The art of war has been a vital aspect of state-making throughout history. Max Weber contends in his essay, Politics as a Vocation, that the State is a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (Weber, 77), a definition that political experts cite to this day. However, many scholars today believe that we have created a new type of warfare, one that questions the validity of the statehood of current international powers as well as Weber’s own precedent for identifying States. The current turmoil in Syria is an unusual circumstance. Since early 2011, the country has been plagued with civil unrest as fighting erupted between Syrian citizens and the government, causing a strong international reaction from other countries. When viewing the conflict through Weber’s lens, is it possible to rationalize the idea of Syria being a State in terms of the violence that has ensued? In order to come up with an answer, you need to ask two more questions in relation to Weber’s definition: Does the Syrian government successfully claim the monopoly of violence? Is the use of violence legitimate? While the term “civil war” seems to be the “preferred term for the ongoing violence in Syria” (Keating, Would You Know a Civil War When You Saw One?), it is evident that the war has seeped out of Syria’s borders as other countries have attempted to intervene. Herbert Wulf writes in his essay, The bumpy road to re-establish a monopoly of violence, that “A characteristic of recent wars is a disruption or loss of the state monopoly of violence, as it can neither be adequately exercised nor can the rule of law be maintained” (Wulf). As much as the violence seems to be contained w... ... middle of paper ... ...onopoly”. Furthermore, Weber also seems to assume a closed state system. As the world began to globalize more in the 20th century, interaction between States was simply unavoidable. For example, the spread of Communism during the Cold War began to blur the lines between Statehood and non-Statehood—some “States” held less power than separate parties within them (invading Communist powers). This discrepancy makes it difficult to distinguish who can be classified as a real State and who cannot, even decades before conflict arose in Syria. While Weber’s definition of the State is flawed and should not be taken as the definitive word on what the State truly is, it does seems to encompass the real and nebulous idea, reaching closer to the true State’s vague epicenter. Weber provides us with a basis for further exploration of what it means to have legitimate statehood.
Rethinking Violence: States and Non-state Actors in Conflict. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 22, 2014).
The government of the United States and of Oceania use war as a political tool to control the social views of the people, the products and wealth of the country, and the opinions of politicians and government officials. The ways in which war is used as a political tool includes controlling citizens, and products of a country. Both the country in 1984 and the United States use war in similar ways. When comparing the current time with the story of 1984 it is easy to see the similarities in how war is used as a political tool.
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.
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.
The theory of democratic peace is a classical idea that has been cited repeatedly by scholars. While Kant was not a darling of democracy, he wrote about perpetual peace, which he describes would only happen if states achieve a form of civil constitution. To him, perpetual peace exists when a regime honors property owned by citizens and when citizens live equally being the subjects based on a representative government that is built on the premise of separation of powers. The theory of democratic peace is therefore built on the proposition that some negative elements of government can be disabled to make a nation thrive in an international arena. This majorly entails elements of war. This idea is strengthened by the fact that relations between states in an international setting are not provoked by benefits of one nation being a burden to another. Instead, these relations are based on a mutual benefit and togetherness. If that proposition is anything to go by, it loses it meaning when states behave contrary to what they suggest on an international platform. The internal structures of a state are paramount to such an atmosphere and when they lead a different style of relationship with other states, the theory of perpetual peace fails to hold any water. The behavior of states can only be explained...
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
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.
In this two weeks’ tutorial, we did the simulation activity which is about Syria conflict. On behalf of the role of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (following refer to as the PYD) and other delegates' representatives, I conducted negotiations on the Syrian civil war and gave four resolutions. And our group focusses on some questions which are related to the Syrian civil war. Therefore, these resolutions are ceasefire, sanctions, humanitarian relief and political transition. I will illustrate what one has learned from this simulation activity, analyse these four resolutions and give my response from four different aspects below as well.
The ancient military treatises of Sun Tzu, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Carl von Clausewitz are all too often looked upon by readers as texts that are not applicable to modern-day warfare. The fact that these treatises were published centuries ago—Sun Tzu’s The Art of War in roughly 500 B.C., Machiavelli’s The Art of War in 1521, and Clausewitz’s Principles of War in the early nineteenth century—only furthers the belief that these treatises were designed for ancient warfare and thus have no current day applicability. A thorough examination of current events, however, suggests that the tactics within these ancient treatises are still applicable to warfare. In fact, current day events—events ranging from the Civil War in Syria to the Russian-American
Krasner, Stephen D.. Power, the state, and sovereignty: essays on international relations. London: Routledge, 2009. Print.
As violence continues to shatter Syria, the international community has yet to find a way to resolve the civil war. The rebels want to liberate themselves from the forty year regime of the Assad family. With the help of Hezbollah and Iran, Assad has been able to stay in office and isn’t holding back when it comes to fighting off the rebels. The rebels continue to fight back and will not stop until they liberate themselves.
Carl von Clausewitz, “What is War?” On War. Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, 89-112. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.
Tilly, C. (1985). War Making and State Making as Organized Crime. In: P.B Evans, D. Rueschemeyer & T. Skocpol Bringing the state back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 171.
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.
In the short run, UN peacekeepers can immediately and efficiently work to protect civilians as long as there are enough troop members (Joshi). In addition, the presence of UN peacekeepers tends to influence the government to assume a democratic ruling (Joshi). However, peacekeepers do not occupy a country forever, thus there must be a long-term solution for the state set accordingly for long-standing peace. Joshi’s research also shows certain post-civil war rebel groups have difficulty adjusting to democratic governing systems (Joshi). A civil war does not necessitate the need of democratic ruling nor is a democracy always successful in a state. Reliance building leads to political empowerment, hence, whether or not a democratic governing system is best suited for the state, the state is more likely to come to that conclusion themselves instead of being influenced by the peacekeepers. In the long run, preparing local communities for the shock of war and