Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Conflict in Bosnia and Kosovo
Conflict in Bosnia and Kosovo
International relation theories essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Conflict in Bosnia and Kosovo
The Kosovo Albanian War drips with International Relations’ theory. Steeped lavishly with interactions, mostly violent unfortunately, there is ample breeding ground for one’s crop of theory. With societal rifts of anguish, for each side unable to appease the other, the land slipped into an entrenched ideology of nationalism against one another. The extent of the war pre-dates NATO and the UN, institutions that made a firm stand in Kosovo, and even the whispered declaration of war. Theory provokes the profound understanding of engagement, with the Kosovo Albanian Conflict subsiding nicely among the shelf of examples.
According to the Oxford Handbook of International Relations, one of four defining principles of Classical Realism is Groupism. Groups create politics, by how they choose to work together, or against each other. In the Kosovo Alabanian Conflict, Yugoslavia, as a nation state, implemented injustices against the Kosovars, and later its breakup allowed for them a stage to declare their independence. Originally Kosovo was peaceful, yet the cyclical injustices demonstrated by the Serbians led to the foundation of the Kosovo Liberation Army, also known as the KLA, signifies Kosovo’s growing resentment towards their oppression by the Serbians, and their willingness to take up arms to defend their dignity. NATO and the UN play crucial parts in helping to end the war; NATO carried out its first ever air strikes against the Serbians, and the UN publicly condemned Yugoslavia’s use of excessive force and imposed not only economic sanctions, but banned the sale of arms to Serbia (Oxford, 133). The United States and other Western Nations became involved in the Conflict, most probably because of the United State’s push. The United ...
... middle of paper ...
...ion to NATO and the UN, to make Liberal Constructivism operable; due to the fact that many of these institutions function under a collective and sovereign decision. Such decisions would be impossible outside the legal rules and other norms under within which their relations are derived.
To view the Kosovo Albanian war through four different Canon theories of International Relations, is to view the international system through a microscope, ensuring to frequently adjust the magnification. It allows one to see not only from multiple perspectives, but to allow a grander understanding of not only the conflict, but the world as a functioning organism. The relations of states, groups, society, institutions, and individuals, working together or against one another, is the foundation of interactions that later will grow into politics, which, in turn, age into history.
The 1990s were a period of extreme ethnic conflict in the former nation of Yugoslavia. In 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina passed a referendum for independence, which was not met with an equal enthusiasm amongst the republic's population. The group most against this independence was the Serbian minority, who were convinced by leaders such as Slobodan Milosovic and psychiatrist Jovan Raskovic in the idea of a "greater Serbia." Serbs were told they needed to dominate the surrounding Croats and Muslims based on their psychological superiority. Serb fighters carried out vicious campaigns of ethnic cleansing, killing over 100,000 people with another 1.5 million being forced from their homes to created predominantly Serbian areas. In 1995 Bosnia Croatia and Serbia signed the Dayton peace accords and focus shifted towards Kosovo, where discord had been emerging between the Albanians and the Serbs.
According to Kissinger, Wilson had dreamed of a “Community of Power” that would collectively provide international security. This community would come to be known as the “League of Nations.” Thanks in great part to Wilson’s grand vision, global cooperation is now being achieved through organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). International organizations like the UN and NATO have deep Wilsonian roots. Since 2004, NATO has added nine Baltic states to the organization (making a total of 28 members), which has arguably strengthened security cooperation efforts in that region. It is apparent Wilson’s dream of a “Community of Power” has persevered, due to the continued U.S. practice of promoting democracy as an instrument of conflict
Political violence is action taken to achieve political goals that may include armed revolution, civil strife, terrorism, war or other such activities that could result in injury, loss of property or loss of life. Political violence often occurs as a result of groups or individuals believing that the current political systems or anti-democratic leadership, often being dictatorial in nature, will not respond to their political ambitions or demands, nor accept their political objectives or recognize their grievances. Formally organized groups, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), businesses and collectives of individual citizens are non-state actors, that being that they are not locally, nationally or internationally recognized legitimate civilian or military authorities. The Cotonou Agreement of 2000 defines non-state actors as being those parties belonging to the private sector, economic and social partners and civil society in all its forms according to national characteristics. Historical observation shows that nation states with political institutions that are not capable of, or that are resistant to recognizing and addressing societies issues and grievances are more likely to see political violence manifest as a result of disparity amongst the population. This essay will examine why non-state political violence occurs including root and trigger causes by looking at the motivations that inspire groups and individuals to resort to non-conforming behaviors that manifest as occurrences of non-state political violence. Using terrorism and Islamic militancy on the one side, and human rights and basic freedoms on the other as examples, it will look at these two primary kinds of political violence that are most prevalent in the world ...
Rethinking Violence: States and Non-state Actors in Conflict. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 22, 2014).
