Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance and relevance of conflict theory
Importance and relevance of conflict theory
Importance and relevance of conflict theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance and relevance of conflict theory
Yasmin Vega
POL 135
Professor Zeev Maoz
3 March 2014
Iran, Iraq, War and the effect of State Formation
Introduction
Theory
The theory of revolutionary state formation serves as an explanation for international conflict and the outbreak of war in the Middle East. The way in which a new state or an old state comes into being or changing the kind of regime matters in terms of the domestic and international implications for the nation. Evolutionary state formation, the opposite of revolutionary, explains how the gradual transference of power from a colonial power to the newly established government means that the likelihood of war and conflict with neighboring states will be greatly reduced in comparison to revolutionary state formation.
Revolutionary state formation entails the process of intense and violent struggle between an indigenous population and a colonial power, or between factions or sub-state entities leading to the establishment of one or more states (Maoz). The duration of the struggle and violence is typically short in duration and a result of the pressures felt from both domestic and international pressures. At the beginning of the formation of a new state of regime, acceptance is not guaranteed into the club of nations. The relevance of this fact is that the newly established regime needs to have solid grounds for validation and self-autonomy, without it is left unstable and liable to be brought down by old neighboring states. During the period of instability following the formation of a new regime, there is the additional internal threat which means that those who were in power before will be looking for the first opportunity to return to the status qou (Maoz). An additional aspect of the revolutionary state fo...
... middle of paper ...
...truggle and violence. From the Iran Revolution to the end of the Iran-Iraq War, the struggle and violence lasted from 1979-1988. If only applied to the Iranian revolution then the period of violence was short, only a year, but without knowing what would have happened had Iraq not invaded Iran, it is hard to say how long that period would have lasted. As I used both the Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War, the period of violence in this case turns out to be nine years. The implications of policy application of this theory is knowing that the pressure on newly formed regimes to secure internal security through outside conflict means that policies may change or pass with the intention of inciting a state to enter into conflict with the new state. The purpose of this would be to give the newly formed state an opportunity to strengthen and consolidate its authority.
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.
Revolutions are usually described as “radical” events. A “radical” event is defined as one that greatly changes the political, cultural, social, and/or economic nature of a society. I believe that the American Revolution was a radical event that dramatically changed our society. There were many impacts to the changes such as slavery, primogeniture, the Articles of Confederation, republican motherhood, and government. This was the time in life, that we as America gained our independence from Britain. The American Revolution is what shaped our world to become what it is today.
When people think of the term, revolution, they associate it with an overthrow or replacement of a government or political system. A revolution could also mean a change in society and the social structure, often accompanied by violence. There are many examples of revolution in history, such as the French revolution and the American Revolution in which the colonies gained independence from Britain. Revolutions are not always successful. There are aspects that must be gained in order to have a successful rebellion. In order to have an effective rebellion there must be a strong leader, someone the people could look up to, a multitude of people and persistence.
Revolutionary is defined as “something markedly changed or introducing radical change” ("Related Queries." Revolutionary). Some events that had a radical change was the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution in Europe. These events began when there was a split between the Parliament and King Charles I. Both sides had many arguments, and were not willing to back down over the principles that they had about the manner of the government, and how all those problems could be solved. The country then split into two sides, one was people who supported the Parliament, and then theres people who supported the Royalists, and both sides had fought many wars over the situation. This battle ended by the execution of King Charles I. The English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution were truly revolutionary events and these events had many dramatic changes that occurred and changed their society. These dramatic changes changed Europe in it’s social and political ways that the Europeans gained rights and both events had an effect to their economic ways as well.
John Beckett mentions that the Glorious Revolution has been considered a historical event related to the political issues. The main target of this historical event was to create a commercial freedom in Europe. After this revolution was done, trade relations in Europe went up, and the Bill of Rights was also created in 1689. Today, the Bill of Rights is shown and known that it was the first building stone for the British constitution because it limited the monarchic power. During the eighteenth century, the period of the Age of Enlightenment is considered between 1713 and 1789 because Anthony Pagden states that Europe was like a republic of states, and it was like a union acting together and talking with one voice. The Age of Enlightenment
Russia entered the 20th century as an oppressed tsarist state and the last of the Medieval European strongholds. The people were poor, starving and hopeless and, unlike the rest of Europe, had not experienced revolution. Eventually, however, a small group of revolutionaries emerged and overthrew the tsarist regime. Russia quickly devolved into anarchy and the resulting turmoil saw the rise of the Bolshevik Party and Vladimir Lenin. This was the beginning of the Russian Revolution, a prolonged event that deeply impacted Russia and the whole of Europe and the effects of which continue to be felt today.
