Essay for World Politics

Name: Jaa-Dee Moerman

Student #: (102455300)
Due: Dec. 10/08
Instructor: Dr. Chasdi
Class: 45-160-02
 In today’s society, politics play a major role that shapes everyday lives.

Much of our political information is brought to our consciousness by the media.

Within the last decade, the media has become more prolific throughout the

world, providing people with information that may or may not be politically

skewed. This essay is going to provide insight into three critical sets of dynamics

in the working of the international political system through examples from the

media dealing with current issues. The topics that will be discussed include: Laws

of War, nations state security dilemma and Functionalism.

There are laws or agreements in place to prevent unjust warfare across

the world. Jus ad bellum, justice of war, is a set of rules that are used before

going to war with another nation state. Jus in bello is a set of laws “regulating

the methods that states may use in war” without sanctions (Kegley 550). Jus in

bello, justice in war, has three important rules to follow. The first undertaking is

that when in war every effort must be made to protect innocent civilians from

direct military warfare, such as bombs and gun fire. Although high powered

cameras and intelligence information gained by countries such as the United

States can inform where civilians versus military are, there are invariable

innocent causalities. Furthermore, although a rule of war is that innocent people

are not harmed, there are so many other impacts of war. For example, bombs

and gun fire, may avoid directly harming innocent people but the ravages they

take on buildings and the fear they cause for people experiencing them are

indirect harm to innocent civilians. The next rule is categorized as military

necessity, which states that every non- violent opportunity must be exhausted

before using military force. An example of a non-violent act is the economic

sanctions, which are a set of consequences dealing with trading and tariffs that

are in place by the United State against Cuba. The last rule states that “hostile

and illegal acts are only permitted if made in a proportionate response to a

hostile and illegal act” (Kegley 550). An example in the Media that describes a

war crime being committed was in November 2005, when United States Marines

had killed innocent civilians in western Iraq. In May of 2006, it was revealed in

the New York Times that the civilians killed at Haditha “did not die from a

makeshift bomb as the military first reported, or in a cross–fire between marines

and attackers.” Rather, that the United States Marines did in fact carry “out

extensive, unprovoked killings of civilians, Congressional, Military and Pentagon

officials said.” (New York Times May 26, 2006) As stated in the first rule of Jus

in Bello, the US army had broken a major and important law, not to kill innocent

civilians. (I WOULD ELABORATE IN HERE SOMEHOW like talking about what the

punishment was or perhaps how they had media releases that were contradicting

what actually took place?) When the laws of war are broken there is an

International Criminal Court that was established in July, 2002, where the war

crimes would be tried. This court is located in Den Haag, Netherlands. An

example of a war crime where the matter was heard at this court is....

Jus ad bellum consists of guidelines and opportunities that must be

considered before, during and after going to war. Should there be an infraction
of these rules, the offending countries or states are tried in the International

Criminal Court. The first rule in regards to going to war is there must be a just

cause. A nation-state must not go to war for self gains, but are allowed to

declare war to protect innocent civilians from forthcoming danger. The next

guideline states that a war must have the right intentions for taking military

actions. For example, a country can have a just war with right intentions;

however you could also have a war with right intentions that is not just. Another

regulation states that a pre emptive attack is allowed when there is

overpowering evidence stating that a country’s threat is real. The definition of

pre-emptive attack is to “attack enemies and state sponsors of terrorism before

they can strike” (Kegley 589). An example of a pre-emptive attack is. A post

attack is also justice if another nation-state attacks a country. Post-Attack is a

country going to war to right a suffered wrong. For example, after the terrorist

attacks from September 11, 2001 the United States launched a war on terrorism

in Afghanistan. “The primary remaining military objectives are to uproot the

Taliban from Kandahar, their original stronghold and last centre of power, and to

hunt down Osama Bin Laden and his fellow terrorists” (New York Times,

November 27, 2001). The last rule in Jus ad bellum is that prior to undertaking

an armed war, the nation state examines and exhausts every alternative to

warfare. This is similar to that outlined in Jus in Bello. In 2003 the United States

launched a pre-emptive attack against Iraq due to some supporting evidence

that linked Al Qaeda and President Saddam-Hussein together as well as Iraq

having weapons of mass destruction. Today there is much controversy in the

media over this pre-emptive war in Iraq because overall there were never any

weapons of mass destruction located despite exhaustive searching by United

States and allied forces. This had raised many questions in regards to the

information that the United States had in deciding to launch the attack. In May,

2007 previous President Jimmy Carter stated, “we now have endorsed the

concept of pre-emptive aware where we go to war with another nation militarily

even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change

the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future might be in danger”

(New York Times, May 20, 2007). Some discussions in the media account for the

pre-emptive strike by the United States and allied forces as being over kill since

they have found no weapons, however; others posture that after planes tore

through buildings and killed many innocent Americans and the intelligence or

‘intel’ had been only moderate, we could expect no less from the United States

than to respond this time.

