Collective Security Especially in Times of War and Conflict

The standard of the popular sovereignty implies, that the authority of a state is to govern itself or another state. When thinking upon our current international political system we can see that it has currently seen better days. According to Stephen Krasner and Moises Naim we can safely presume that many actions need to be taken and a sense of Shared Sovereignty needs to be installed. This would not only allow for the greater protection of certain states, but would also account for the interaction of states on an allied level in order to crack down on the Five Wars of Globalization. With the influx of a shared sovereignty according to Krasner and Naim it would create stronger borders and allow for alliances with unlikely states.

No nation is ever merely able to act at its people’s whim; a system of alliances and treaties has formed over the course of history, and breaking any of those agreements can mean anything from a small conflict to a large-scale war. One such

Furthermore, according to realist, it is not possible for “rival powers [to] cooperate on…security issues of common interest” (Kegley, 28). In fact, cooperation among states is rare because the distribution of relative gains deriving

There are a great number of activities a nation can take to encourage or deter actions by another state. Ideally, those actions can be pre-planned and flexible enough to be tailored to a specific situation. In this case, the United States wishes to encourage compliance with the NPT and deter Iran from seeking nuclear weapons. They also seek to deter Iran from assisting terrorism against national US interests consequentially promoting peace. In support of planning and understanding these efforts, the Joint Chiefs

In this situation where there is no common authority to resolve these many and serious disputes, the state of nature would become a state of war that all against all, a war that never comes to an end. To secure their safety and fear of foreign invasion, people mutually covenant each to the others to obey a common authority; they have established a central power, the sovereignty. When, threatened by a conqueror, they covenant for protection by promising obedience. These are equally legitimate ways of establishing sovereignty, and their underlying motivation is the same, namely fear. Law is set up to protect those who have consented to obey it; and to settle conflict between reasons and passions; determine what is just and unjust from the common view on moral and immoral.

Tensions between Iran and other major world powers, such as the United States, Great Britain, and France, have been running high ever since the Iranians began investing in nuclear weaponry back in the 1990’s. The global community has attempted to force Iran to stop its production of such weapons with economic sanctions. These sanctions have crippled Iran’s economy but have not stopped the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. The nuclear proliferation in Iran is not necessarily a threat to US society rather it is a threat to an ideal held by the US and other nations. By having nuclear weapons, Iran has the capability to destroy any nation it chooses. This kind of power paired with the track record of support for past militant groups, has caused Iran to be an issue. The Iran Nuclear Deal will help to solve the issue but has a few faults when outlining exactly how this deal will stay in tact for fifteen years without Iran reneging on its promises.

Peacemaking Circles: Circles are method of dialogue, which serve to discuss particular issues, facilitate understanding, and heal broken relationships. Circles are places of listening and of hearing what it’s like to be someone else. They’re also places for expressing what’s on our minds and hearts and having others receive it deeply. The life stories are naturally transforming” Circles operate on the principles of respect, equality, and consensus-based decision-making. Circles can be held proactively to discuss upcoming decisions and to receive participant input, or they can occur as an intervention to deal with a wrongdoing that has been committed. Though circles are strongly rooted in healing traditions, peacemaking circles are commonly

The exclusiveness of collective deterrence might be put into doubt also due to several typical factors, which undermine its credibility. Like in the case of NATO, which currently consists of 28 members with their individual interests, decisions to mount deterrence threat might take extensive time - delays might be caused by members pursuing resolution of conflict as well. As Patrick Morgan (2012) states:

Further contrast towards these ideas is apparent in the modern societies of 2016. Nearly every assault in the Middle East increases the threat of a radical uprising in adjacent states. Imagine the consequences of an air attack , let alone an atomic bomb. Okuda asks the perfect question relation to these topics, "How can we avoid this type of warfare from this point forward, whether carried out by nations or by individuals taking up weapons?" Thankfully, that question was answered shortly after the events of Japan. The United Nations formed an official treaty preventing the Great Powers of the world from using atomic warfare. Upon a violation, the nations partake in mutually assured destruction. Nobody wins in this terrifying situation, but