Leenders, Reinoud. "Regional Conflict Formations': Is the Middle East Next? ." Third World Quarterly 28.5 (2007): 959-982. JSTOR. Web. 5 June 2011.
Firstly, the assumption that states are the only actors within the international system (Mearsheimer 2010) seems to be out-dated. In a globalized world based on interdependence and with the decline of sovereign states, it appears almost impossible to exclude organisations such as NGOs, multinational corporations and also terroristic groups from what happens in the international system and the deriving behaviours of states. A remarkable example might be the recent terroristic attack in Paris on 13th November 2015: this event has threatened not only global security, but also unity among western countries and has affected the international decisions (such as on the immigration issue) of different states. Then, it can be acknowledged that states do not only act as security-seekers that reach the balance of power after having regulated both the security dilemma and national interest. Indeed, the importance of statesmen and ideology in the decision-making process cannot be denied, as it may have a deep influence on foreign and international policies. Moreover, national interest has not a unique meaning and it could be manipulated in order to either hide the desire of power and hegemony or justify war. Therefore, it does not seem to be a valid reason for explaining the behaviours of states. Finally, the structural level of analysis does not take into account the relevance of social practices in the way states behave: both interaction and interdependence among states could affect their decisions (Copeland 2000). Indeed, constructivists argue that ‘Anarchy is what states make of it’ (Wendt 1992), meaning that the structure of the international system is a tangible effect of all the decision made by different states. This idea is an evident challenge to the deterministic orientation of events
The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a rebellion of the Russian people against the rule of the Russian Empire. Russia was a country full of many unsatisfied people; the nation experienced a series of changes in the late 19th and 20th century that would ultimately bring about revolution. The Russian people were starving, industrialization was emerging and the middle class was asking to be a part of the ruling of the country. As a result of the revolution, Russia saw its withdrawal from World War I, major industrial growth and ultimately the spread Communism throughout the world. The inevitable causes of the Russian Revolution were the weaknesses of the Russian Empire, World War I and the collapse of the Tsar’s regime. The nation now began its path towards emerging as a world power following the revolution.
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”.
One of the most appealing sides of democratic peace theory is its simplicity. This is favored both by the public and the academic, because it gives a clear explanation of the statement that democracies don’t fight each other. In the world of politics and international relations having a clear cut idea is valuable and that is why this theory gains a large number of popularity in this field. This may be considered as the first strength of democratic ...
In order to answer the question concerning the formation of states, it is necessary to clarify what constitutes a state; the Oxford English Dictionary defines a state as ‘a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government’. There are a number of ways and processes in which to analyse what state formation is, why they have formed and the way in which this has occurred. State emergence can be traced back to the creation of territorial boundaries in medieval Europe, such as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and its transition to a modern state can be attributed to the introduction of gunpowder in war (Hague & Harrop, 2010: 64). The formations of states have also been influenced by the growth of bureaucracy, administration and organisations. There are different theories as to the reason why states form, a certain few of which can be divided into the categories of rationalist, culturalist and structuralist perspectives. In this essay, these perspectives shall enter the debate in trying to justify the reason for state formation and the way in which it occurs. The most prominent feature in the formation of states appears to be the prevention and engagement of a state in war and its following consequences.
Even though that most many citizens wanted a revolution, nobody actually expected the revolution to take place, especially the way the revolution ended up starting. “On February 23, 1917, the Petrograd’s women workers left their factories and into the streets they went protesting.” The women of Russia were ready to be heard for it was International Women’s Day and the women had had enough.1
The relations between the states at the international stage are not a static; rather, they are very dynamic and as the higher the interactions are the probability for the disagreements, disputes, conflicts, and ultimately wars are increasing. In the international relations (IR), the states are the only legal actor; hence, a state recognizes the legitimacy of a fellow state with whom the state makes a bilateral relation through the various treaties. Yet, according to the International Law, a state is an independent entity, and has a freedom of action to pursue and defend her national interests in IR. Moreover, a state is protected by law of any interference of other states in her domestic affairs. In order to survive in the anarchical conditions