The current system of deciding who goes to war in Australia is that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet decide. The Cabinet contains of about 30 people who are either senior Ministers of the Queen or people who are responsible to Parliament. Although the Parliament and public have no say in whether Australia goes to war or not. In section 68 of the Australian Constitution is mentions that the ‘control over the country’s naval and military forces is vested in the Governor General as the Queen’s representative’ The people deciding are experienced about deciding who goes to war as they have all the facts, I think this is the best way to decide who or if Australia goes to war or not for many reasons, although there are some cons about this way of deciding. There are some other systems that are used to decide who goes to war around the world. For example, the way the U.S decides who goes to war, the Congress has the sole power to declare a war on another nation, although the current President has a very wide discretion to send their country’s combat troops overseas without 100% declaring a war, it may be for either peacekeeping or police actions as well. …show more content…
Being the Prime Minister and part of the Cabinet, they have been provided with the best information about deciding whether to go to war or not. They also have been provided with information about what has been going on in other countries by those country’s Prime Minister so that would help with the decision because the other countries might have experience about making the decision to go to war. Afterall the Prime Minister you have, was voted for by yourself to make this decision so you should trust your Prime Ministers
Firstly, war is initiated by country having more power and wanting to expand their territory or to gain more resources. For example, in the essay The Ecstasy of War (1997) by Barbara Ehrenreich, she stated “that wars are designed, at least ostensibly, to secure necessaries like land or oil” (Ehrenreich 43). Therefore, countries wanting to have more land or important resources will initiate a war if the other country is not in accordance in willing to
In 1914, Australia joined the First World War. Although it was seen as a European war, the Australia government decided that Australia should support its 'Mother Country', Britain. The prime-minister at the time, Joseph Cook, stated Australia's position : "Whatever happens, Australia is a part of the Empire, right to the full. When the Empire is at war, Australia is at war." Many Australians objected to the country's involvement in the war, but the majority of the population agreed with the government's decision. Australia joined the war for many reasons, but two main reasons were :
Dyck defines responsible government as a “form of government in which the political executive must retain the confidence of the elected legislature and resign or call an election if and when it is defeated on a vote of non-confidence”(432). Essentially this means that the executive branch of government, which is the Prime Minister and his office/staff, along with the
I believe that Australia should not become a republic. I think that there would be no point in becoming a republic, because we live without the intervention of the Queen at the moment, so becoming a republic would achieve nothing. If we were to become a republic, we would lose the support of England in times of war, famine or other disaster. I think that becoming a republic would achieve nothing, lose our links with England and waste the parliament's time when they should be concerned with more important issues.If we were to become a republic, the governor general would be replaced by a president who would have the same powers and responsibilities as our Governor General, so only the name and the person holding the position would change, wasting important parliament time and achieving absolutely nothing.
The only time Australia has come under direct attack from another country, was when Japan bombed Darwin and sunk a number of ships in Sydney, during World War 2. The question then has to be asked, why Australia has been involved in so many conflicts. A number of recent conflicts in this century come to mind, they include, The Boer War, World War One, World War Two and The Vietnam War. By far the conflict that drew the most outrage from Australian citizens was the Vietnam War. Australia has been drawn into these conflicts through a number of treaties and alliances made with other countries. Often it is not the conflicts that have drawn most outrage from Australian citizens, rather the insistence of other countries, for Australia to accept large numbers of post-war refugees.
War powers refers to the powers exercised by Congress or the president during times of war or other crises affecting national security. Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution declares that the president is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. He may direct the military after an official declaration of war from Congress. There is a lot of disagreement and confusion about what exactly the president has the power to do under the Constitution. The purpose of this paper is to determine what war powers the constitution and Congress give the president, domestically and abroad during times of war, and what the scope of those powers is.
Initially, the founders of the country were weary of the abusive nature of a strong executive; therefore, a balance of power amongst three branches of government was established. In regards to war making and the u...
Unemployment is a social problem in Australia, which affects a majority of society in many ways. Not only can it cause financial debt to families, but from there it can cause family breakdowns, social isolation, shame and it can even lead to violence. The Conflict theory perspective explains how unemployment can be caused by class and power by focusing on the inequality within society. The inequality sequentially predicts that the poorer members of society struggle to find employment, to be able to get education to find suitable employment and are.
... two conflicts one fact can be seen very clearly. That is the fact that the military is best suited for conducting wars. Politicians are not. It is not the place of politicians to be involved in the decision making procedure in regards to war or military strategy. The White House has significant control in military matters. That control should be used to help the military in achieving its goals as it was in the Gulf War where George Bush said specifically to let the military do its job. The only alternative to this is to use political influence in the same way that it was used in Vietnam. References Wittman, Sandra M. "Chronology of the Vietnam War." Vietnam: Yesterday and Today Oakton Community College. Skokie, Illinois. 16 May 1996: n.p. United States, Joint Resolution of Congress H. J. RES 1145. Aug. 7, 1964. Department of State Bulletin 24 Aug. 1965.
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
Regarding the United States draft, poet Robert Frost once said, “Pressed into service means pressed out of shape.”
...nt variables. It can deal with the interests within a country and interests out of it. It can occur due to ideological differences or religious differences. It can occur due to a power grab, and in the cases of a failed brinkmanship, can be a complete accident. Each war throughout history has its own unique set of reasoning for occurring, which makes studying the causation of war so fascinating: in every war you study, you are guaranteed to find so many unique characteristics that it possesses.
War is bloody and cruel, but sometimes necessary. In 1821 Mexico gained independence from its previous ruler Spain. In this time many settlers from America were moving west. The Mexicans, a good idea at the time, invited the Americans to move into Texas. This caused many disagreements that lead to many battles and eventually a war. The American were justified into going to war with Mexico because Mexico attacked the Americans first, Mexico signed over Texas, and, lastly, the Americans though it was their Manifest Destiny to move farther west.
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”.
For many Decades wars have been fought on the pretense of rage, hatred, greed and bitterness. Wars are gruesome, many lives are lost and forgotten, but heroes are established and countries are founded. Heroes such as Winston Churchill, whom wrote “We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender He defended his country, he died for his nation and for a cause that still remembers until this day. Without the establishment of war, countries would be left without political and moral order, civil rights will never be created and there would not be any moral