According to Max Weber in Essays in Sociology, a state can be defined as a “human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Using this statement and the provided articles, one would conclude that Syria cannot be considered a state. Although they do use physical force, it cannot be considered a legitimate use of physical force within their given territory. The Syrian civil war is one of the controversies that arise in the question of whether they are a state or not according to Weber's theory.
In accordance with Weber's theory, Syria cannot be considered as a state because they do not hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. In Syria, there are multiple groups fighting against the Ba'ath government, and using physical force to overthrow the government. In this sense, there is no clear monopoly on the use of physical force within the territory. Both groups are fighting for the monopoly and the power. The threat of violence exists on both sides, and so the monopoly is nonexistent, because the other side also has the capability to enact the threat of physical violence. In the conflict, the Brotherhood is fighting against the existing Ba'ath government who if there was no uprising would have the monopoly and could make Syria be considered a state according to Weber. However, as soon as the rebellion began to take root and turn violent, according to Weber's definition, Syria stopped being a state as soon as that occurred because they lost the monopoly on legitimate physical force.
I do not agree with Weber's assessment of the defined “state.” I do not agree with it because a state does not have to only rely on the legitimate use of physical forc...
... middle of paper ...
...force. They still hold a national identity and have well defined borders. They also have a functioning market, which is a pinnacle for statehood. Syria exists within its boundaries, and is unchallenged as being existent among other states. Just because there is no monopoly on violence, does not mean that their state is defunct and they cannot be considered a state.
Weber's definition is too narrow, and so it should not be considered as an accurate assessment of the statehood of a region. It doesn't include an other important criteria for statehood, and relies on the ability of a region to exercise violence. If we were to adhere to this theory, states would be popping up and disappearing very often, and maps would change just as often. A state should be defined as a region with defined borders with a working market economy, authority, and a strong national identity
SUMMARY: The Syrian Civil War between the Syrian government, and the insurgents, as well as the Free Syrian Army has been escalating since early 2011. The United States, and our allies have faced difficulty in sending aid to Syria, and continue to deal with obstacles in sending even basic medications to Syrian civilians. However, the United States and its allies have also contributed to the lack of organization and the disparity in Syria by sending aid and artillery to individuals based only on political connection, and ignoring organization, local alliances, and without a true understanding of the reality of the Syrian localities to best protect the Syrian protestors. The question addressed in this memo will be defining the viable options to be pursued in Syria, how to pursue them, and assessing the most beneficial path of least resistance when offering aid, funds, and artillery to specific groups in the country. The recommendation will be that although the best alternative action item would be to choose a Syrian group with the least oppositional values comparative to the United States to fund, supply with arms, and train; that the United States should do nothing for the time being. Given the physical and financial risk involved with the Syrian Civil War, it would be prudent for the United States to simply observe how the war progresses over the next several months, as well as complete some research to truly understand the state of affairs in local areas of Syria to determine the extent to which the United States could identify a group to provide aid to, as well as the extent to which the United States involvement would be within Syria.
...ers. It also defined what power a state has over a legitimate federal institution. For example, a state may not use its power to impede the operation of a federal institution by taxing its activities, but still has the authority to collect property tax from a federal institution.
Rethinking Violence: States and Non-state Actors in Conflict. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 22, 2014).
Political violence is action taken to achieve political goals that may include armed revolution, civil strife, terrorism, war or other such activities that could result in injury, loss of property or loss of life. Political violence often occurs as a result of groups or individuals believing that the current political systems or anti-democratic leadership, often being dictatorial in nature, will not respond to their political ambitions or demands, nor accept their political objectives or recognize their grievances. Formally organized groups, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), businesses and collectives of individual citizens are non-state actors, that being that they are not locally, nationally or internationally recognized legitimate civilian or military authorities. The Cotonou Agreement of 2000 defines non-state actors as being those parties belonging to the private sector, economic and social partners and civil society in all its forms according to national characteristics. Historical observation shows that nation states with political institutions that are not capable of, or that are resistant to recognizing and addressing societies issues and grievances are more likely to see political violence manifest as a result of disparity amongst the population. This essay will examine why non-state political violence occurs including root and trigger causes by looking at the motivations that inspire groups and individuals to resort to non-conforming behaviors that manifest as occurrences of non-state political violence. Using terrorism and Islamic militancy on the one side, and human rights and basic freedoms on the other as examples, it will look at these two primary kinds of political violence that are most prevalent in the world ...
Unlike the other Arab spring revolutions, such as in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia, the Syrian Civil War takes a place of its own in today’s political world. It brought back the Cold War ghosts, and reasserted the tension between the U.S. and Russia, because a big part of the American policy in Syria is a result of getting in a direct confrontation between the two strong powers.
