Anarchy is a central concept in international relations theory. Both realism and constructivism, whilst divergent in nature, accept that the structure of the international system is anarchical. However, there is debate as to whether or not the effects of anarchy, such as self-help, can be overcome without fundamentally changing the structure of international politics.
Sudan has for so long experienced civil strife and so war has become a norm within Sudanese political society.
Policies promoting electricity production from renewable energy sources in Germany have been more continuous, homogenous and comprehensive than in the US.
The egoistic passions and self-interests of states, in terms of military, economic and diplomatic power, marked the increasing number of UN peacekeeping operations after 1990.
Although ideology might at first appear to be of major importance to average people involved in civil wars, it was often regarded as a means to an end: a method of securing basic necessities in times of political and economic flux. Economics, if it is taken to mean ‘how scarce resources are or should be allocated’, can be seen at the root of issues such as ideology and nationalism, or as a major contributing factor in their shift to prominence.
War has not changed inherently; it remains political in nature, and its desired outcomes remain political in nature, as it always has. The emergence of non-state conflict has added a new dimension to war. The use of many aggressive alternative methods, albeit in conjunction with traditional methods, has served to enhance the view that warfare has taken on asymmetrical characteristics.
The impossibility of peace without subjection, even though men understand the laws of nature which dictate peace, is due to both the conditions in the absence of a common power and the passions of men. A Commonwealth is vital to provide restraint and security, in order for men to willingly lay down their natural right in favour of the natural laws.
This response to the proposition shall focus upon four broad areas within the causes of war. Firstly, it will be necessary to speak of necessary causes of war, as these feature heavily in the literature on war causation. The discussion will then move on to questioning whether or not it is simply human nature that yearns to constantly fight aggressive wars. Then it shall be necessary to address those permissive cause of war which is a notable feature of the world in which we live, before finally outlining the different forms of misperception that are often a crucial instigator for war.
The task in this essay is to identify the concept of humane warfare by assessing whether it is contradictory to apply humanity into warfare. This essay will attempt to argue that the term ‘humane warfare’ is definitely and always a contradiction.
Authoritarian regimes benefit from the constraints of democratic states, who cannot act in a similar way as authoritarian states do. These constraints are the result of democratic freedom which is essential to democratic success but which can be a disadvantage when dealing with coercion. All the same, it is democratic states that have the long-term and ultimate advantage over authoritarian regimes
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.