Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
positve impacts of the cold war
positve impacts of the cold war
positve impacts of the cold war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: positve impacts of the cold war
The current national security complexities of the post-9/11 environment have become far more complex as opposed to the view of some which believed the end of the Cold War’s bipolar struggle would ease tensions among states. As the United States experienced a reduction in the historical threats from the Soviet Union, other states continued to experience security challenges internally and externally. Theresa Reinold’s article published during 2011 in The American Journal of International Law, examines the requirement to modernized and clarify criteria which will govern defensive state use of force against other states that are unable or unwilling to regulate the actions of irregular forces located inside their states territory.
Reinold accepts that the 21st century introduced the global community to mass terrorism during 9/11, requiring states to protect their security although rationalizing that the uncontrolled utilization of force in the name of self-defense would also establish a dangerous precedent. Key elements of Reinold’s examination are the inability and unwillingness to exert control over irregular forces within the sheltering state. States are also altering their interpretation of international norms of self-defense which historically have included the principles of immediacy of attack, the requirement of attribution to the state and the duel requirement of necessity and proportionality. The author’s objective analysis of this critical topic provides an intriguing and thoughtful study utilizing recent conflicts in Lebanon, Colombia and Pakistan. One could refer to Grotius’s writing in 1625 who foresaw these challenges, “That the possibility of being attacked confers the right to attack is abhorrent to every princ...
... middle of paper ...
...tes has led to a broader interpretation of what qualifies as just use of force under jus ad bellum. The world community was changed forever after the attacks of 9/11 and this event ushered in a reinterpretation of when one state can act after an unwillingness or inability of another state to provide security. Reinold has presented much evidence that the norms have changed. The world opinion has become relatively accepting of this shift to use force but simultaneously each situation is complex and different. The cases presented have aspects that support both positions which lead to thorny debates and this could be true for many other crises worldwide. This article presents a relevant topic that will continue to evolve and lead to much scrutiny as globalization increase and states demand that other states accept changing norms of security.
Pre-emptive force is commonly recognised as a preventative use of force. Michael Walzer identifies that pre-emptive force is when both states defend themselves against violence that is imminent but not actual; the state can fire shots if it knows it is about to be attacked (2006: 74). “ …there must be shown a necessity of self defence… instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” (Berkley, 1968). This would allow a state to respond to an attack once the targeted state had seen it coming but before it felt its impact. Pre-emption is then like a reflex “a throwing up of ones arms at the very last minute” (Walzer, 2006: 75). Putting aside the definitions of pre-emptive war, the question of whether or not it is justified has become a complex and contradictory matter for many states. The issues of abiding by international law, understanding the meaning of ‘imminent threat’ and morality all come into question. The biggest of problems is that states misjudge threat. The confusion and blurred definition of the term imminent threat leads to states acting out of uncertainty and aggression rather than justified move, which can constitute as pre-emptive war. Referring to realist and liberal theorists in conjunction with previous examples where states have pursued ‘pre-emptive’ force to legitimize their actions, a conclusion as to whether pre-emptive war can be justified can be reached. Pre-emptive war can be justified supporting a states internal responsibility to protect. Yet, due to states having previously exploited this use of force, justification can appear to be exceedingly controversial and unpopular. As Michael Waltz mentioned, pre-emptive war is either about ‘strategic or morals… one or the othe...
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
Rethinking Violence: States and Non-state Actors in Conflict. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 22, 2014).
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.
The principles of Just War theory and different ethical frameworks have been used for many years to justify and reject plans for military interventions. These ideologies are useful tools for the leaders of governments and militaries to discuss and make decisions on the morality of different courses of action. If ISIS launched a series of terrorist attacks on American embassies as hypothesized, the given plan for military intervention would be morally justified due to several principles of Just War theory and various ethical frameworks. These include the ideas of jus ad bellum and jus post bellum from Just War theory and the ethical ideologies of utilitarianism and common good ethics.
