There are several differences between policy networks and epistemic communities. The policy networks do not reflect the same degree of coherence as epistemic communities do. Policy networks are clusters and have larger groups, while epistemic communities are a subset of policy networks. Policy networks’ membership fluctuates. Although they have different values, they are tied together by their interdependency. Power and resources are distributed unequally in policy networks. However, epistemic communities are more stable, and they consist of a smaller number of members who share same values (Carayannis, et.al., 2012: 132-133).

Legitimate transnational actors from a country
can be transnational companies, political parties,
or NGOs. Legitimate actors usually engage with
IOs in the management of international relations.
As a legitimate type of transnational actors,
transnational companies (TNCs) play a relatively
greater role in international politics today. They
primarily lobby foreign governments in several
ways; they can indirectly ask their own government
to put pressure on a foreign government, try to
affect the target government through IOs, or
directly reach its diplomatic missions or ministries

The institutional structure of an international organization may also change over time. For example, the Nordic Council was established in 1952 with the aim of fostering cooperation between Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden (Nordic Council, 2018a). As is also understood from the information given, the correct answer is A. In order to deepen the cooperation, the Nordic Council of Ministers was created in 1971 to complement the Council as well as a Secretariat was set up. Moreover, the organization enlarged: in 1955 Finland, in 1970 the Faroe Islands and Åland, and in 1984 Greenland joined the organization. The Council of Ministers consists of sub-groups focusing on different issue areas, including labor, sustainable growth, equality, culture, and environment.

The UN General Assembly is an excellent example of an interstate organ where each member state has one vote. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe illustrates a parliamentary organ, which is composed of 324 parliamentarians from 47 member states.

Moreover, some IOs have judicial bodies in order to settle the disputes between the members such as the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the UN, or to act as the ‘court of last resort’ such as the European Court of Human Rights.

From a liberal perspective, however, world government may not be a sound proposal to world order. The question of “how we will get there from here” has not been deeply thought by the world governmentalists; and as this question has been answered so far, it has a utopian character either by the consent, by conquest, or by the people’s initiative. 

The second flaw in world governmentalists’ domestic analogy has been the derivative of their first assumption. They not only have thought that government sustains order but also that it is the government’s having the monopoly of power which basically sustains order in domestic politics. For one thing, government does not in the first place have a monopoly of power.

Finally, another flaw in world governmentalists’ analogy may be the idea that domestic order has been sustained by governments through the enforcement of law on individuals and so world order could be sustained by the imposing of global laws on citizens of the new world. This was, in fact, the logical conclusion of world governmentalists’ plan of dismantling the state as the main political institution.

Therefore, the correct option is D.

The French Revolution and the French Revolutionary Wars utterly ended the European balance of power mechanism by destroying the dynastic kinship.

International institutions play a key role in world politics. For example, IOs help states to reduce the uncertainty about what other states’ objectives might be in international relations through a process of information sharing that builds trust. There is no doubt that the post- World War II institutions such as the EU have been instrumental in avoiding conflict and war among the great powers of Europe such as the UK, France, and Germany. It has fostered economic cooperation and increased foreign trade in Europe. Thus, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of World War II generation no longer live in a perpetual state of war, suspicion, and rivalry. The EU has been instrumental for European states in realizing that they share common interests in every issue area even if they live in an “anarchical” international system. Choice (b) is the correct answer.

There are two ideas on the balance of power as a system that deserve attention. First, the balance
of power is a “fallback system” of international relations; in a multistate system, unless analternate system is established for the management of power, it is natural for states to take care of their own security. Put differently, “the balance system is the natural international system in the sense that it does not have to be contrived. In the absence of a different system, states fall back on this one” (Claude, 1990: 35). Secondly, “the contemporary balance of power system is by no means a mere duplicate of systems which have existed in the past” (Claude, 1962: 281). The classical balance system of the earlier centuries has been modified by two major developments in this century; first, the establishment of general international organizations and, second, by institutionalized alliances such as NATO. Then, the system that we have had for the management of power since the establishment of the League of Nations may be called a “modified balance of power system.”

The precise objectives of balance of power system have been a controversy among the scholars of international relations. Objectives of (or benefits of, or the results to be expected from) a successfully operating balance of power system have been argued to be either peace, order, stability, moderation, preserving the independence of states, preserving the integrity of the multistate system, or some combination of these.

