Theories of Deterrence in International Crisis

It is estimated that general deterrence aims at making the offender to think twice before violating the law, because the physical and psychological pain that the offender will get through the action do not equate with the benefits of doing that action. Also, the general deterrence means that amount of penalties impose on the offender will stop others and deter them from committing crimes and prevents others form even thinking to commit the crime. That is because the human psyche is always tending to move away from the painful results.

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,

The United States has been unable to fully break from Cold War mentality which began after World War II, and any attempts to try and adjust this policy have been done in miniscule steps resulting in little change. Deterrence has been a strategy utilized by several presidents and administrations since the onset of the Cold War, and in many ways it still remains the central strategy for current foreign policy. The objective of deterrence is to prevent foreign powers from committing unwanted actions against the U.S. or

In the 1700s, crime was rampant across every town in every country. Constables formed small patrols from volunteers in the community and it would not be until 1829 that the first police department in the world would be established. In these early days, there was no uniformity to the punishments given for crimes, but extremely severe punishments were common. It was during this time that Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham were born.

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

During the 1980’s and 1990’s Boston was having a drastic increase in homicide mainly involving the youth. The Boston police department researched that the majority of the crime was coming from the local gangs in Boston. The research showed that there weren’t a lot of gang members but those same gangs were responsible for at least 60% of the homicide deaths in Boston. So the Boston police department implemented Operation Ceasefire which used the deterrence theory to get their point across. The deterrence theory is defined as punishments that are so severe that the offenders who committed the crime wont do it again or will think before they do it again.

Throughout the world crime is happening every single day. Yes, some people may feel as if the deterrence theory does not work. Due to the fact that crime still happens in the world. This essay will look at the support for the theory. As well as the key problems for the theory. Next, it will explain some of the newest directions in deterrence/rational choice theory. Finally, it will either agree/disagree with someone’s thought on deterrence and how it does not work and is a waste of time to study.

Punishment given to offenders acts as an example for society and deters others from committing the same crime. Punishment serves as proof and as a model to the rest of society that criminal behavior will have consequences and can be seen as an educational tool. When using punishment as a threat, warning or intimidation tactic for the prevention of evil, it is formally referred to as general deterrence. “General deterrence stems from the perceived threat or fear of the inherent elements of punishment itself, not through some indirect process. Examples of general deterrence from fear of direct sanctions are refraining from speeding for fear of a fine or in my argument, refraining from a felony for fear of incarceration” (Williams & Hawkins, 547). By presenting

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

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.

So the theory suggests that because democracies externalise their interstate norms, they resolve disputes with other states like them in a peaceful way. Hence domestic inner-state policies influence their foreign policies. However, this proclamation is disputed by C. Layne who argues that the ‘crux’ of this theory is that if the assumption that democracies promote their peaceful inner-state norms and beliefs, then they shouldn’t ever threaten other democracies, especially not in a crisis. I will use the case study of the ‘Trent affair’ to provide evidence of how war was avoided. I will argue that in this case, war was avoided not because of the domestic pacific influence on foreign policy but because of other strategic reasons.

Russian Aggression is referenced over 6 times in the National Security Strategy (NSS) dated in February 2015 with similar references being made in the excerpt from Reagan Administration (March 1987) Soviet Military Power (SMP). Two documents with almost 28 years’ time difference show the continued importance that aggression by a Russian element still play in today’s environment. More importantly the method of how such aggression continues towards those states who are struggling to maintain a functioning government. Important similarities to take into account for both time periods are these conflicts are focused around failing states in areas such as the Middle East. These types of geopolitical locations continue to be the outlet where the conflicting ideals from the United States

The Ruhr occupation by France in 1923 was a product of a series of events, whose beginnings could be found in the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. France, because of its need to secure its borders with its former Great War foe, Germany, and in fear of that the reparations, as they had been dictated by Versailles treaty, would not be paid, invaded the area of Ruhr on January 11, 1923, along with Belgium. The passive resistance shown by the Germans, alongside with the unfavourable to the occupation Great Britain’s and USA’s attitude, led to the Dawes’ Plan in 1924 and its implementation. Dawes’ Plan was confirmed by the London Conference during July and August in 1924, and led to the evacuation of Ruhr by France and Belgium in 1924.

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

The international system is a self-help system; states are obliged to look after themselves, because there is no one else to look after them. Waltz does not assume that states are pursuing the increase in their power and the importance of them between others states, necessarily aggressive body, but he does believe that they desire to preserve themselves. This means that they are obliged to be considered with their security, national defence and obliged to regard other states as potential threats (Brown, 2001).