Much of the contemporary commentary about U.S. policy towards Syria reduces to a debate for or against regime change which many observers characterize as a standard U.S. objective linked to a belief in American exceptionalism. President Obama tried to disavow such a view during his speech in Cairo in 2009 entitled, “A New Beginning.” His declaration there that, “No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other,” was an emphatic rejection of what John M. Owen, IV describes as a “fairly common practice of statecraft.” In this paper I will summarize Owen’s main ideas from The Clash of Ideas in World Politics: Transnational Networks, States, and Regime Change, 1510-2010, analyze his research design, evaluate the coherence of his central argument, and assess his contribution to International Relations scholarship. Although Owen’s work sheds light on the phenomenon of forcible regime promotion, his explanation is only one of several plausible causes.
Kurdistan is a region that has existed in turmoil and is the “never was” country. The Kurds are the fourth largest ethnic group of the Middle East, numbering between 20 and 25 million. Approximately 15 million live in the regions of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, an area they called Kurdistan, yet they do not have a country of their own. Formal attempts to establish such a state were crushed by the larger and more powerful countries in the region after both world wars. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed after World War I, the Kurds were promised their own independent nation under the Treaty of Sevres. In 1923 however, the treaty was broken allowing Turkey to maintain its status and not allowing the Kurdish people to have a nation to call their own. The end of the Gulf war, Iran-Iraq war, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the end of the cold war has reinvigorated a Kurdish Nationalist movement.
An attack on the Syrian state would fall within the boundaries of the international concept of the responsibility to protect. The crisis in Syria has escalated by protests in March 2011 calling for the release of all political prisoners. National security forces responded to widespread peaceful demonstrations with the use of brutal violence. The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad refused to stop attacks and allow for implementation of the reforms requested by the demonstrators. By July 2011, firsthand accounts emerged from witnesses, victims, and the media that government forces had subjected innocent civilians to detention, torture, and the use of heavy weaponry. The Syrian people were also subjected to the Shabiha, a largely armed state sponsored militia fighting with security forces. Al-Assad continually denied responsibility to these crimes and placed blame on the armed groups and terrorists for these actions.
Since March 2011, Syria had no longer experienced a situation called peace and harmony. Syrian’s daily life is filled with the events of killing, bombing and torturing of their brothers and sisters. This unresolved conflict began with a revolution to against the government for brook the promise to have betterment in political system (citation). However the government had responded by harsh action. Starting from this point, Syria had slide into Civil War. Based on the brief description about situation in Syria, I strongly believe that the best International Relation theory to describe this situation is constructivism. This is because the Civil War in Syria is socially constructed by some factors which will be discussed deeply in the next paragraph. In this essay, I will emphasize on the two factors that lead to Syria Civil War which are identity conflict in a state and the absence of shared norms of sovereignty; and provide a solution from constructivism perspective which is diplomacy negotiation and limitation to it.
As you are aware, there have been many concerns with Syria. The issue involves Assad, President of Syria, and ISIS, a Syrian rebel group. This problem is advancing and developing into an international dilemma as the U.S we have to take control. Assad killed over 1,400 people, including children, with maybe the use of chemical weapons within the countries. This may or may not be reliable information because there are investigations in order to prove the theory. The problem with ISIS is that they have beheaded and slaughtered many innocent people to prove a point.
As the Arab Spring enters its second year, major uprisings and revolts have occurred all over the Middle East, pushing for an end to the corrupt autocratic rule and an expansion of civil liberties and political rights. Most recently, images from Syria have emerged, depicting the government’s use of force to suppress the voice of its people. One might ask, “Is this the beginning of a revolution? Is the country on the path to democracy?” To assess this question and examine the future trends in the region, one must look back on the country’s somewhat tumultuous history, the relationship between the citizens and the state, and the political economy.
result of World War One. The people of Kurdistan went from being part of the Ottoman empire to being divided into four countries and three distinct ethnicities namely Arabs, Persians, and Turks. The new nations of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria were formed at the expense of the identity of the Kurds whom were natives to their ancestral land. Throughout history, the Kurds have been constantly oppressed within their “countries” by gassings in Halabja, and Turkey’s constant massacres; as recent as 2011, and the current complex war in Syria. The United States of America must establish a better communications policy with the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG),
Contrary to popular beliefs, civil activism and civil society has managed to thrive in the Middle East. Social movements on a variety of topics have occurred despite the lack of democracy and democratic institutions in certain countries. One popular movement was the Arab Ba’ath Movement which eventually led to the formation of the Baath Party. By analyzing the movement’s history, ideological stance, goals, the actors, dissenters, and international aspect, one can determine how and why the movement flourished in Syria.
...t state autonomy cannot be restricted by anything but the community (state) itself. As one might assume, it follows from these differing standpoints that the way each theory view intervention, etc., will be in opposition. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
The propensity for states to wage civil wars is something that isn’t going to go away anytime soon. Regions yet to stabilize will continue intrastate carnage until regional power is established. How then, is that power best established? De-escalation and negotiations are naturally the preferred method of resolution, but some scholars such as Luttwak and Toft pose what many criticize as radical and inconsiderate of human life. Regrettably, the proposition of letting civil wars and other localized conflicts take their natural path is one that may lead to better outcome, and not only theoretically.