this scenario. The deterrence logic suggests that the DPRK did not go through with attacks because they had no military power over the ROK (Cha, Victor D, and David C Kang, pp. 2).  Also, the inter-governmental relationship between DPRK and the ROK during the war corresponds to the logic of realism. Between the late 1940s and the end of the Korean War, Seoul and Pyongyang ended their relations. DPRK and ROK ended any type of inter- governmental communication.  
In conclusion, with respect to international relations, the Korean War can persuasively be described by the realism approach. Despite the inter-governmental co-operation situation after the Cold War, the realist theory strongly applies. The Korean War problem has fundamentally been intricately tied to partisan politics, controversy over the threat it poses to its members. The realism theory of international relations fits the world event.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now