3. Neutrality ‘‘If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the despot. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality’’. Desmond Tutu (The Desmond Tutu Peace Foundation, 2015) The neutrality is one of the state’s postures in the international environment in order to be out of the conflicts between the states. The ‘term of neutrality finally was implied out in The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 which first defined several rules of armed conflict’ (Karash, 2011, p. 18). Ultimately, those rules about ‘neutrality’ means that a state which has declared its neutrality for the period of armed conflict and by all means should …show more content…
Additionally ‘belligerents are expressly forbidden from using a neutral country’s land or water to passage of forces and send information, for their own advantage’ (Karash, 2011, p. 18). In theory, it applicable as a good grand strategy for the states, which have small capacity to defend themselves and it, could take nation out of the conflicts. In reality this rule does not always work. In fact, despite declaring neutrality, Belgium occupied by German forces during the WW1. Currently, there are several states such as ‘Finland, Ireland, Japan, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Sweden, and the Vatican City are ‘officially’ declared their neutral status’ (Novakic, 2013, p. 7). Yet, not every state or international organizations agree on the ‘list’ of neutral countries. For instance, Ireland is not a participant of the Hague Convention and even though it acts as a permanently neutral country, Ireland considered more of a ‘non-belligerent’ state rather than a neutral. Furthermore, a number of countries within the EU, which have never taken a part in conflicts, are unable to claim neutrality due to the EU’s mutual defence policy. This means ‘that Austria, Finland, Malta and Sweden are no longer expressly neutral countries as EU members’ (EU MDC, Article 42.7, 222. Annex
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...
Throughout history, war has been the catalyst that has compelled otherwise-ordinary people to discard, at least for its duration, their longstanding beliefs about the immorality of killing their fellow human beings. In sum, during periods of war, people’s views about killing others are fundamentally transformed from abhorrence to glorification due in large part to the decisions that are made by their political leaders. In this regard, McMahan points out that, “As soon as conditions arise to which the word ‘war’ can be applied, our scruples vanish and killing people no longer seems a horrifying crime but becomes instead a glorious achievement” (vii). Therefore, McMahan argues that the transformation of mainstream views about the morality of killing during times of war are misguided and flawed since they have been based on the traditional view that different moral principles somehow apply in these circumstances. This traditional view about a just war presupposes the morality of the decision to go to war on the part of political leaders in the first place and the need to suspend traditional views about the morality of killing based on this
“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” (Elie Wiesel)
Action is the only remedy to indifference, the most insidious danger of all.” Elie Wiesel asserts that the world community is responsible to interfere when acts such as mass murder or genocide occur. He says that “silence encourages the tormentor” and “indifference is the most insidious danger of all”. One must speak out against oppression so there can be a difference. When one remains silent and doesn’t act, they are encouraging the person responsible for the genocide, not the victim.
Given that MacIntyre is attacking the political justification of “neutralist states,” it is important clarify what he mean by these terms. First of all, a state is an entity
They must observe the political plans of the various states through the styles by which they execute these plans and the political manoeuvres they undertake, in order to adopt the practical style to establish their state and carry their Da'wah to the world. Therefore, it is imperative for them to acquaint themselves thoroughly with the international situation and the details related to the international situation, and recognise the stance of the states of the world which have a telling effect in the general international situation. If we were to review the international situation in the wake of the First World War, we would deduce that... ... middle of paper ... ... n if this led to occupation by force.
... another state with the mindset of hopefully improving the overall atmosphere. Although intervention will always be in question, whether or not intervention is just an excuse to invade, with the creation of this resolution and the topic in discussion, most likely intervention will result it positive outcomes. One of the biggest contribution to successful interventions is the intention the state has going in. If the intention is to hopefully resolve conflicts and to intervene peacefully, meaning an unlikely possibility of military enforcement, intervention will be successful.
the role of the state and also from the perspective of how the decision to fight impacts the
Eile Weasel has quoted “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, not the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” This quote states that when you choose to remain silent when you know that something wrong is going on, you are supporting the evil side.
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” (Mahatma Gandhi), welcome to the world of non-violence, not similar to ‘disney land’ but merely a small philosophical village coated in white, decorated with crystals and abundant in doves; white resembling peace, crystals for clarity and pure spirit and doves for .. I don’t know, I guess I have been driven by my imagination.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
The 'gray zone' is best understood conceptually as a modern strategy of coercion which is ambiguous and unconventional in nature. Gray zone strategy is the employment of non-military tools of statecraft or unconventional, non-confrontational use of military forces to achieve political objectives without escalating any conflicts to the point of traditional military warfare. It is reflective and defining of three modern political trends within the current international order: the transformative intentions of persistent revisionist powers; the deployment of phased and incremental tactics to amend elements of the international order; and the use of unconventional tools of statecraft to gain a strategic objective that lies between peace and conventional
McLaughlin, Greg, and Stephen Baker. The Propaganda of Peace. Bristol, UK: Intellect Ltd., 2010. Print.
“The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices: submit or fight” (“Nelson Mandela”). Nelson Mandela took the chance and fought for his rights and freedom. Mandela has gone through many troubles in his life since the day he was born. A young man that had no shoes till he approached the age of sixteen, and then transformed into a great political leader of his country. Mandela’s life is an impressing story to be told!
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.