IGOs are voluntary associations of sovereign states established to pursue many objectives for which states want to cooperate through sort of formal structure and to which states are unable to realize by themselves (Miller, 1994). There are hundreds of IGOs in today's world which are significant in their respective fields. They are created by treaties and negotiations which mainly reflect preferences of stronger states. Especially stronger states create IGOs because they need them to protect their interests. By and large, decisions made by IGOs are the product of negotiations among the governmental representatives assigned to them. In general, it is not idealism, but the need of states which tend them to cooperate with other states in the context of IGOs. Therefore, they are part of the Westphalia state system in which IGOs are instruments of nation-states (Miller, 1994: 67). Regarding to the function and the purpose of IGOs, the influence of state as an actor in international relation still remains strong but in a different way, IGOs replace the original ideas of individual states but to identify states which have the same normative behavior and same ambitions to form a cooperate with each other so as to achieve the same goal. Even said so, powerful states are less constrained by the principle of IGOs than those who are relatively weak (Ataman, 2000: 152-167). This suggests that state is the key element in

There is no dispute that the Middle East, for the past century, has been a region plagued with tension and conflict. Differences in religion and ethnicity have been the source for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the progression of those issues have shown very little evidence of slowing down as the bloodshed continues. Many parties on the global scale fear that the combination of evolving technology and weaponry, and desire to harness nuclear power, is fueling the hatred that some of the countries in the area have for one another and will eventually lead to an extremely disastrous nuclear war. As a result, international global organizations, such as the United Nations, have been working to prevent such an outcome. They are

The approximate number of war casualties in the past 100 years is estimated to be 180 million. The Second World War (1939-1945) alone accounts for 60 million fatalities, which commenced with a fascist aggression to the European peace. War has been inevitable over centuries, which has been fought for several reasons; competing ideologies, wealth, religious reasons, chase for power through its military actions, which exercises the real power of the state. Power arises from ‘great military powers’ and ‘great economic powers’. Indeed, the greatest powers obtained permanent seats on the Security Council of the United Nations. Can such security organisations including, non-governmental organizations really prevent conflicts? We have seen the inevitability of wars through the history, from which has arisen decades of theoretical debates (First ideologist-realist great debate took place between 1930’s and 1940’s, which focus was on the Nazi threat as well). Why is security crucial? Is there any alternative solution to abolish armed conflicts and struggles between states; or can we conclude, that war is inevitable?

The traditional security paradigm is focused on physical and external security threats to states. It promotes that security should be state centred and national security is primary over other securities, such as human security. States must defend their territory and authority from external, foreign threats, by physical means, such as increasing the military or

After analyzing the US foreign policy, one can argue though it might not be perfect, it is obvious that the challenges and security threats that it faces today are best addressed when human security is a national security. A state cannot claim to be secured if its citizens face insecurities. Per Reveron & Mahoney-Norris, “the national security of a state cannot be achieved without first achieving human security” (Reveron &Mahoney-Norris, 2011). The United States is not only faced with terrorism but also high levels of violent crimes, economic inequality, climate change and poverty which all falls under the umbrella of human security. And according to the definition given earlier, it is known that attacks of terrorism are mostly targeted at civilians, therefore when addressing the issue, the safety of Americans both home and abroad is a top priority. The United States continuous call for the advancement of human rights is an evidence of it focusing more on the individual freedom and development. In the year 2011, President Obama instructed that when issuing financial aid to foreign countries, agencies should put into consideration the rights of the LGBT community. Also, he joined other nations to boycott the 2014 winter Olympics which was held in Russia because of Russia denying gay rights.

The security dilemma is a fundamental concept in IR originate in John Herz’s writing provided the definition of security dilemma back in 1951 “a structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security needs tend, regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity to others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and measures of others as potentially threatening” (Herz, 1950: 157) which is a classic definition heavily associates with realism. In international system, where there are no world governments or police to provide security for states as a result state exist in an anarchy and the only way to ensure their own security is through self-help. In short, security dilemmas caused by anarchy, however, in this essay,