Utilizing an absence of conflict between democratic nations as the basis for the theory, Spiro identifies that proponents of Democratic Peace assert two aspects of the theory (Spiro, 1994). One is an institutional or structural belief, whereby such factors as public opinion, or checks and balances amongst the government constrain the likelihood of war. The other, is an ideological belief, whereby the liberal values of such regimes strive for peaceful interactions and constrain conflict. Democratic Peace Theory would therefore discredit the realist perspectives for interstate conflict which focus upon a sovereign state’s strategic interest within an anarchic world sphere. The theory has achieved status of dogma in many circles, but nevertheless has its share of critics who subscribe to the realist theory such as David Spiro and Bruce Russett.
Deterrence theory is an unrestful form of peace and fails to achieve full positive peace between nations. Jervis explains that, “deterrence theory is not alone in failing to address seriously the question of how, and how much, as state can change the intentions of an adversary” (pg. 6). With all this in mind, deterrence theory addresses a conflict between two states at a dangerous time and forms an unrestful peace with no sure confirmation of non-violence. In addition to deterrence theory there is also another factor that adds to this “quasi” form of non-violence.
The system the UN currently has offers some perspective on the idea of conducting and participating in war. But... ... middle of paper ... ...t do not have a utilitarian view and rather seek out the realism approach, then you have no regards for rules of war because you are the global power and can get away with it. In short, the only way the world is going to conduct war, is the way it is now. It will take a larger and more sustainable international effort to make universal guidelines for war. Sure, the Geneva Conventions established protocol for war, but those rules and ideas are only acknowledged by the countries that not just ratified it, but also follow it.
Political realists denounce the idea of applying morality when discussing the justifiability of war for two main reasons. Firstly, political realists believe that only a superior and legitimate international authoritative body can impose a moral system upon all nations (Lauleta 2). Secondly, realists assert that there is no overriding international authority that enforces a common code of rules that apply to all nation states (Ibid) Therefore, by virtue of accepting these two main premises; realists contend that we should not use morality as a factor in considering the legitimacy of war. In arguing th... ... middle of paper ... ... We can clearly see evidence of this whereby countries abide by international laws. Therefore, it is safe to say that we do not need a world government to determine universal morality because other world organizations are capable of establishing common codes of conduct and laws.
It is my intention to discuss Thucydides' assumptions of war and human na... ... middle of paper ... ...sm, the security dilemma is never fully advanced as an adequate explanation of Athenian imperialism. Thucydides included human impulses such as self-interest and honour, rooted in human nature, as the necessary basis for the law of nature that the strong will dominate the weak. Combined, the expansion of power driven by honour, self-interest and the security dilemma "makes for a much more virulent realism," making the possibility of any common good remote, but not impossible. Thucydides emphasises the importance individual motivations have on political events and decisions; personal ambitions and fears have influence and are a driving force. However, he also highlights that man is morally aware, that he controls his own actions despite the permanent condition of his nature, and that rational action combines morality with expediency, not necessity with expediency.
There is no legal definition of humanitarian intervention as it is not enshrined in international law. There is, however, some general agreement on its main characteristics. The humanitarian part of the equation refers to the motivation, which is to stop human rights abuses. Intervention implies the lack of consent by the target state, which does not wish its sovereignty to be interfered with. It also implies the threat and use of military forces as a central characteristic.
According to the theory, the thought process behind democracies abstaining from war is that... ... middle of paper ... ...ople define democracy. Not only does it bring up the complex question of what a democracy really is but also, depending on the definition of democracy, it question whether the theory is accurate or inaccurate. For instance, if one views democracy to be a system of government where there is equality and the people are free and autonomous, it could be argued that democracies go to war with each other and have in fact done so. On the other hand, if the definition of democracy is clear, straightforward maybe even restrictive, the truth of the theory comes forth. If democracy is defined as a political system where universal suffrage exists, then it really can be argued that democracies do not conflict with each other and no democracies have.
As he elaborates, “…either the avoidance of the use of force, or its unchallenged or effective use [is the cause for peace]. Whereas many of the theories put forth by Luttwak and Toft realistically deal with hyper-localized conflict, Wagner’s work is perfectly well-suited to elucidate how and why peace works in the modern, globalized, world and to what extent overwhelming military force serves as a deterrent to aggression. When writing on civil war, Wagner writes that the outcome of a negotiated settlement hinges upon two factors: a) the robustness or fragility of the victorious faction, and b) the residual bartering power/position of the losing faction. These elements are vital to understanding civil war and its likelihood of reemergence. Intervening bodies, be they international or otherwise must be capable of integration or disarmament in such a way that allows for a relatively strong party to conduct governmental business so that the vacuum doesn’t invite additional parties, or fragmentations of old ones into the fold which are capable of overtaking the agreed upon
PART 1 – LIBERAL ARGUMENT FOR HUMANARIAN INTERVENTION The liberal argument is no doubt the best to explain the reasons behind and the benefits of humanitarian intervention. Famous liberal thinker, John Stuart Mill, expressed that there was a distinction between going into aggressive wars for selfish reasons and going to war in order to prevent atrocities wh... ... middle of paper ... ...e state is the main argument against its existence. (Spalding, 2013, p.5) Realist international theorists are in effect non-interventionists as they as believe the international society to be a state of anarchy and as such value order way above morality. In their opinion, for there to be order, states must be sovereign and their sovereignty respected. The highest power remains the state, it is on these grounds that universal human rights are rejected as well as the need for humanitarian intervention.
It is, according to the realist discourse, a time where “the law is silent” (Walzer, 1977, p. 3). But the silence of the law could very well mean its absence: war is an affair between two states, and perhaps the amorality of war only means its lack of moderation or supervision. This paper will discuss international law, mainly through Walzer’s perspective, and describe the functions, the requirements and the contexts of effective international laws, in light of moral-philosophical discourse. The paper, for the most part, will be a critique of realist international laws as they are theorized, mainly, under the Hobbesian framework, where moral valuations are assessed without regard for cultural context and deliberation; moral value is nothing more than the material interest of nations. In light of this, the paper will (1) argue for the necessity of moral dialogue by confirming Walzer’s critique of the Leviathan’s utilitarianism in the international arena, and (2) emphasize the necessity of culture and context in the development of international law, mainly through Morgenthau’s post-positivist legal criticism.