Non-state actor

Diverse personal encounters with non-state armed actors animate my research agenda, and I seek to discern the meaning of a picture formed by pieces of a puzzle collected during my years of military service. As a peacekeeper in Kosovo, I witnessed how a random rifle shot could spark a series of reprisals across invisible lines that separated villages. My soldiers and I were almost powerless to stop them. On one hand, our legal mandate prevented our ability to take direct action. One the other

realism and constructivist theory to highlight ways in which the constructivist perspective better addresses state-sponsored terrorism’s effect on global relations. Classical realism focuses on the interactions of state players. There are three main components to the classical realist perspective; state-centrism, rationality, and power. State-sponsored terrorism is controlled by state actors to achieve the goal of political gain. In such instances, “countries which perceive themselves as the victims”

in Australia has been an intense debate, extending back to the beginning of the 20th century. Stemming from the Creswell-Foster divide has emerged two sides, the state centric, geostrategic concept of the ‘Defence of Australia’ and the alliance-centric concept of the ‘Security Based Defence’. As well as these policy approaches is the state coercive notion of ‘puritive deterrence’. The following paper aims to compare and contrast the main arguments regarding Austalian defence policy, through the relevance

In this paper I will argue that the current state of international politics is characterized more by cooperation then conflict, and the international politics today is more cooperative then it was in previous eras of international relations. The change in behavior is a result of increased participation in formal international institutions, and the growing interconnectedness of societies as a result of globalization. The shift in international relations from conflictual to cooperative behavior

definition is archaic and does not take in to account the new world environment and power of some state and non-state actors in the cyber realm. In 2012, the State Department viewed cyber activities that result in death, injury, or significant destruction to critical infrastructure as acts that could constitute the use of force (Cyberwarfare and Cyberterrorism: In Brief, Congressional Research Service). A state actor conducting a cyberattack that introduces a malware bug in to the U.S. financial system causing

focuses on state interaction and terrorists as some believe are transnational actors. While it may be easier to pick any other international theory, there are some aspects of realism that can explain terrorism and will be explained throughout this section. One, terrorism is not only a weapon used by non-state actors, regimes and governments use it against their own citizens, which end up involving other countries in the end. Two, policies that are enacted to counter terrorism affect how states interact

State centricity is vital in the understanding of neo-realist thought. Neo-realism is based on three key features, Survival, Self-help and Statism where the outcomes of policies must benefit the state first and foremost. In this way, the decision-making processes are made by the state rather than international actors. Consequently, the state-centric approach deals predominately with the state being of utmost importance in relation to other global matters. However this approach fails to appropriately

persistent threat-trends of 2025 include the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the rise of modern competitor states, violent extremism, irregular warfare, regional instability, transnational criminal activity, competition for resources, and lone actors. The National Military Strategy (NMS) of 2015 breaks down future threats into the categories of revisionist states and violent extremist organizations, while recognizing the

force.1 and what that means for when the victim state can respond and to what level are they allowed under international law. As cyberattacks continue to change and increase in nature the US government needs a coordinated and well thought out approach that is able to deter future cyber-attacks that are considered an act of war and setting precedence. The US state department took an active stance on this in 2012 where Mr.Koh as Department of State Legal Advisor laid out what it considers to be a

or the Budget Control Act of 2011, magnifies the criticality of miscalculated future force decisions. The persistent trends that summarize the threats of 2025 include the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the rise of modern competitor states, violent extremism, regional instability, transnational criminal activity, and competition for resources. The National Military Strategy (NMS) of 2015 breaks