Some scholars, however, have thought that not an equilibrium but a preponderance of power would achieve statesmen’s objectives in the system.

Environmental conditions pose a threat to order.

The successful state is far from being completed at the domestic level; failed states, civil wars as well as other types of violence such as terrorism around the world have convinced both politicians and students of International Relations that we are far from this liberal order. Nevertheless, this is where meliorism comes in; rather than being overly optimistic or pessimistic about the world’s future, one can hope that it is possible to gradually create such a social world order. The correct option is B.

The Marxist approach contributes to the understanding of international relations and the role of IOs by critically assessing realism and liberalism, which are the dominant theoretical approaches to international relations. Marxism primarily focuses on the role of economic power in international affairs. Marxism criticizes capitalism as the main mode of production on the grounds that it causes inequalities among nation states and thus destabilizes the world order and increases the possibility of a conflict among states. Marxism regards IOs as tools and/or influence mechanisms of capitalism that widen the gap between the developed nations and the developing/ underdeveloped nations.

For Alfred Zimmern, collective security was a new system for managing power, a system that he defined as “the safety of all by all” (Zimmern, 1936: 4).

IR theories discuss global governance mostly in relation to state and power. Realists hold a critical stance toward global governance, because its existence would refer to the absence of anarchy in the international system. Yet anarchy is the defining characteristic of the international system. As is also understood from the information given, the correct answer is A.  

Liberals, on the other hand, consider global governance as a means of governing world affairs in the absence of a global central authority and emphasize its problem-solving potential. Focusing on the role of international economic organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Marxist scholars consider global governance as a capitalist project that enables the imposition of the capitalist reproduction of social relations and disciplines.

International Labour Organization (ILO) was established in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles. However, the preparation for an IO in the field of labor had already begun at the beginning of the 20th century with the International Association for Labour Legislation. The main aim of the ILO was to “secure the permanent peace of the world” by creating better conditions for workers at the universal level. The ILO focuses on a variety of labor issues including social justice, maximum working days and weeks, adequate living wage, protection against sickness, and protection of children, young persons, and women.

Legitimate transnational actors from a country can be transnational companies, political parties, or NGOs. Legitimate actors usually engage with IOs in the management of international relations. As a legitimate type of transnational actors, transnational companies (TNCs) play a relatively greater role in international politics today. They primarily lobby foreign governments in several ways; they can indirectly ask their own government to put pressure on a foreign government, try to affect the target government through IOs, or directly reach its diplomatic missions or ministries.

Nationalism does not have a direct influence in the world organization and international order. The correct option is A.

For liberal approach; in a social system where power centralizes, we also observe poor governance. Good governance, however, requires democracy and political pluralism.

According to Krasner, there are four defining components of international regimes: Principles are beliefs of causation, fact, and rectitude; norms are standards of behavior, and they are defined in terms of rights and obligations; rules are specific prescriptions or proscriptions for action; decision-making procedures are prevailing practices for making and implementing collective choice. Choice (b) is the correct answer.

Realism is one of the major theories of international relations. The state-centric approach of realism is accepted as its distinctive trait, since the state is theoretically acknowledged as the main actor in international relations who follows its own interests and compete for power in the international system. Realism considers the concept of power as the ability to change and adjust the behavior of others in an anticipated way.

International non-governmental organizations (INGOs) consist of members that are generally national NGOs representing their respective fellow countrymen. The goals of NGOs are determined by individuals, and they can operate at both national and international levels.

There are three types of international regimes: spontaneous, imposed, and negotiated.

Spontaneous regimes are unplanned; they emerge out of common behaviors of actors.

Imposed regimes are purposely constructed by a dominant actor.

Negotiated regimes are those regimes “characterized by conscious efforts to agree on their major provisions, explicit consent on the part of individual participants, and formal expression of the results… It is important to differentiate among several types of negotiated orders that occur in the international system. Such orders will take the form either of ‘constitutional’ contracts or of legislative bargains”

An international organization may have various organs mandated with specific functions. These organs can be interstate organs (e.g.The UN General Assembly), organs of international officials, parliamentary organs (e.g.The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe), organs of the representative of interest groups of economic and social life, and organs of mixed membership