The United Nations’ Security Council whose five members hold veto power defines aggression. If any of these members chooses to not recognize an aggressor, then the UN is powerless to proceed against said aggressor. Because these states primary interests are not always in line with the best interests of the global community, aggression is likely to be defined in terms of political benefits to countries. States may choose not to enter into a conflict because of the strain it will put upon its military capabilities, which would lead to the weakening of the state’s defenses. The military plays a large role in the economy of many nations. Canada for example, produces a great deal of weapons but sells the majority to other nations. Through this, Canada benefits economically from war as long as it does not have to enter into conflict itself. The UN tries to act as a multilateral force but is influenced significantly by the United States. The United States provides the majority of the United Nations’ funding. If the United States does not allow for a state to be defined as an aggressor, it is nearly impossible for the UN to take action. The United States can allow for a state to designate an aggressor to appease political pressures, but then withhold funding, preventing the UN from taking larger steps to repel or punish aggressors. Political pressures play the greatest role in influencing states on how to define aggression because no matter how large a state, it cannot maintain power without the political support of other states and the states people. However, the U.S. does its best to get away without approval from the other members of the Security Council. When states are dealing with political issues, they must tread light...
... middle of paper ...
...the very nature of its controlling members being dishonest. It seems as though aggression will always be defined by political standards and not humanitarian or other standards. Economic systems are driven by political actions and the development and success of those systems allows for the creation of additional military development. As military forces increase in number and sophistication, the great powers of the world will use the capabilities of their military to pursue their own goals. The power of the world rests in the hands of a small number of politicians who have the ability to lie to their people and attack whomever they please without disciplinary action from the UN. In a world where politicians wield the power to create the reality their people see, is there any hope for people to hold the great powers accountable for their aggressive actions?
Freud's answer finally arrives after discussing the history of everyone from the Mongols and Turks to the Romans and French. In paragraph 24, Freud says, "There is but one sure way of ending war...the establishment...of a central control which shall have the last word in every conflict of interest." This must have been a very bold statement in the early 1930's, yet less than 10 years later the United Nations was formed, and since, has almost don't what Freud visualized. Although, as we learned in March of 2002, the U.N. apparently doesn't have the last word in ever conflict of interest.
Eleven years after the second world war, a crisis occurred which had the potential to escalate into a third world war. Hostilities ran high and the background causes that prompted this crisis contained the same fundamentals as were seen in the first and second world wars. Those being militarism, alliances, imperialism and nationalism; wrought by those countries that had an interest in the Suez Canal and the Arab states. In the world of superpowers in conflict, Canada made a name for itself through an innovative peacekeeping scheme, instead of aggression (Encyclopedia Britannica Online, 1999-2000). If Canada had not become involved in the Suez Crisis, as a neutral party, it could have escalated into a world war. The three components which add up to the conclusion of the Suez Crisis and a bench mark for Canada and world peacekeeping are: Canada's choice for those countries directly involved in the crisis, Canada's choice for involvement, and Canada's resolution of the United Nations Emergency Force, which would put a stop to a possible world war.
Tierney, Dominic, “Irrelevant or malevolent? UN arms embargoes in civil war”, Review of International Studies, (2005) 31 pp. 645-664
In the May 1993 issue of the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, the introduction of the reconceptualized deterrence theory was presented, explaining that general and specific deterrence are both functions of crime. Mark C. Stafford, an Associate Professor of Sociology and Associate Rural Sociologist at Washington State University, and Mark Warr, an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas in Austin, introduced this theory. They argued that there is no reason to have multiple theories for general and specific deterrence. Rather, a single theory is possible that centers on indirect experience with legal punishment and punishment avoidance and direct experience with legal punishment and avoidance.1 General deterrence includes the knowledge of criminal acts performed by others and the consequences or absence of consequences from the activity. Specific deterrence relies upon personal experience of punishment and the avoidance of punishment for a criminal activity previously committed. Both Stafford and Warr theorized that people are exposed to both types of deterrents, with some people exposed to more of one type than the other. In addition both general and specific deterrence effects may coincide with each other and act as reinforcement.
The system the UN currently has offers some perspective on the idea of conducting and participating in war. But...
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...
Canada has been known as a peaceful country throughout the years. Its modest image has kept them from being attacked by terrorist. In Robert W. Murray and John McCoy article, “From Middle Power to Peace Builder: The Use of the Canadian Forces in Modern Canadian Foreign Policy,” it talks about how Canada wanted to be established as the peacekeeper between other international powers. Robert W. Murray and John McCoy discusses ideas about a Canadian foreign policy that was created to maintain a middle ground between large and minor powers. Canada did a lot to dedicate itself to ensuring its national security by faithfully participating within many international institutions. McCoy and Murray article discusses about the idea of Canada’s peacekeeping and being the middle man power, and how it was established during their involvement in Afghanistan. In the beginning of the article, it explains Canada’s transformation of foreign policy and how it went from being a middle power force to becoming an active force in the policy of peacebuilding.
Blaming Germany for the First World War Intro: § Explain topic. Agree partially. Germany mostly responsible however other countries contributed. Para1: § Talk about the balance of power. The alliances.
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 limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states
There are two terms referred to in the reading “preventive” and “preemptive” ware and the two pretty much are one in the same. Preemptive war is more of the idea that if a country knows that there is a threat, and wants to combat it by anticipating the attack by attacking first. An example of this form of warfare, is if the United States knew that Canada was going to attack the United States Border, the United States would attack first so it could eliminate the threat. While preventive is when you can for see a future attack or a threat that still has not formed, but can be eliminated by attacking before the threat is fully formed. Now since the two forms are very similar, an example of preventive war would be if the United States got worried
The United Nations charter prescribes conditions to be met by states when it comes to military interventions. As stated in the United Nations Charter, article 2(4) outlines the general prohibitions on the use of force. It provides that all member states shall refrain from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN.
There is an ongoing debate on the effectiveness of the deterrence doctrine. The deterrence doctrine is dated back to its origins in the 18th century, known to be the Age of Enlightenment. During the 1700s to 1800s, the Classical School of Criminology became the focal point as it commenced to force attention on the “cruel” justice system. The two most influential scholars who have elaborated along the idea of deterrence are Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Beccaria, known as the father of classical criminology, believed that people are “being motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and trying to avoid being in pain” (Owen et al., 2012, p. 132). The classical criminology is primarily founded on the notion of liberal volition. That is to say that
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
Weiss, T. G., 2009. What's Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix it. 1st ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.