Often, war is considered a method of negotiation. Through force, one party persuades another to concede to their demands. The loss of life, land, and property can be especially convincing. However, diplomacy is another method of negotiation that tries to eliminate the bloody process of war and get right to conversation which will lead to a mutually satisfying solution without extreme costs. Diplomacy, then, is when “agreements or understandings are obtained among states, through the efforts of trained government representatives.”1 Most importantly, diplomacy seeks to address the problem of escalations (like arms races) which can result in war by using communication. Occasionally, these trained professionals called diplomats may employ coercive diplomacy to achieve these goals. This coercion uses a threat as an incentive to make a state stop or undo an action. Coercive diplomacy seems to be the most effective method because it both motivates and demands a response, which can be either conflict or compromise.
George Kennan, author of “Diplomacy in the Modern World,” asserts that true global diplomacy is not achieved through the establishment of universal law but a cultural change which eradicates the idea of total victory. The “legalistic approach to international affairs ignores in general the
…show more content…
The multiple tiers of accounting for multiple variables leaves little room for error and relies heavily on improvisation. As described in “The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy,” it is like playing a game of chicken. If both parties refuse to back down, and the defending state cannot back out of its threat for fear of appearing weak, then the result would be war. By forcing a response from a state, they may be just as likely to respond aggressively as they are
War termination and the decision of when to negotiate peace are rarely effectively planned before a war. The Russo-Japanese War is one of a few historical exceptions. The Russo-Japanese War provides three enduring lessons about war termination in a conflict fought for limited aims. First, the most effective war termination plans are created before the war. Second, continued military and political pressure can effectively improve your position to negotiate peace. Third, common interests and compromise are required for durable peace.
George Kennan says, “Morality in governmental method, as a matter of conscience and preference on the part of our people – yes.” He goes on to say that morality as a criterion for measuring and comparing the behavior of states is flawed. Morality is a preference, not a requirement to govern in the international anarchic system, Kennan argues. Ethics and justice in the international system are measured by how states satisfy varying moral requirements. These moral requirements are defined by a variety of schools of thought, including: Realists, Morality of States theorists, and Cosmopolitans. Realists may validate some action where morality of state theorists and cosmopolitans are fundamentally opposed. In this paper I will examine such examples and detail the key differences between realists, morality of state theorists, and cosmopolitans. I will compare and contrast realists with the other two non-realists perspectives and explore how these theories apply to an international system of states and how these theories shape the way one state acts or reacts in an anarchic system.
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
In no field other than politics does the justification for action often come from a noteworthy event and the true cause stays hidden behind the headlines. The United States’ transformation from a new state to a global superpower has been a methodical journey molded by international conditions (the global terrain for statecraft), the role of institutions and their programmed actions, and ultimately, the interests of actors (the protection of participants in making policy’s items and i...
On the international scene, diplomacy is employed between nations as a means of negotiating on issues regarding trade, environment, culture, peacemaking among others for the mutual benefit the parties/nations involved. Personal diplomacy is premised on the idea of engaging face-to-face or having one on one discussions with partners in a non-threatening environment with an aim to persuade someone and seek common ground on issues.
Origins for the cooperation amongst powers necessary to tackle international disputes can be traced back to the 19th century, however the formation of the League of Nations was eagerly prompted by the First World War. After the horrors in which the world observed, leaders merged together and rejoiced in the potential for a new international system. The League of Nations foremost objective was to secure peace through collective efforts of ‘peace-loving’ powers (Steans, Pettiford, & Diez, 2005, p. 31). President Woodrow Wilson was a lead proponent in the creation of such a body, suggesting it- within his message on the Conditions of Peace- as a means of ‘affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike’ (Wilson, 1918). The following year a detailed scheme was presented at the Versailles Peace Conference and the league was swiftly established with the addition of a permanent secretariat in Geneva. (Catterall, 1999, p. 50). The League was very much considered the ‘most daring and innovative proposal’ (Wilkinson, 2007, p. 85)
In his 1959 study, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, the well-known historian William Appleton Williams wrote, that in spite of its best intentions, American foreign policy was based on a one-dimensional American belief that Americans and the American government had all the answers to their problems. I strongly agree, for the most part, with that statement. The only aspect of American foreign policy that I disagreement is the firmness in which our government stands true to their decisions and re often inflexible enough to change them. The administrators in charge of our government dating back to the 19th century have always been too inflexible to tweak their application on foreign policy in the least bit. It has made way to a century of failure in foreign relations. America began building up its outdated navy ships in the early 1880's in preparation for what would be an American attempt at expansion. They wanted to become the premiere naval world power. They were already being acknowledged as whole of the great world strengths by other powerful countries. It didn't take long, by 1900; the U.S. began flexing its muscles. The Caribbean and Pacific Islands became a national interest. A classic example of which started the poor American foreign policy was in 1891 in Chile. Secretary of State James G. Blaine became involved in a border dispute between Mexico and Guatemala, tried settling a war between Peru, Bolivia and Chile. Chile held a riot against American troops. Blaine threatened Chile with war, and they were forced to apologize to America and pay an indemnity of $75,000. This established America as a world power, but also tarnished their role in foreign policy before it even got off the ground. Many more incidents like this occurred after the event with Chile, the biggest being the pursuit of the Panama Canal. America continued moving into to foreign land, and when problems arose, America began implementing an American model of government in these areas, believing that was the only way to solve the problems.
M. E. McGuinness (Eds.), Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict (pp. 293-320). New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Kent, J. and Young, J.W. (2013), International Relations Since 1945: A global History. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations, or skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility (Merriam-Webster.) Diplomacy had effectively affected the rise of the modern state during 1648-1715. The first change that it brought was through the treaty of Westphalia, which allowed state to operate important transformations in their structure. Westphalia treaty had allowed “Signatories of treaties to be freed perpetually, to make alliances with strangers for their preservation or safety, and each of the contracting parties of this treaty shall be held to defend a...
War is a mean to achieve a political goal.it is merely the continuation of policy in a violent form. “War is not merely an act of policy, but a true political instrument....” Moreover, the intensity of war will vary with the nature of political motives. This relationship makes war a rational act rather than a primitive and instinctive action, where war uses coercion to achieve political goals instead of use it only for destruction, and it cannot be separated from each other even after the war has started, when each side is allowed to execute its requisite responsibilities while remaining flexible enough to adapt to emerging
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.
Diplomacy is often one of the last steps taken by two nations before a war
Any negotiation challenges the parties involved in a variety of ways, but parties with conflicting interests face important additional difficulties when attempting to negotiate an agreement across culture lines. Not only will the difficulties arising from the known similarities and differences of opinion be more pronounced, but also unsuspected factors could easily enter the picture and condition perceptions of the situation. In cross-cultural negotiations, a reasonable second acknowledgment should be that the hidden factors that are always at work are more likely to interfere with reaching an agreement. It is especially important that this acknowledgment be understood to apply not only to the dynamics of interactions across the table, but those of individuals on the same side of the table. [At times, it may be tempting to attribute the outcomes of negotiations to a single variable (such as the culture or the relative power of a country).] The term culture has taken on many different meanings but basically it reflects the shared values. Culture affects negotiations in different ways. In this paper, we are going to discuss the American and Jap...
Von Galhn and Taulbee. 2013. Law Among Nations. An Introduction to Public International Law. Pearson Education.