BIBLIOGRAPHY NATO Information Service. 1989. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation: Facts and Figures. Brussels: NATO Kaplan, Lawrence S, ed. 1968. NATO And The Policy Of Containment. Boston: Raytheon Education Company. Richard D. Lawrence, and Jeffrey Record, eds. 1974. U.S. Force Structure in NATO. Washington, D.C: The Brookings Institution. Faringdon, Hugh. 1989. Strategic Geography: NATO, the Warsaw Pact, and the Superpowers. London and New York: Routledge. Knorr, Klaus. 1959. NATO And American Security. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. NATO Information Service. 1983. NATO Handbook. Brussels: NATO Coffey, Joseph I. 1997. The Future Role Of NATO. New York: Foreign Policy Association. NATO Information Service. 1984. NATO And The Warsaw Pact: Force Comparisons. Brussels: NATO Bolles, Blair, and Francis O. Wilcox. Bagby, Wesley M. 1999. America’s International Relations Since World War I. New York: Oxford University Press Rosati, Jerel A. 1999. The Politics Of United States Foreign Policy. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers
the role of the state and also from the perspective of how the decision to fight impacts the
Lucas, G.R. (2008). ‘This is not your father’s war’ Confronting the moral challenges of ‘unconventional war.’ Journal of National Security Law & Policy (3)33, 331-342. Retrieved November 11, 2011 from: http://www.mcgeorge.edu/Documents/publications/jnslp/_06_LUCAS%20Master%2012%2008-25-09.pdf
The U.S. may use the principle of international law known as the "doctrine of belligerent reprisals," which overrides any security assurances to wh...
It's undeniable that over the past few decades, America has taken the role of the policemen of the world. From gruesome wars like Vietnam to modern issues in the Middle East, the United States has acted as instigators of justice against enemies of the common good. But in recent years, our eagerness to resolve every global skirmish has become detrimental to
It seems as though we have translated our ideology of intervening in communist nations to intervening in nations that harbor, are victims of and continue to be troubled with terrorists. Many argue that after 9/11 there was “a new age of U.S. foreign policy that sought to use the power of the planet’s sole surviving superpower to remake the world in its own image” (Hower), however the seed for this policy was planted long before the attacks on the Twin Towers. This paper will analyze the actions taken by the United States under their two seemingly separate ideologies, decipher similarities and differences and, by the end, hope to assert that the ideology of intervention has always been a crucial implication of the American government, only the ...
Counter-terrorism is a fairly new tactic that has emerged in the midst of escalation of non-state actors attacking nation-states in the protest of protecting world views as well as forward political ideologies in the interests of changes.
War is an inevitable human phenomenon which is often the byproduct of strained politics and an innate human drive to reign supreme over other lands. With the enactment of war follows the never ending question of what is just or ethically acceptable and what is unjust and morally reprehensible even during times of war. In modern times the word conventional war has been coined to describe warfare which involves fighting between two or more distinct well defined sides and only includes the use of weapons which will only target the opposition military units. Conventional warfare excludes the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons which threaten the lives of citizens and often times ravishes the opposition land beyond civilian use. Even
Whenever world politics is mentioned, the state that appears to be at the apex of affairs is the United States of America, although some will argue that it isn’t. It is paramount we know that the international system is shaped by certain defining events that has lead to some significant changes, particularly those connected with different chapters of violence. Certainly, the world wars of the twentieth century and the more recent war on terror must be included as defining moments. The warning of brute force on a potentially large scale also highlights the vigorousness of the cold war period, which dominated world politics within an interval of four decades. The practice of international relations (IR) was introduced out of a need to discuss the causes of war and the different conditions for calm in the wake of the first world war, and it is relevant we know that this has remained a crucial focus ever since. However, violence is not the only factor capable of causing interruption in the international system. Economic elements also have a remarkable impact. The great depression that happened in the 1920s, and the global financial crises of the contemporary period can be used as examples. Another concurrent problem concerns the environment, with the human climate being one among different number of important concerns for the continuing future of humankind and the planet in general.
Seeing the case of Polor and Volvor, it can be said that, it is the duty of the state itself to protect its citizens and residents from any internal or foreign attack, when the perpetrators plan ad executes the attacks while conspiring outside the borders of the state and the when host state fails to take necessary measures against such acts of non state groups. Moreover, the use of force by the Volvor is justified and does not constitute the violation of Polor’s sovereignty because Article 51 authorizes the victim state to use force in self defence to mitigate the anticipated threats, in response to such armed attack by the non state actors.