Is War a Permanent Feature in the International Landscape?
- Submitted by: Ayla
- Views: 1212
- Category: Politics
- Date Submitted: 08/01/2010 08:49 PM
- Pages: 10
- Report this Essay
Do You Agree That War Remains a Permanent Feature of The International Landscape?
Discuss with reference to the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003
Immanuel Kant argued war is not an inevitable aspect of human existence in asserting “perpetual peace is no empty idea, but a practical thing which, through its gradual solution, is coming always nearer its final realization”. History would prove otherwise. Indeed the twentieth century has been the most belligerent in our history with two devastating world wars and numerous regional and international conflicts. War has been an ever-present part of human history, with evidence of tribal warfare dating back at least 12,000 years. This persistence provides good basis for the assumption that war will continue to be a permanent part of the international landscape. This assumption is not wholly based on the tautology that because war has always been it will always be. To further prove this assumption this essay will examine theories asserting that changes in society and the global political climate mean war is no longer a necessary institution, as well as identify some reasons for war and explain why they are still relevant in the modern world.
Some argue that state interdependence and the increased influence of non-state actors has resulted in increased stability, as now countries are more intertwined and reliant upon each other, so the benefits of war are greatly reduced. However while globalisation is becoming more predominant, it is indisputable that similar international co-reliance existed before many confrontations. Before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait Saddam Hussein was viewed as a puppet ally of the US. In some cases these relationships have actually been the source of tension. There is no assurance that interdependence heightens global security, in some cases it can diminish it. Increased interdependence among nations means states have a vested interest in the political affairs of other sovereign nations....
Discuss with reference to the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003
Immanuel Kant argued war is not an inevitable aspect of human existence in asserting “perpetual peace is no empty idea, but a practical thing which, through its gradual solution, is coming always nearer its final realization”. History would prove otherwise. Indeed the twentieth century has been the most belligerent in our history with two devastating world wars and numerous regional and international conflicts. War has been an ever-present part of human history, with evidence of tribal warfare dating back at least 12,000 years. This persistence provides good basis for the assumption that war will continue to be a permanent part of the international landscape. This assumption is not wholly based on the tautology that because war has always been it will always be. To further prove this assumption this essay will examine theories asserting that changes in society and the global political climate mean war is no longer a necessary institution, as well as identify some reasons for war and explain why they are still relevant in the modern world.
Some argue that state interdependence and the increased influence of non-state actors has resulted in increased stability, as now countries are more intertwined and reliant upon each other, so the benefits of war are greatly reduced. However while globalisation is becoming more predominant, it is indisputable that similar international co-reliance existed before many confrontations. Before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait Saddam Hussein was viewed as a puppet ally of the US. In some cases these relationships have actually been the source of tension. There is no assurance that interdependence heightens global security, in some cases it can diminish it. Increased interdependence among nations means states have a vested interest in the political affairs of other sovereign nations....