International Treaties And Its Effect On Society

Mary Kaldor theory of ‘new wars’ proposes that because of the many changes the world has gone through since the concept of ‘wars’ was first defined, our understanding of wars is outdated. In the modern world, wars are fought using different methods and tactics than the ones that were at one point the standard. Today, both the state and the non-state actors contribute to wars. Wars were once fought for ideological reasons; modern wars, however, are fought in the name of identity politics. The goal of the ‘new wars’ is to achieve political power and control, whereas, old wars were fought by majorly physical means.

Historically, there has been consistent disagreement between political philosophers regarding the possibility of a justification of war. Theorists from Grotius to Gandhi have from time immemorial argued about whether violence can ever be sanctioned as a viable recourse for preventing evil. History itself, at various times, seems to offer lessons regarding the complexity of the issue—demonstrating both the human capacity, if unchecked, to cause immense destruction and evil and the inherent destruction that accompanies the common means of using war and violence to rid the world of such evils. However, it is clear that neither

Kaag and Kreps’s main concerns are that drone technology is not consistent with international laws. The reasons for the author’s beliefs is that drone technology do not adhere the principals that international laws consist of. The authors talk about jus ad bellum – the right of war, also interpreted as the right of retaliation on the basis of self-defense – and how that justification is based on false principals. The other principal that the authors feel is being misused is jus in bello – the justification (or lack thereof) to engage in a war – due to the issues with interpretation that is existent in modern warfare. The authors believe that further preventative measures need to be established to insure that drone warfare adheres to international laws.

Throughout much of the history of civilizations, states have declared war for land, valuables, and resources. In the course of the mid-20th century and the 21st century, ascendant super powers have invaded foreign lands for resources such as oil, and weapons companies have profited from the ongoing cycle of war these super powers promote. The populations of these states have been fed lies vis-à-vis the media; propagandizing these “rogue nations” and promoting an ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality, to garner support for these armed conflicts. War is our primordial instinct, as humans are territorial and aggressive. That is our nature, and by looking at events in our history, one may see that war appears to be timeless and inevitable.

War - a multifaceted mechanism by which power changes hands, territorial boundaries are revised, and generations are lost – has been hypothesized to commence approximately 40,000-60,000 years ago, when Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens met in Africa and in the Middle East. Henceforth, warfare has surrounded human conflict- imparting benefits to the victors and treachery to the defeated. From the initial meeting in the Arabian Peninsula (Levant region) and Eastern Africa up to the First World War, warfare constantly adapted to meet the needs of its participants, each cohort edging to outreach the other in terms of technological advancements. Alongside the increased potency of warfare, militaristic strategy has coevolved to consider the technological character of rival states.

Humans have discussed and argued about the morality and ethical connotations of war, and the means in which we conduct our wars, for thousands of years. Every major civilization in our world has an evolved tradition on what is and is not acceptable on the battlefields in which we meet. These traditions and views continue to change based on a reflection on similar concerns.

I learned a lot of information concerning the Rules of War in historic and contemporary combat. As I led Chapter 3’s discussion, I could not help but to write down important comments and assertions made by my peers concerning the review. The chapter asserts how morals affect the Rules of War, discusses the left and right limits of following orders in war, and justifies the extent to which the Rules of War can be modified or disregarded. Most importantly, it explains the Two Rules of War, which serve as the foundation of this chapter. Before I can explain the first three main points of this paper, I need to explain the Two Rules of War. In general, it is reasonable to come to the consensus that soldiers in conflict have the equal right to kill.

