The Status Of Forces Agreements

The foreign, military and economic policies of states, the intersections of these policies in areas of change or dispute, and the general structure of relations which they create, are all analysed in terms of aspirations to achieve national and/or international security. Security is most commonly associated with the alleviation of threats to cherished values (Williams; 2008). However this is a definition that is undesirably vague and a reflection of the inherent nature of security as an ‘essentially contested concept’ (Gallie; 1962). Security in the modern day context has many key concepts associated with it: uncertainty, war, terrorism, genocide and mass killing, ethnic conflict, coercion,

One of the security challenges facing the United States (US) is the US and North Korea relations. The US policy toward North Korea is diplomatic yet firm. North Korea is our longest standing adversary. Policy toward North Korea is one of the most enduring foreign policy challenges. In this essay I will discuss the security challenge of U.S. and North Korea, the theory of international relation, realism, how it illuminates this challenge and how the instruments of

a. Coalition Legitimacy: Empowering, strategic utilization, and promoting of coalition forces (and regional population) while minimizing overt U.S. presence.

After unraveling of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, fears of war breaking out between the major powers of the United States and the Soviet Union were greatly reduced. Numerous commentaries, reports, and studies arose out of the question of what to do with the excess U.S. forces, and how to reshape them for a new era (Snider & Carlton-Carew, 1996). Since the birth of the United States, the military has been an important part of the United States. The US military has been a fundamental part of foreign policy, including fostering democracy, establishing rule of law, and assisting with economic development in territories allied with the U.S. (Ludema, 2007).

This paper discusses the War Powers Act/Resolution of 1973. Though this resolution was passed by Congress to give it more say in declaration of war and the deployment of American troops to foreign countries promising hostilities, this aim has hardly been achieved. The War Powers Act remains as one of the most contentious legal provisions in the American constitution and has been the subject of several debates and interpretations. More often than not, one finds American soldiers actually engaged in hostilities in foreign lands without the explicit or even implied support of the US Congress. This paper discusses why this is so and hypothesizes that realpolitik has significantly contributed to the practical ineffectiveness of the War Powers Act. Structurally, this paper will first proceed to present a brief history of the War Powers Act and its intended purpose. Afterwards, the linkage between realpolitik and the Act will be discussed.

In July 1943, Allied Forces launched the largest joint, combined operation of World War II to date. American, British and Canadian forces attacked the island of Sicily in an effort to gain a foothold on the European continent and protect the Mediterranean lines of communication. Although the Allies were successful in pushing the Axis powers out of Sicily, Operation Husky demonstrated that Allied forces were not adequately prepared for joint operations. In particular, and based on current doctrine for joint operations, the Allies failed to effectively utilize the principles of Mission Command and also failed to realize the full potential of the Joint Force by inadequately integrating elements of the Joint Force into a cohesive organization.

“Our working definition of US overseas military presence is that it consists of all the US military assets in overseas areas that are engaged in relatively routine, regular, non-combat activities or functions.1 By this definition, forces that are located overseas may or may not be engaging in presence activities. If they are engaging in combat (such as Operation Enduring Freedom), or are involved in a one-time non-combat action (such as an unscheduled carrier battle group deployment from the United States aimed at calming or stabilizing an emerging crisis situation), then they are not engaging in presence activities. Thus, an asset that is located (or present) overseas may or may not be “engaged in presence activities,” may or may not be “doing presence.” We have thus far defined presence activities chiefly in “negative” terms—what they are not. In more positive terms, what exactly are presence activities, i.e., what do presence activities actually entail doing? Overseas military presence activities are generally viewed as a subset of the overall class of activities that the US government uses in its efforts to promote important military/security objectives [Dismukes, 1994]. A variety of recurrent, overseas military activities are normally placed under the “umbrella” concept of military presence. These include but are not limited to US military efforts overseas to train foreign militaries; to improve inter-operability of US and friendly forces; to peacefully and visibly

Mr. Hiram Morales provided an exceptional overview of existing WMD treaties and conventions. Specifically, he discussed several challenges associated with the negotiation and enforcement of these tenuous agreements. Mr. Morales posed several insightful questions including: (1) “What motivates a country to sign a treaty?”, and (2) “Why are effective treaties so hard to achieve or enforce?” To provide context to these important questions, Mr. Morales referred to the examples of proliferation in North Korea and Iraq, and the Iran Nuclear Agreement of 2015. Each one of these examples present their own distinct challenges; however, the Iran Nuclear Deal may demonstrate progress by the international community to learn from previously failed attempts to limit the spread of WMDs.

Gerleman, D. J. & Stevens, J. E. & Hildreth, S. A. (2001, October 17). CRS Report for Congress. Operation Enduring Freedom: Foreign Pledges of Military & Intelligence Support. Retrieved from

In everyday English usage, allies are people, groups, or states that have joined in an alliance for mutual benefit or to achieve some common purpose, whether or not explicit agreement has been worked out between them. When the term is used in the context of war or armed struggle, such associations may also be called allied powers, especially when discussing World War I or World War II.

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

Article 2 emphasizes the rudimentary importance of sovereignty in international law as almost absolute. This belief has been further demonstrated in General Assembly Resolutions. Resolution 2625, accepts the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Amongst other considerations, it confirms the importance of the Charter and sovereign equality. General Assembly Resolution 3314, defines aggression and calls upon members to refrain from aggression as well as other uses of force that would not be in compliance with the Charter. It also reinforces the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Declaration 42/22, the approval of the Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, once again reaffirms the importance of non-intervention, the importance of peaceful relations and the necessity for peaceful means to be used in conflict resolution because a) the risks and concerns associated with conflict and more importantly in this

4.If a country has bilateral military agreement with a great power, or is a member of a regional defence pact, the agreement or pact should not be one deliberately concluded in the context of great power conflict.

It can be said that in the case of the USA and North Korea, the current tensions developed further because of the start of nuclear weapons programmes in North Korea which created panic in US government (Pevehouse and Goldstein, 2017, p. 31). Realism highlights how this shift in the balance of power threatens US security as they are no longer a more

The United States and the Republic of the Philippines maintain close ties based upon the U.S.- Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty, the period of U.S. colonization, common strategic and economic interests, and shared democratic values. The United States long maintained sizable naval and air forces bases in the country. Although the Philippine Senate voted against U.S. wishes to close American military installations in 1992, bilateral security cooperation resumed following territorial disputes between the Philippines and China in 1994 and the launching of the Global War on Terrorism in 2002. After 2001, the Philippines received one of the most dramatic increases in U.S. foreign aid in Southeast Asia, largely for