Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on coercion
An essay on how effect coercion is
An essay on how effect coercion is
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on coercion
The 'gray zone' is best understood conceptually as a modern strategy of coercion which is ambiguous and unconventional in nature. Gray zone strategy is the employment of non-military tools of statecraft or unconventional, non-confrontational use of military forces to achieve political objectives without escalating any conflicts to the point of traditional military warfare. It is reflective and defining of three modern political trends within the current international order: the transformative intentions of persistent revisionist powers; the deployment of phased and incremental tactics to amend elements of the international order; and the use of unconventional tools of statecraft to gain a strategic objective that lies between peace and conventional …show more content…
Through the implementation of consistent low level provocative tactics, which individually do not justify an armed retaliation, the opposition can either choose to react with disproportional military force instigating escalation to the point of war; or, wait and risk the conclusion of the instigator's strategic aim which would change global order. Hence, this method of coercion places the opposition in a no-win scenario. The employment of this this stratagem incurs an ever present risk of escalation for the practitioner due to the instillation of a competitive zero-sum atmosphere with potential military domination in retaliation. While gray zone strategies are aimed to lower the risk of military armed conflict compared to directly attacking an opponent, it also holds a weaker assurance of achieving successful political objectives, attains significant costs in implementation and diminished international diplomatic …show more content…
The cost of a traditional war has become exceedingly high due to modern dynamics including nuclear escalation, increased exposure to international media, and potential loss of membership to international economic, technological and social organizations which are vital to state legitimacy and prosperity. Furthermore, the benefits of armed conflict are unlikely to wield significant rewards as was once historically the case. Resources and materials are accessible through global trade and the conquering of territory is no longer recognized by the international order as a legitimate form of expansion due to the notion of sovereignty. Despite these drawbacks, the human mannerisms of rivalry, aggression and competition are still prominent in international
...Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) during the Cold War Era. In order to keep the violence from escalating, both sides had to withdraw, and neither side would have an advantage.
Clarence Mai Mrs. Chaid ERWC 12 February, 2014 Peace Through Strength No matter how oxymoronic it seems, I strongly agree with the phrase “The only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war”. I feel that this relates back to the adage that “the best defense is a good offense”. For me, I view the Cold War as proof that the weapons of war can also be used as instruments of peace. To start off, one of the key ideas behind the tense, yet somewhat stable peace between the Soviet Union and the United States during the second half of the 20th century was the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD.
Although many people assume the motivations for war are determined by a territorial protection, a number of scholars have added other motivations for understanding why war occurs, among these historians one is a conspicuous example his name is Howard Zinn. Zinn has exposed that many countries go to war in order to bring economic prosperity to their region this need for gain in turn causes many of the upper class of that...
Almost every state on Earth desires peace, so why do countries go to war so often? Between World War I and World War II alone, there were an estimated 81 million casualties (Primary Megadeaths). Each state has different values and desires and many are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure those values remain in their state as well as spread to others. War results in a failure of states to successfully bargain with one another. The most common reason for wars to occur is territorial control. Of the 155 wars in the past three centuries, 83 of them dealt with territory (Holsti). Adding more territory will often add more wealth to the state. One way it can do that is by providing goods, resources, or industries that a state needs, such as oil or minerals. Iran and Iraq fought a war from 1980-1988 partially because Iraq sought to take control of Iran’s southern oil fields, according to World Politics. Military strategy can also play a role in why states seek new territories. Finally, states can be interested in territory for ethnic, cultural, or historical reasons. A prime ex...
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.
Throughout the 20th Century, the world was engulfed in global conflicts, engaging in one war after the next. When looking at these different conflicts, interconnected themes and issues seemed to lead to the later conflicts. The first of the conflicts to affect the globe was the Great War. Since the Great War, numerous conflicts have followed including World War II, The Cold War, and eventually the War on Terror. These wars share similar goals and themes of gaining power and prestige, seeking revenge, and fighting ideologies. Each of these conflicts results in events that eventually lead to the next conflict, creating near constant warfare around the globe. The effects and fears created by these conflicts can still be seen today as we fight
The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states
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...
Advances in technology and the expansion of trade have, without a doubt, improved the standard of living dramatically for peoples around the world. Globalization brings respect for law and human rights and the democratization of politics, education, and finance to developing societies, but is usually slow in doing so. It is no easy transition or permanent solution to conflict, as some overly zealous proponents would argue. In The Great Illusion, Norman Angell sees globalization as a force which results from and feeds back into the progressive change of human behavior from using physical force toward using rational, peaceful methods in order to achieve economic security and prosperity. He believes that nations will no longer wage war against one another because trade, not force, yields profit in the new global economy, and he argues that “military power is socially and economically futile” because “political and military power can in reality do nothing for trade.” While the economic interdependence of nations should prove to be a deterrent from warfare, globalization is not now, and was not a century ago, a prescription for world peace. At the turn of the twentieth century, formal colonialism was still profitable in some regions, universal free trade was not a reality, nationalism was not completely defunct, military force was necessary to protect economic investments in developing locations, and the arms race of the previous century had created the potential for an explosive war if any small spark should set the major powers off against one another. The major flaw in Angell’s argument is his refusal to acknowledge the economic advantages that colonizing powers, even after globalization has started to take shape, can actuall...
By the end of the Cold War the literature focusing on strategic studies has highlighted transformational changes within international system that affected and altered the very nature of war. As a result many security studies scholars have renounced traditional theories of strategic thought. Clausewitzian theory, in particular, has taken a lot of criticism, regarding its relevance to modern warfare. (Gray, How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?, 2005)
Sozi Hassan Taha October 14, 2016 War Throughout the history of humanity, we can notice that there were many wars that happened over territories, or between countries; for example, World War One and World War Two which were the two deadliest and worst wars in the history. Basically, war occurs because of power, natural resources, and wealth; it is a fact that human in general wants to gain more and have more power. After reading all the sources that are provided I realized that even though the most important aspects of war are strategies, there will be expense of war and human losses. An example of a good battle's strategy is the Sun Pin's plan to kill Pang Chuan, and will explain the strategies that would be used in order to have
War is a universal phenomenon, it is a violent tool people use to accomplish their interests. It is not autonomous, rather policy always determines its character. Normally it starts when diplomacy fails to reach a peaceful end. War is not an end rather than a mean to reach the end, however, it does not end, and it only rests in preparation for better conditions. It is a simple and dynamic act with difficult and unstable factors which make it unpredictable and complex. It is a resistant environment where the simplest act is difficult to perform. In this paper, I will argue why war is a universal phenomenon and what are the implications of my argument to strategists.
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 security dilemma literatures suggest that cooperation with the other states could be a best solution to deal with the dilemma, and the states should decide when they need to enforce some strategies, such as enforce arms control and one sided defensive strategy to arms racing (Brown, Lynn-Jones, Miller 1995: 380).
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.