Problem Statement and Relevance of the Study
In 1918, Max Weber coined one of the basic assumptions regarding the definition of a nation-state: “…a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory”. More than a half century later, with the end of the bipolar order, the world witnessed the beginning of a new era concerning the role of the state and its “ownership” of force. In the 1990s, inter-state conflicts (i.e. two national armies using force against each other) were replaced by numerous internal and regional struggles that involved the use of force by a plethora armed groups.
Some of these wars were supported, directly or indirectly, by regional powers. However, in several other cases, nation-states were not the leading actors, but the victims of unrestrained violence emanating from within the state or from neighboring failing or collapsed states. In many of these conflicts, economy remained decentralized, low in participation and high in unemployment. The mode of warfare became dispersed, fragmented, and alarmingly directed against civilians. Rape and human-caused famines were used as systematic weapons of attrition. Indistinguishable belligerents were able to fight protracted battles, largely because of the vast array of light weaponry available to them through international black markets. All of these factors led to cycles of death and destruction in increasingly amorphous theaters of war. These Post Cold War conflicts were the precursors of further devastating activities by complex violent organizations. At the outset of the twenty-first century, armed groups adopted strategies and conducted operations involving direct confrontations against the ...
... middle of paper ...
...states. The November 2008 events in Mumbai are an illustrative example of trends regarding ANSAs strategic potential. This three-day siege of India’s financial capital was conducted by a small, trained, equipped, and maneuverable outfit. Preliminary reports linked the attackers to Lashkar et Toiba—a Pakistani based Al Qaeda associate. In the immediate aftermath of the events, India pointed at Pakistani negligence; accusing it of providing safe heaven to this organization. The actions of this non-state actor soon led to a series of escalatory tensions between the two regional nuclear powers. A series of crisis management measures, including the role of the U.S. Secretary of State, were necessary to help defuse the rising tensions. U.N. Under Secretary General Shashi Tharoor recognized the strategic impact of these events upon the relatively weaker India, which noneth
On the other hand, in The Slippery Slope to Preventive War, Neta Crawford questions the arguments put forward by the Bush administration and the National Security Strategy in regard to preemptive action and war. Crawford also criticizes the Bush administration as they have failed to define rogue states and terrorists as they have “blurred the distinction” between “the terrorists and those states in which they reside”. In Crawford’s point of view, taking the battle to the terrorists as self-defence of a preemptive nature along with the failure to distinguish between terrorist and rogue states is dangerous as “preventive war
Some americans say that nations hinge on each other, while others say they also compete with one another. This gives rise to rivalry, which sometimes leads to war. Some wars emerge from differentiation in race, religion and culture. Due to the evolution of technology in an accelerated pace, highly sophisticated weapons are now available for use in wars. Wars also bring about widespread destruction, disrupt communication and hamper commerce. Thus, they cause heavy financial loss and great suffering to people. The effects of wars often affect countries that are not involved in the conflict. The threat of war can pressure a nation to waste immense amounts of money on defense instead of spending on developmental works like creating roads, hospitals, schools, and much more. War can halt a countries development. Some countries try to achieve political desires by using terrorism as a weapon against other countries. Terrorism spreads fear in civilians through acts of violence like killings and hostages. This intimidation has transformed into worldwide threat.
Throughout the 20th Century, the world was engulfed in global conflicts, engaging in one war after the next. When looking at these different conflicts, interconnected themes and issues seemed to lead to the later conflicts. The first of the conflicts to affect the globe was the Great War. Since the Great War, numerous conflicts have followed including World War II, The Cold War, and eventually the War on Terror. These wars share similar goals and themes of gaining power and prestige, seeking revenge, and fighting ideologies. Each of these conflicts results in events that eventually lead to the next conflict, creating near constant warfare around the globe. The effects and fears created by these conflicts can still be seen today as we fight
the role of the state and also from the perspective of how the decision to fight impacts the
Pilisuk, Marc. “[CN]Chapter 5: [CN] Networks of Power.” Who Benefits from Global Violence and War: Uncovering a Destructive System. With Jennifer Achord Rountree. Westport: Praeger Security International, an imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 2008. Print.
My answer to these two questions is threefold: First, I assert that TSMs and INGOs can and have posed substantial normative challenges to state hegemony, most commonly the notion that the state enjoys a monopoly on representation of its citizens and their interests. Furthermore, TSMs and INGOs that employ the use of violence (particularly terrorism) breach the conventional notion that states...
Rethinking Violence: States and Non-state Actors in Conflict. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 22, 2014).
Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.cd http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/276683?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email l & utm _ campaign = new % 20 JPS _ 2008_3_26 Hilde Haaland Kramer, & Steve A Yetiv. (2007). The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary'. The UN Security Council's Response to Terrorism: Before and After September 11, 2001. Political Science Quarterly, 122(3), 409-432.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
War is a universal phenomenon, it is a violent tool people use to accomplish their interests. It is not autonomous, rather policy always determines its character. Normally it starts when diplomacy fails to reach a peaceful end. War is not an end rather than a mean to reach the end, however, it does not end, and it only rests in preparation for better conditions. It is a simple and dynamic act with difficult and unstable factors which make it unpredictable and complex. It is a resistant environment where the simplest act is difficult to perform. In this paper, I will argue why war is a universal phenomenon and what are the implications of my argument to strategists.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
Taking into account that states asses its strengths in order to adopt the most effective strategies to deal with potential menaces, westerns states understand the advantages of the aforementioned theory. The current threats that the Western world take into account are composed by local, regional and global menaces. To this paper it is essential recognise the scope of all of those elements that configure a threat to the West. Among many others there are drugs, crime, and terrorism, geo-strategic actors such as the Middle East and Russia, and growing powers such as China. These are complicated patterns that states need to strategically cope with. In fact, the security strategy from Western states is framed between the combination o...
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
All living things need the resources provided by our natural world to live, leading to them adapting to specific environments. Animals in particular are mobile creatures that move from place to place searching for the best environments for their survival. The most intelligent creatures in our animal world are human beings and like other animals, they moved from place to place while organized into races in search of the elusive desirable environments. However, there is always the likelihood of finding fellow humanity already thriving in that environment. This resulted to conflict as competition for the inadequate resources arose. Consequently, human beings formed nations, allegiance to the national system meant loyalty to the governance, and regions and they formed military groups to defend their resources. However, the military warfare has changed with international understanding, though the idea still rests heavily on fight for resources. Further, international politics illustrates the causes and effects of modern military war have changed due to chan...
In order to answer the question concerning the formation of states, it is necessary to clarify what constitutes a state; the Oxford English Dictionary defines a state as ‘a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government’. There are a number of ways and processes in which to analyse what state formation is, why they have formed and the way in which this has occurred. State emergence can be traced back to the creation of territorial boundaries in medieval Europe, such as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and its transition to a modern state can be attributed to the introduction of gunpowder in war (Hague & Harrop, 2010: 64). The formations of states have also been influenced by the growth of bureaucracy, administration and organisations. There are different theories as to the reason why states form, a certain few of which can be divided into the categories of rationalist, culturalist and structuralist perspectives. In this essay, these perspectives shall enter the debate in trying to justify the reason for state formation and the way in which it occurs. The most prominent feature in the formation of states appears to be the prevention and engagement of a state in war and its following consequences.