Campbell’s work National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity and Justice in Bosnia is effective in bringing to the readers’ attention a different way of thinking about violence and identity in Bosnia. However, a few flaws in his methodology have been noted. Furthermore, while the possibility of a multi-ethnic solution is an interesting one, and deserves further academic discourse, the reality may not match up to his thinking, for example other issues in the former Yugoslavia, including the Kosovan separatist movement, could be seen to cast doubt on the effectiveness of large multi-ethnic states with pockets of different ethnic majorities.
"Should international relations theory be held accountable for explaining fundamental changes in the hierarchy of international politics and the emergence of new actors?" It seems absurd to answer that international relations theory should not be in the business of explaining fundamental changes in international politics. However, this response paper will argue on both edges of the question. First, it actually does make sense to attempt to hold as many things as possible constant, or as "givens" in attempting to craft explanations for events in international politics. Jumping to an explanation that involves a fundamental shift in the structure of the international system or nature of the actors, should be a last resort, rather than the first. This is a major component of Waltz's neorealism. On the other hand, this paper will demonstrate that although it is desirable to hold some variables constant in attempts to explain great variation with few premises, one must take a broad view (to either expand scope, or break the previous "givens," of neorealism) to create better explanations. Several alternative schools of thought are in fact pursuing this goal, to include rational choice, liberalism, and regime theory. These approaches attempt to craft explanations of change, while holding different elements constant. Finally, a brief word on constructivism must be considered.
The liberalism and the realism approaches the international relations from very different perspective, and even though many of its views contrast from each other, the ...
Kosovo is the disputed borderland between Serbia and Albania which has a troubled history due to the “deep-rooted antagonisms between different ethnic groups wanting to claim it” (Bideleux, 1998). In 1912 Serbia and Montenegro took over Kosovo and gained sovereignty over it during which there were more Albanian settlers than they were Serbs (). Many decades later, the 1974 constitution “granted Kosovo autonomy and the status of a federal unit” (). However it was not long until Milosevic, the president of Serbia, revoked Kosovo’s autonomy by initiating security forces on them. This resulted in many disputes, attacks and retaliation within Kosovo which then forced both sides to sign an Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-government in Kosovo (). This was not successful as the six-nation group had hoped to be as Serbia continued its vicious use of force against the Albanians whom occupied Kosovo. 2001 was a significant year as this was when the UNMIK established a framework and allowed for elections and the appointment of a president, although in 2004, “the risk of renewed violent collapse ...
What political factors contributed to the idea of Albanian nationalism after the breakup of Yugoslavia that contributed to the Kosovo Crisis of 1999. To determine the political factors that contributed to Albanian nationalism, this investigation will focus on the aftermath of the breakup of Yugoslavia, the social landscape of Kosovo after the breakup and the Kosovo Crisis of 1999. The views of the Albanians and Serbs will be examined to help develop a more contextual understanding of the rise of Albanian nationalism. Only the events that are relevant to the Kosovo War will be explored in this investigation.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
The traditional view of world politics was Realism, this theory concentrated on security as the main factor in world politics, this meant political integration between states was believed to be slight and only viable as long as it served the national interest of the state. Transnational actors were believed to not exist or not have any political importance. The balance of power was decided militarily and needed to remain stable (Keohane & Nye, 2011: 20). With the changes the 1970’s brought and with transnationalism becoming ever more prevalent and obvious many believed realism no longer described the world.
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.
To start, Liberalism traces its roots back to the Enlightenment period (Mingst, 2008) where many philosophers and thinkers of the time began to question the established status quo. Such as the prevailing belief in religious superstition and began to replace it with a more rational mode of thinking and a belief in the intrinsic goodness of mankind. The Enlightenment period influenced Liberalism’s belief that human beings are thinkers who are able to naturally understand the laws governing human social conduct and by understanding these laws, humans can better their condition and live in harmony with others (Mingst, 2008). Two of the most prominent Liberal Internationalists of the Enlightenment period were Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham who both thought that international relations were conducted in a brutal fashion. It was Kant who compared international relations as “the lawless state of savagery” (Baylis and Smith, 2001, pp 165). It was also Kant who believed nations could form themselves into a sort of united states and overcome international anarchy through this (Mingst, 2008). This was probably the beginning of a coherent belief in a sort of union of sovereign states. Toward the end of the seventeenth century William Penn believed a ‘diet’ (parliament) could be set up in Europe, like the European Union of today (Baylis and Smith, 2001). We can see much of this liberal thinking today in organizations such as the United Nations.
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”.
Economic gain, the main concern of states proved to be a barrier to international cooperation. Game theory uses the Prisoners Dilemma game to illustrate, isolate and analyse the rational decision-making processes involved in co-operation to reduce the possibilities for cheating and free-riding. In 2009, the Obama administration announced that the misile defense system in Europe which Russia disapproved of will come to an end, this was viewed by many as a way to attract the Russian support for santions against the nuclear program in Iran (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2007:87).