1. Anarchy is a condition in which there is a lack of a dominant power that enforces laws and sets policies at a national or international level. It directly challenges the rules of sovereignty, the expectation that the states have higher legal and political influence within their borders. Anarchy is an important term because it tends to cause disastrous effects in global politics. It is the essential element in realism, the idea that war is an inevitable result of the absence of a central authority. It outlines two principles that can lead to war: the preventive motive (war to cease the enemy from growing more powerful) and security dilemma (a rise of insecurity and fear that occurs from a state gaining more strength to defend itself). …show more content…
The Pareto Frontier is an economic model, developed by economist Vilfredo Pareto, which depicts all possible maximum outcomes for two interacting players. The Pareto Frontier is valuable in the study of world politics because it outlines the incentives of cooperation. The model shows that the players should aim to reach the frontier because of mutual gains; they allow at least one player to benefit while no players are to be made worse off. Furthermore, the frontier acts as a platform where two bargainers understand that it is a zero-sum game, meaning that one gains while the other loses. This keeps bargaining tight and encourages a fairer deal. 3. Bandwagoning is the strategy of a state joining a superior (usually offensive) side that is in a conflict to collect the “easy money” at an expected victory. Bandwagoning is an important concept because it undermines the notion of balance of power; alliances are not always formed to equalize powers on two sides. Bandwagoning is closely related with “free ride”, a term for when a state will assume the other will incur most of the cost in achieving a common goal. One example is the German and Italian “alliance” in the Second World War, where Italy is the one bandwagoning/free …show more content…
A Preventive War is initiated when the aggressor aims to stop their opponent from growing stronger. These often occur when the growing enemy does not commit to a pledge that ensures their responsible usage of power. This strategy, in the field of world politics, is likely one of the riskiest tactics because it initiates off of speculative evidence. It is a “shoot first, ask questions later” thing and a very serious method of solving an issue relating to cooperation. The possibility of this being used incentivizes potential victims to oblige instead of dangerously growing their power further and using it
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...
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 idea of war and how it can be justified, is a rather trick topic to touch on, as there are diverse ethical and sociological implications that have to be weighed on every step. Mainly we could look at the “Just War Theory” and see how that could possibly apply to the real world. To be able to enter a “Just War” nations must meet six criteria in Jus ad Bellum (Going to War). The criteria is as follows: “Just Cause”, “Right Intention”, “Proper Authority and Public Declaration”, “Last Resort”, “Probability of Success”, and lastly “Proportionality”. However the tricky bit of the Just War theory, is that all six of those elements must be met, to go to war in a morally justifiable way. This could make an easy blockade for nations to veto another nation's effort to enter a war, even if morally justifiable. The problem with an internationally mandated “war-committee”, means that the fate of another nation's well-being could very well be in the hands of a nation with an ulterior motive. It could also fall into the grounds of new found illegal activity. Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory.
Williams, Charles F. "War Powers: A New Chapter in a Continuing Debate." Social Education. April 2003: 128-133. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 07 May. 2014.
The just war theory allows for war to be declared in response to a case of substantial aggression; however, this is a vague term. To establi...
wars are governed by a set of rules, designed to prevent, as much as possible, "the use of
The focus of this paper will be on criticizing the argument. He effectively explains what justifies the authority of the state by giving reasons that anarchy is better for autonomous nature of man. One might agree that the state can command an individual to obey the rule even if it is against the person’s moral beliefs. His argument, however, seems to undermine the
Maxwell, Hilary. “Warfare Plans of Countries.” Monta Vista High School, Cupertino. 26 Jan. 2014. Lecture.
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...
According to realist view ordering principle of the international system is based on anarchy. There is no higher authority other than the states themselves to check and balance their actions. Consequently, nation-states are the main players in this system. In other words, sovereignty inheres in states, because there is not a higher ruling body in the international system. This is known as state centrism. Survival is an obligation continuing to be sovereign. On the other hand, sovereignty is the characteristic feature of states and its meaning is strongly tied to use of force. According to the most of the realist variants, states are “black boxes”; the determinative factor is states’ observable behavior, not their leaders’ characteristics, their decision making processes or their government systems.
The word anarchy comes from the Greek: an (without/the absence of) archos (ruler/chief/authority/leader.) Anarchists claim that social stability is ach...
Meanwhile, the dominate European states formed alliances based on ideological principles, such as the Holy Alliance of Russia, Prussia, and Austria. These states joined because of their shared rel...
The root of the word anarchism comes from the Greek word anarchos, which means without ruler. The main philosophy behind anarchism is that people can reside in an unregulated community with no real authority and maintain a sustainable life. Anarchists see government and capitalism as an institution that creates liberty for the rich and enslavement of the masses. Emma Goldman best describes anarchism as: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary. With anarchism there is a belief that once all government is abolished by the people that everyone will come together in a community of mutual aid and understanding without laws or authority to direct.
To begin with, anarchy refers to the world as a whole having no government. Individual states have varying degrees of supreme power or authority in their own land, but no single state may create laws for the whole world. However, while the theories discussed in this essay accept that the world is in a state of anarchy, what separates these two theories is how the government should deal with this problem. This essay tries to give an overview on the main assumptions of liberalism and realism and provide explanations of how they relate to one another as well as coexist, yet are opposite in theory. (IN TEXT)
National interests and politics are the results of social identity which is formed by each individual. In book called World of Our Making, Onuf writes about Giddens “theory of structuration” where he is refusing existing theories and instead he believes in the domain of the relations of positions; a two-way bridge between human agent and social object. If the above safety relationship of negotiator (agent) and dispute (social object) position is presented in the worlds dimension, than constructivist thought is clear in relationship between agents, structures and other perspectives. Looking at a concept of structuration presented by Giddens, Wend suggests that the agents (countries) might shape systems (in this case international anarchism) by the way they behave and act. Agents strive to endure anarchism because it threatens the international system. As previously described, the mutual interactions of agents with social structures establish policies, this leads to the constructivists believe that any change is possible on a way to create institutions. Alexander Wendt, on the nature of constructivism: anarchy is this what the state will