Peering Through Spectacles Of The English School, Has Provided

The only reason the war started was because there people wanted more freedom. When they didnt give it to themthe people started to protest against the goverment. The syrian goverment chose to attack the protesters. Which caused the war. As the war started to progress foreign countries picked sides. Countries like russia,iran,united states,saudi arabia, qatar, and turkey. None of these countries seem to agree on the pain for peace russia and iran are supporting presonlation

With a death toll in the hundred of thousands, and millions displaced, the Syrian civil war has become a violent mark on the world’s history. What started as a peaceful protest has spread over five years, has evolved into a war with a tyrannical government, a clashing rebellion, and terrorism fighting either side. But what is it that really fuels the immense amount of violence? It can be narrowed down to four groups that are obvious. The government and the rebels are the forerunners in violence in the war, sure, but they aren’t the only ones. There are the terrorist groups, with skewed views to support the destruction of people and things around them, and in itself the stark difference of the religions and ethnicities of Syria. Who causes

Huntington’s initial article argued that in the post-Cold War era the fundamental source of conflict would not be ideological or economic, but cultural. He continues by arguing that nation states will continue to be the most powerful actors in global affairs, but the conflicts of global politics that are to occur in the future will happen between

For many ongoing years now, Syria has been in a war with thousands of fleeing refugees, terrorists that could be attacking at any minute, and the constant involvement of other countries that has done more harm than their planned good. I believe that the foreign involvement of countries such as the US and Russia have fueled more of the ongoing violence in Syria.

“a really, really tough case” that defies historical parallels. Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War refers to political, military and operational support to parties involved in the ongoing conflict in Syria that began in March 2011, as well as active foreign involvement. Most parties involved in the war in Syria receive various types of support from foreign countries and entities based outside Syria. The ongoing conflict in Syria is widely described as a series of overlapping wars between the regional and world powers, primarily between the U.S. and Russia as well as between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The editors of Britannica Encyclopedia bring up how the Syrian War started due to “protestors demanding an end to authoritarian practices in the Assad Regime that have been in place since 1971 under Hafiz al-Assad, Bashar al-Assad’s father” (“Syrian Civil War,” par. 1). With this want of an end of an era rebel militia groups sprung up over a very short period demanding change in the Syrian government. Militias started small by attacking government meetings and targeting specific Syrian government officials. In a little under a year Syrian militias began a full-fledged war between themselves and the Syrian government. Almost immediately after the Syrian War was declared a war the United Nations jumped in to aid the innocent civilians who were being hurt from the weapons of warfare. Since Syria was already a poor area the war only made it worse and left many homeless and exposed to the fighting in the streets. With over 25,000 dead and 2.5 million in need of food, water and medical supplies the Syrian War crisis has received responses from all over the world… but it’s not enough to bring a sense of safety to the innocent people of Syria (Hilleary pars.

The Syrian war is a multi-problematic situation that started within Syrian borders. The Syrian war began in 2010 with something called the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring is a chain of events where people caused aggressive and non-aggressive situations such as protests which created harm in the Middle East. In 2011 people started a non-aggressive protest because children were being abused after spattering graffiti that stated how they agreed with the Arab Spring. The president during this time was Bashar al- Assad. Assad would torment and imprison the people of Syria who protested. The Syrian People wanted to end Assad’s brutal actions so they created a Free Syrian Army which led to a civil war (i.e. the Syrian war). There are several countries

Syria is currently all over the news regarding what many have to come to see as a civil war. A term like civil war needs to identify the players and the reasons for the war. In this case the players are being identified as pro government or antigovernment with a Sunni or Shia overtone. Sunni and Shia are the two major sects of Islam and both have a historical based conflict going back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad and how Muslims should be governed. This conflict has caused tensions and violence to flare up throughout Islamic history. This conflict has carried into modern times and has becoming a rallying point for Muslim people calling for change with their government and across the Middle Eastern region. The

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.

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the

After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership

Contemporary international relations is a complex field. Understanding events and attempting to make sense of them can be a daunting task. There are, however, tools available, which can assist in providing clarity to these complex issues. The first of these tools is historic knowledge. Without historic background of an issue, it is nearly impossible to understand the events driving that issue in modern times. A second tool, the one which will be the focus of this paper, is international relations theory. Theory can be defined as “a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action,” (Merriam-Webster) and can be used “in many cases as a basis of prediction.” (Mingst 56) There are three major theories which we

When trying to comprehend international politics, current events, or historical context, having a firm grasp on the various international relations theories is essential to understanding patterns when looking at interstate affairs. Realism, liberalism, constructivism, and marxist radical theory are used to provide a framework by which we can dissect international relations.

Realism is one of the main theories within International Relations. It provides the view that all actors within the international system act on their own self-interests to gain power. This essay intends to discuss its usefulness as a theory and the reasons for and against it being used to analyse world affairs. Firstly, it shall discuss how the theory is advantageous as it explains how shifts in the balance of power can lead to conflict however it is unable to explain why the distribution of power changes. Second, it will portray how it is useful because states do not need to be labelled as good or bad to fit the theory although it disregards the idea of Natural law and gives a cynical view of human morality. Finally, it will suggest that as the theory is very parsimonious, it can be applied to multiple situations within the world system. On the other hand, it will be said that it fails to look at individuals within a state and their influence on the actions of the state. These costs and benefits will be conveyed through the current tensions between the USA and North Korea to link the theory in with current world politics.