In contrast, argue the authors, the historical process of globalization must be understood in more sophisticated terms.

The anti-globalization movement, or counter-globalisation movement,^[1] is critical of the globalization of corporate capitalism. The movement is also commonly referred to as the global justice movement,^[2] alter-globalization movement, anti-globalist movement, anti-corporate globalization movement,^[3] or movement against neoliberal globalization.

Participants base their criticisms on a number of related ideas.^[4] What is shared is that participants oppose what they see as large, multi-national corporations having unregulated political power, exercised through trade agreements and deregulated financial markets. Specifically, corporations are accused of seeking to maximize profit at the expense of work safety conditions and standards, labor hiring and compensation standards, environmental conservation principles, and the integrity of national legislative authority, independence and sovereignty. As of January, 2012, some commentators have characterized the unprecedented changes in the global economy as "turbo-capitalism" (Edward Luttwak), "market fundamentalism" (George Soros), "casino capitalism" (Susan Strange),^[5] "cancer-stage capitalism" (John McMurtry), and as "McWorld" (Benjamin Barber).

Many anti-globalization activists call for forms of global integration that better provide democratic representation, advancement of human rights, fair trade and sustainable development and therefore feel the term "anti-globalization" is misleading.

International relations: essence, main stages, conceptions and basic tendencies.

International relations (IR), is a branch of political science; is a study of foreign affairs and global issues among states within the international system, including the roles of states, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational corporations (MNCs). It is both an academic and public policy field, and can be either positive or normative as it both seeks to analyze as well as formulate the foreign policy of particular states.

Apart from political science, IR draws upon such diverse fields as economics, history, law, philosophy, geography, sociology, anthropology, psychology and cultural studies. It involves a diverse range of issues, from globalization and its impacts on societies and state sovereignty to ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, nationalism, economic development, terrorism, organized crime, human security and human rights.

As you can see the IR field is extensive, not easy to cover each and every thing contained in the field. Our attention shall be directed into the world development agendas which shall include globalization and its impacts to the society, to millennium development goals, human security, gender equality, environmental conservations, human rights, etc.

International relations theory attempts to provide a conceptual model upon which international relations can be analyzed. Each theory is reductive and essentialists to different degrees, relying on different set assumptions respectively. Theories are paradigms or models of interpretation in the context of International Relations; as Ole Holsti describes them, international relations theories act as a pair of colored sunglasses, allowing the wearer to see only the salient events relevant to the theory... An adherent of realism may completely disregard an event that a constructivist might pounce upon as crucial, and vice versa.

The number and character of the assumptions made by an international relations theory also determine the usefulness. Realism, a parsimonious and very essentialist theory is useful in accounting for historical actions (for instance why did X invade Y) but limited in both explaining systemic change (such as the end of cold war) and predicting future events. Liberalism, which examines a very wide number of conditions, is less useful in making predictions, but can be very insightful in analyzing past events. Traditional theories may have little to say about the behavior of former colonies, but post-colonial theory may have greater insight into that specific area, where it fails in other situations.

International relation theories can be divided into “positivist/rationalist” theories which focus on a principally state-level analysis, and “post-positivist/reflectivist” ones which incorporate expanded meanings of security, ranging from class, to gender, to post-colonial security. Many often conflicting ways of thinking exist in IR theory including Constructivism, Institutionalism, Marxism, Neo-Gramscianism, and others. However, two positivist schools of thought are most prevalent: Realism and Liberalism; though increasingly, constructivism is becoming main stream and positivist theories are popular particularly outside USA

International organizations, their place and role in the modern global epoch.

An international organization is an organization with an international membership, scope, or presence. There are two main types:^[1]

· International nongovernmental organizations (INGOs): non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that operate internationally. There are two types:

· International non-profit organizations. Examples include the World Organization of the Scout Movement, International Committee of the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières

.

· International corporations, referred to as multinational corporations. Examples include The Coca-Cola Company and Toyota.

· Intergovernmental organizations, also known as international governmental organizations (IGOs): the type of organization most closely associated with the term 'international organization', these are organizations that are made up primarily of sovereign states (referred to as member states). Notable examples include the United Nations (UN), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Council of Europe (CoE), European Union (EU; which is a prime example of a supranational organization), and World Trade Organization (WTO). The UN has used the term "intergovernmental organization" instead of "international organization" for clarity. ^[2]

The first and oldest intergovernmental organization is the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine, created in 1815 by the Congress of Vienna.

When states establish an international organization (IO), they create an institution with a life of its own on the internationalstage. Though states can, collectively, control the IO, without unanimity among them the organization can often act on its own. The danger for a state, then, is that its creation, like Frankenstein’s, will become a monster and act contrary to its interests.

In contrast to Frankenstein, however, states are conscious of this risk and are able to guard against it. This Article explains that much of the existing landscape of international organizations has been formed by the state response to this “Frankenstein problem.” The effort by states to avoid creating a monster explains, among other things, why there are so many IOs, why they vary so widely in scope, and the manner in which they are permitted (and not permitted) to affect international law andinternational relations. The Article also identifies the four types of activities that IOs are allowed to undertake and explains how states choose which activities to place within which organizations. More generally, the Article offers a better understand of why and how IOs are designed and their place within the international legal order.

List of international organization leaders in 2013

Food and Agriculture Organization Director-General - José Graziano da Silva, Brazil (2012–present)