Comparing Interstates And Intrastate Conflicts During The Cold War And After It

In summary, the author, James Rosenau, suggests that the world has changed from the previous Cold War era. There is no longer a threat of nuclear holocaust that was so prevalent in previous years. Rosenau suggests, “the global economy may have replaced the battlefield as the site of competition among international actors…the emergent global order will be relatively free of strategic underpinnings.” Governance for Rosenau is supposed to be more informal, varied, and elaborate than that of the Cold War period. People have become smarter, technology has spread, and there is a greater involvement of citizens. As shown through the absence of a hegemon, and centralizing- decentralizing tensions, power is shifting in international affairs. Issues

This essay analyses the reasoning behind the difficulty of solving intra-state conflicts. First, it examines the nature of Intra-State Conflicts, defining their origins and clarifying the different types. The Arab Spring serves as the case in point to elucidate the problem. Furthermore, it is necessary to describe the role of international actors in preventing as well as solving intra-state conflicts. Interventionism, as a conflict management tool will be empirically assessed. This essay argues that there are still imperialist characteristics in the behaviour of Western States, by emphasising upon NATO foreign policy conducted in response to the Arab Uprising. The biased interventions in intra-state conflict by international actors are highlighted as to why such conflicts are so difficult to resolve. Concluding, it is remarked that ethnic, religious and cultural tension within states, as well the friction between whole civilizations are a significant factor for the complicated nature of intra-state conflicts.

This essay will address why the three main approaches to world politics did not predict the end of the Cold War. Firstly it will briefly give a background insight into what the Cold War was. Then it will go on to explain what characterises the three main approaches to world politics which are Realism, Pluralism and Structuralism, it then will briefly look at the distinctive theory behind them. Lastly the essay will analyse whether or not the three main approaches could have predicted and anticipated the end of the Cold War.

After this “master list” of sorts had been obtained, it was finally time to actually determine whether or not it was younger or older states which were more or less likely to participate in interstate conflict. This particular step was done by examining each war and cataloguing each state that participated in a specific war and then recording the age of the state when they fought in the conflict. In this study, a state’s age is defined by the most current year in which a state enjoyed its sovereign status prior to participating in the international conflict being catalogued. For example, in the case the United States of America it was the date its current constitution was enacted rather than its claim for independence. Due to this definition, the date used for the United States of America was 1789 rather than 1776. This system of defining state ages became paramount in its importance while collecting and cataloging information on states that had to rebuild themselves after World War II as a result of Nazi occupation. From here, the final steps of the study, in terms of data collection, was to organize these states by their ages when they participated in any of the listed conflicts. This was done by placing each country in intervals of ten years and went up to one hundred years. Any states that were older than one hundred years were placed in one group. Also it should be mentioned that in this study a “young” state is defined by being

Cold War: Cold War can be characterized as the political and the military pressure between the two super powers USA and USSR, Western and the Eastern coalition separately. They never went to coordinate war with one another yet they discovered options available to satisfy their cold war plans. It helped in the development of Asian American groups in United States of America. Proxy wars turned into the way to this advancement. Southeast Asian Americans were effected by these intermediary wars in a positive way.

A typical case of study is the Cold War. From my understanding, the Cold War describes the relationship between America and the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1980. During this period, neither sides ever fought each other directly, but indirectly they influenced other countries through their ideologies (i.e. America’s democracy and Russia’s communism) to war. For example, America supplied weapons to South Vietnam (anti-communist) to war with North Vietnam (pro-communist), who were also supported and supplied weapons by China/Russia. Also with Afghanistan, Americans helped them after the Soviet Union invaded in 1979 by supplying them with weapons to war, without physically involving themselves. This portrays that, in the absence of a supreme power to regulate law in International relations, the system will not be able to provide any public good, in this case, PEACE among states. However, to some extent they do. To achieve this peace, both realists and liberals have outlined various factors that facilitate this provision among States. For liberals, peace among states can be achieved through economic cooperation, democratic peace

In the years spanning the Cold War, government types affected their societies by instilling new foreign policies, influenced the opposing population’s outlook towards communism and democracy through propaganda, and encouraged the establishment of new industries and trade agreements to support the war effort.

The Cold War was an adverse rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. Beginning after the Second World War, the Cold War lasted from about 1946 until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The war was considered "cold" only in that the United States and USSR never physically fought each other in a direct military battle, but both superpowers threatened each other with nuclear obliteration and participated frequently in proxy wars by supporting allied nations in numerous "hot" wars in places like Korean, Vietnam, and Angola. During World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union were temporary allies, only setting aside their differences to defeat a common enemy, the Nazi party.

At this point, the world was split into three sections- the First World (the United States and its allies), the Second World (USSR) and the Third World (the underdeveloped nations). The First World and the Second World fought the long prolong war to influence the Third World. This is the reason the rise of communism is a significant event to summarize contemporary world history; communism became a strong international movement that rapidly spread across the world. Communism could be found in Eastern Europe (Poland and Berlin), in Asia (China), and even in Latin America

The domestic level of analysis will exemplify the inner workings of the nation by focusing on how the history, political institutions and society affect the nation in the international setting.

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.

Stephanie Liang WR98 C1 Prof.Michaud Essay 1-Final states”(103). Had he not used these constructions and instead stopped at “drama”, the readers would not be able to understand the various relationships during Cold War. These succinct constructions allow a straight-forward understanding of the essay and help gain readers’ agreement. In addition of short phrases, the author contrasts the global atmosphere during Cold War period to that at present in separate paragraphs but with highly identical structures. For example, he utilizes the features of “division” and “wall” (102) to serve as a foil to the “integration” and “web” (102) concepts of globalization system by including detailed description of the better-being in the latter system, and in doing so, makes it obvious to readers that two systems possess different nature and that the new one is favored. Another structure technique Friedman uses is parallelism, which illustrates the divergent communication phenomena of two systems: “In the cold war we reached for the hotline, which was a symbol that we were all divided but at least two people were in charge…In the globalization system we reach for the Internet, which is a symbol that we are all connected and nobody is quite in charge” (103). This equal paragraph distribution of two discussed subjects enables readers to

Three levels of analysis, each with its own distinct strength, reveals three different ways of understanding international relations. The first states that all nation-states behave similarly, the second emphasizes the unique internal factors of a nation-state, while the third level of analysis focuses on the individual deciding a state’s course of action. Each level of analysis is useful in the study of international relations. Indeed, used all together, it is not long before arriving at a point where a vast number of explanations for the actions of a country are brought to light. However, to best understand international relations, one level of analysis is more useful than the rest, because it provides the most comprehensive

FitzGerald and Cook-Martin (2014), through there chapters, provide how policies today are shaped by policies of the past, and the policies here, have been shaped by the policies there. Therefore, they provide a three-dimensional analytical model, focusing on the interactions between national and international levels over time (8). The three dimensions are temporal, vertical and horizontal (9).

Realism has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930’s. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930’s to the end of the cold war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent, a theory of the past.