The comprehension of the term ‘total war’ has had great significance towards the understanding as to how wars are fought, affect society and differ from other conflicts. The main issue that arises is conclusively defining total war and is continually differing between both historians and military combatants alike. Roger Chickering defines states “total war is distinguished by its intensity and extent. Theatres of operation span the globe; the scale of the battle is practically limitless” all the while adding “total war requires the mobilisation not only of armed forced but also of whole populations” This definition, while not quintessential is a good starting point for a definition due to its broadness and acceptance of the idea of the incapability to fully mobilise a society’s entire resource. David A. Bell states that it is often defined as ‘a war involving the complete mobilization of a society’s resources to achieve the absolute destruction of an enemy, with all distinction erased between combatants and non-combatants’ . However, he notes the limitations of such an idea including the inability for societies to meet such criterion, in particular, the ability for a society to completely utilise its resources towards the war effort. Ultimately, Jeremey black, while not giving a conclusive definition for the term, total war, does acknowledge different definitions by various individuals distilling many of their arguments and consequently outlining main characteristics of

War is something that has been around since the beginning of time. Whether it be to gain land, protect your own land or to show you’re fed up with the way things are, war has always been around. From sticks, spears, bows and arrows to guns, gas and bombs the art of warfare has evolved over time with technical advancements. In this paper we will be going over how war has evolved from the 1500s until the present.

While readings from Thucydides, Aristotle, and Machiavelli provide unique insight in the way war is justified in early civil society, the introduction of globalization into international relations leads us to ask if early theories regarding war and justice are still relevant to new and complex power relationships. For the purpose of creating practical connections, I intend to look at several possible “jus in bello” applications of two contemporary military technologies: nuclear weapons and drones (otherwise known as Unmanned Armed Vehicles). There are many cases of emerging military technologies that raise valuable question in regards to just acts of war, but I chose these two in particular because of they provide two seemingly opposing perspectives

Drones or unmanned aircraft are like a hammer or gun. They are tools. They are not inherently good or bad. How they are used becomes the ethical issue at hand. Drones have a broad spectrum of wage; from the delivery of pizza, to weather forecasting, to weapons platforms in armed conflict. It is the purpose of this paper to show the use of drones in warfare is necessary and can be ethically justified using the principles of both deontology and utilitarianism. The fact that drones are remotely controlled, sometimes from great distances, does not remove the operators from responsibility, no more than the bullet fired from a gun, it is still the responsibility of the soldier who fired it.

Have you ever wondered what tactics each side of a war uses and how each have similarities and differences between both.Well in this paper I will show how modern warfare were surprisingly the same and different from what our ancestors used.The guerilla warfare and modern war have their pros and cons.Also,each war has its own secrets and special strategies that were used.

Since time immemorial human beings have been fighting one another by means of more or less murderous wars. Conflicts have evolved with time, in their organization, form and goals. Actors are different, new weapons have been created, technology has enormously developed, states’ interests have changed and, most of all, a new international relations order have been established. Nowadays it is not possible to fight a war the same way it was done during the Antiquity, or even last century. There are now international treaties and conventions that aim to regulate the use of forces in conflicts, as well as to limit casualties, especially civilian ones. Nonetheless, even though the world seem to have evolved in a more democratic and humanitarian way, wars are still common. There is no easy or unique solution to win a war, and the Laws of Armed Conflict, although they are not really respected, have not made it easier. However the best way to win a war today, if the aim is to win quickly, efficiently and with the less casualties and destructions as possible, could be to use the technology at disposal, that is to say drones, as well as the use of Secret Service Intelligence, disinformation and economic warfare. This essay will first focus on some previous notable victories and defeats to understand how conflicts have evolved over time and with the development of new means. I will then discuss the issue of ‘Just War’, and how it can be applied without jeopardizing the success of the

Bull defines war as “organized violence carried on by political units against each other” (184). With respect to this broad definition, both he and Waltz posit models of conflict which can effectively be used to analyze the sources of modern violence. The warrior scholars employ the theories of multiple political philosophers including Kant and Rousseau in order to build theories that encapsulate the complex variables which lead to armed engagement. These theories can be extrapolated in order to explain the causes of inter-state war, and to provide explanations of violence in the modern global theatre.

In the time period of last ten years, many changes have been observed in the nature of Warfare from being aggressive towards more argumentative. There are various views and debates among the nature and character of the wars and the debate continues to grow with time. The several reasons of changes can be attributed to the technological advances and other situational changes. This essay is going to shed light upon whether the nature and character of war has been changed in the course of recent years or it continues to be the same as it was years ago.