Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of war and conflict
Nature of conflicts after cold war
Impact of war and conflict
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of war and conflict
Introduction After the Cold War, the system of international relations entered a new era. With the bipolar world order broken, countries started a complex conflict and cooperation process to establish a new multipolar world order. Stemming from basic strategic interests, these countries have to make adjustments and supplements foreign strategic position to win favorable positions to their interest in the international system. The similarity and/or differences in interests, ideological perspective, history, culture ... between countries are always a major factor and dominant impact issues of cooperation and conflict. Besides the efforts to maintain peace and expand cooperation for development, the world witness many international conflicts in both large scale and small scale. Therefore, when talking about the trend of peace and cooperation it is impossible to ignore the impact and influence of current international conflicts as well as the possibility of new conflicts future. Meanwhile, the world is further shaken by a series of regional conflicts, internal conflicts. From 1945 to date, although there is no world wars occurred, but there are more than 60 small and medium sized wars with conventional weapons and high-tech weapons. It seems that there is a development in the trend of conflicts, not cooperation. The two prominent schools of thought, Realism and Idealism, both identify conflict as the main issue in international relations. For Realists, war is the product of the states’ competition for power; therefore, war is unavoidable. On the other hand, Idealists believes that war is the product of socio-economics inequality and the interest of the monarchy. It is difficult to address a single cause of war. However, in the world... ... middle of paper ... ...dence, there is a need for further study perhaps in some larger countries and their relationship with superpower. In this study, I choose the case of a very small nations opposing a large nations not only to show the potential of conflict due to the lack of interdependence and equal legal status but also show the leveraging power of a small nations under the new world system and how that very leveraging power without interdependence can lead to conflict. Base on the evidences presented in the case study that show the two conditions required for a conflict between states to happens, I conclude that as long as the three conditions in which, states are equal legally, are not interdependence upon one another and a states see the other as an obstacle that prevent it from achieving its interest, conflict between two states can happens even when the power is asymmetrical.
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.
...dens the understanding of international relations and correspondingly broadens the understanding of security. Built on Thayer’s and Waltz’s theory, the paper suggests that structure of the international system is central to international security and to achieve peace, suitable strategies are necessary to balance the power relations. While it should not be ignored that the Evolution theory still falls within realism realm with many other forms of complex security problems unexplained.
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
During the twentieth century, conclusions of wars created the conditions for subsequent wars. Whether it was the conquered or the conqueror, few ever remain content past an initial truce. Two examples of this can be found in the events that lead up to WWII and the constant conflict in the Middle East.
With the shock of two destructive world wars and then the creation of the United Nations, whose aim is to preserve peace, it is unconceivable for these two nations to fight directly in order to promote their own ideology. But the US and the USSR end up to be in competition in numerous ways, particularly in technological and industrial fields. In the same time they start to spread their influence over their former allies. This phenomenon have led to the creation of a bipolar world, divided in two powerful blocs surrounded by buffer zones, and to the beginning of what we call the Cold War because of the absence of direct conflicts between the two nations.
The realism that will be the focus of this paper is that of Kenneth Waltz. Kenneth Waltz presents his theory of realism, within an international system, by offering his central myth that, “Anarchy is the permissive cause of war”. Kenneth Waltz’s central myth helps answer the question as to why war happens in the first place. During the cold war, there was a heightened sense of insecurity between Russia and the United States due to presence of nuclear weapons. The Movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb used cold war tension between the two countries to tell the story of a general who went crazy and decided to unleash his fleet of nuclear bombers onto Russian military bases.
Neo-realism and Liberalism both provide adequate theories in explaining the causes of war, yet Neo-realist ideals on the structural level and states being unitary actors in order to build security, conclude that Neo-realist states act on behalf of their own self interest. The lack of collaboration with other states and balance of power among them presents a reasonable explanation on the causes of war.
In “Anarchy is What States Make of It” Alexander Wendt describes two opposing state systems—competitive and cooperative. In competition, “states identify negatively with each other’s security so that ego’s gain is seen as alter’s loss.” In cooperation, “the security of each [state] is perceived as the responsibility of all.” Currently, there are problems such as the spread of nuclear weapons, terrorism, poverty in developing countries, international financial instability, and climate change that confront the entire global community. Ideally states could cooperate in order to solve all of these dilemmas in the next twenty years. Realistically, they will only solve problems with specific and easily stated solutions. Cooperation tends to trip over every possible stumbling block, and simple solutions are necessary in order to clearly define a problem, evaluate the costs and benefits, and allow states to reach a consensus. Simplicity may require fewer actors; some problems would be better off solved within a state or bilaterally.
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.
The discipline of international relations (IR) contains several theories that contain theoretical perspectives to the idea of power. Within the realist perspective there are two approaches that help paint the portrait of the realist theory, the classical approach to realism and the neo-realist approach. Classical realism and neorealism both have been subjected to criticism from IR scholars and theorists representing liberal and constructivist perspectives. The key tenets to realism contain three essential characteristics of international relations which are the state, anarchy and the balance of power. This essay will closely analyse all three characteristics with special regards to power being central to the realist perspective.
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 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”.
The theory of complex interdependence was created as a reaction to the realist theory. The theory of complex interdependence has many parts but has been compounded into a simple definition of being “the entire intricate range of interactions among modern nation, which has made transnational forces even more important” (49). The ideas of complex interdependence represent a challenge to the realist ideas about national sovereignty because according to realism, the only thing motivating the states is endurance of sovereignty. National sovereignty is the supreme controlling power by which an independent state is governed, and the realists believe that the supreme power in an independent state should be based on its military and economic force. With the complex interdependence theory, the government does not rely as much on military and a power balancing force (hard power), but focuses more on increasing the economic relations with other states in a peaceful manner which decrease the amount of security dilemma that nations face. The idea of national sovereignty is lost in this aspect because with complex interdependence the focus shifts from the survival of one’s own nation state to cooperating with other nations to make better ties in international affairs.
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.