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?
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
The system the UN currently has offers some perspective on the idea of conducting and participating in war. But...
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.
First, in the long run the negative effects of a military international intervention, even if against oppressive governments, could actually outweigh the positive ones. Moreover, coercive policy could, in fact, aggravate a conflict by providing grounds for long lasting hostility, aggression, or ev...
The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states
The history of the US’s relationship with the UN is complex, seeming to vacillate between warm cooperation and abject disdain as the national interests of the US and the rest of the world, and the short- and long-term interests of the US itself, align or oppose each other. The UN was originally the vision of US president Franklin Roosevelt and the product of US State Department planning and diplomacy. It was designed to forward the national interests of its strongest members, the P-5, to reflect and channel the geopolitical power structure rather than twist it into an unnatural and unsustainable hierarchy of weak nations trying to dominate strong. Because the Charter is based in a realist view of the world, during the Cold War, when the national interests of the two world powers diverged, the UN was paralyzed to deal with any of the world’s conflicts. When the Cold War ended it gave rise to the first war that should have been authorized by the Security Council—the Persian Gulf War from later 1990 to early 1991. Many hoped for a “new world order” after the success of the Gulf War, but the interests of the US and the rest of the world, primarily the rest of the members of the Security Council, soon divided again. Today, the world is still struggling to cope with the blow dealt to the UN by the US’s use of force in Iraq, including the US, which has not even begun to feel the long-term negative effects of its unilateralism. However, the war in Iraq could have been less detrimental to the UN and the US in particular, and by extension to the rest of the world, if the US had argued that it was acting to uphold resolution 1441 under the authorization of the Security Cou...
War, in all its forms, is tragic. International law was created to establish some basis of rules to abide by—including war—and states have signed on to such a contract. The actions of states in this ever globalizing world are difficult to be controlled. The source of international law operates through the hands of the United Nations. The enforcement of the law occurs through reciprocity, collective action, and a display of international norms (Goldstein, p. 254). War in fact has been given a justification, though it is arguable whether or not the basis of the idea is correct. Wars can be just under certain conditions.
However, realists may have the edge when they debate that the “logic of collective security is contrasted with the difficulties of its application” (Weiss, 2007: 4). Unsurprisingly, distrust was an elephant in the room after WWII, as highlighted by the Security Council’s 193 vetoes between 1945-1990” (Baylis, 2011: 316). The United State’s invasions of Vietnam, Grenada and Panama in addition to the Soviet Union’s invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan (Weiss, 2007: 4) are merely a few examples of the constant proxy war operations that took place throughout the second half of the 20th century. This highlighted the ineffectiveness of the UN’s Security Council in preventing conflict across the world, and supported realists, that “there is no supranational authority [the UN] capable of wielding overwhelming power” (Rittberger, 2006: 15). This largely contradicts Kant, who claims that “international organizations can constrain decision-makers by positively promoting peace” (Dunne, 2010: 102). Liberalists including Kofi Annan argued that the ‘security dilemma’, which is built on the premise that “one country improves its security at the expense of other states” (Dunne, 2010: 81) had been averted. Although recently it has been bright in terms of the UN serving as a successful platform for peace and compromise between states; I still take into account the period 1945-1990 where the UN
..., since it reinforce the perception of the surrounding states to be dealing with a country characterized by a high level of resolution and risk-taking attitude, despite its inability to confront other major power military.
Ronald Regan quoted ‘‘the United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression – to preserve freedom and peace. The world does not work the way we have been led to believe - by our mainstream media, by our politicians, by our corporations, by our financial institutions, by our military, by our schools. We are bombarded daily with so much misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, half-truths, and outright lies, that it takes a persistent individual to sort through the fog of information to find the truth.. This paper seeks to determine if rogue states are more aggressive in challenging other states’ claims to territory in comparison with non-rogue states. Rogue states are defined as those, which methodically violate accepted international human rights norms of gender and ethnic nondiscrimination and protection from state repression. Suggestions suggest that states that regularly violate international human rights customs are more likely to challenge other states’ territorial claims while rogue states are more likely experience territorial disputes.
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.
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is an emerging principle, developed after catastrophes such as the Rwandan genocide to ensure such a large-scale tragedy would never happen again. It presents the idea that sovereignty is not a right, and that states should allow international intervention during acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Under the R2P, the international community has the right to defend other nations from these tragedies; however, many nations will not be obliged to be bound by an agreement, due to opposing and conflicting views and objectives. This has been demonstrated in various instances when nations are in disagreement with the planned course of action and abstained as a result. The doctrine serves as a pathway for the world’s leading powers to invade another state’s sovereignty, which could divide the members of the Security Council. Furthermore, if enacted regularly, the R2P would cause more harm than good, leading to destruction and exploitation Due to this, not all of the international community are in disagreement and thereby not obliged to act. Many states will not consider acting when a tragedy occurs, due to distrust and ongoing suspicions with these plans. This ultimately devalues the authenticity and objective of the R2P. Firstly, my paper will outline the definitions of the R2P doctrine. Secondly, the effectiveness of the R2P and its relationship with different UN members, followed by case studies. Lastly, short analysis will conclude the paper.
IOs and states play a critical role in maintaining world peace and security. The United Nations (UN), in particular, is the centerpiece of global governance with respect to the maintenance of world peace. The UN provides general guidelines for all the states on how to solve potential conflicts and maintain international o...
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”.