(NOT great lead in here, try to go at this again to make a better flow

below)

Nation state security dilemma is important for determining war and peace.

It is the concept of one nation state building an army and weapons, which makes

other states nervous. The other nation states are nervous and unsettled

because they don’t know what the weapons and army’s purpose is going to be.

For example, the alignment of a row of missiles on a nation state’s border,

pointing straight in the air toward bordering states. The bordering states do not

know whether they are for offensive or defensive purposes. The other bordering

states do not know if the military and armament will be used against them or for

another bordering or nation state, they start building their own army and

weapons to feel more secure. An arms race is the name for this concept of

building armies. This continues to happen with many nation states, creating

almost continuous cycle, which is why it is called a “security dilemma.” It would

be more efficient and effective if nation states did not build their armies;

however, there is mistrust among many leaders and great fear after the terrorist

attacks on the United States. An example from today’s society is the ongoing

conflict between the neighbouring countries India and Pakistan who have already

fought three wars against each other. These two countries have a brittle peace

agreement; however, trained military personnel from Pakistan had been blamed

by India for the recent terror attacks on November 28, 2008. With the increased

tensions between the two bordering countries, Pakistan has, “put its air force on

alert. A day later, two security officials told reports that Pakistan troops fighting

the Taliban and al Qaeda along the western border with Afghanistan would be

sent east toward India, if New Delhi made any moves to mobilize its forces”

(Wall street Journal, December 6, 2008). This example demonstrates that with

India having military forces in New Delhi, Pakistan does not know what military

purpose India has them there for. In order to be ready for an attack, Pakistan

has its air force on alert and forces ready to be moved in the event of more
mobilization of India’s military to New Delhi. This tragic example centres on a

terrorist attack, resulting in one-hundred and seventy-one deaths, but it is a

perfect example in regards to the nation’s security dilemma. Another great yet

older example of the nation’s state security dilemma is the Cuban missile crisis

which was in 1962. The Cubans underwent an economic embargo put in place by

the United States and they also feared an attack from the United States because

of John F. Kennedy taking into consideration a military attack and seeing flights

from United States spy planes. The United States did not implement any direct

physical attack. Later in that year, the United States feared that missiles

discovered by a spy plane, which the Soviet Union were assembling in Cuba

would be used against their nation state. Within a few weeks of the discovery

and after much talk and negotiations with the Soviets, the Soviets disassembled

the missiles. This proves that the nation’s security dilemma is an ongoing

problem from past to present. Overall in regards to these examples and from the

definition of nation’s security dilemma a nation state building their army makes

them feel more secure when in fact it makes itself less secure as other countries

perceive their use of these armaments against them.

Functionalism is “a rival but complementary reform movement associated

with liberalism,” it is, “not directed toward creating a federal institution for global

governance. Rather it seeks to build “peace by peaces” through transnational

organizations” (Kegley 566). The major approach to functionalism is peace and

prosperity. Functionalism is related to neo-liberalism in many ways such that

neo-liberalist actors (why are you discussing actors here and hereafter? –if you

want to you need to introduce it better as to why it is relevant)focus on global

interests, justice, peace and prosperity, and morality. Functionalism however

strongly disagrees with the realists’ point of view. Realists focus more on the

independent states and their core concern is power and security. Functionalists;

however, believe that poverty, lack of resources such as food, water and shelter

cause war. There are many non-state actors, actors at the international stage

that are not nation-states, that believes in functionalism. The United Nations

children’s funds also known as UNICEF, is an example of a non-state actor

related to functionalism. In a recent effort, UNICEF “has launched a 120-day

emergency response to intensify relief efforts in Zimbabwe’s educational and

health sectors” (Chinaview, December 3, 2008). This demonstrates

Bibliography

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122859535968285621.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
India Pakistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/world/middleeast/26haditha.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9802E3DF1E3AF934A15752C1A9679C8B63&scp=5&sq=war%20in
%20afghanistan&st=cse

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9D00EFDE113FF93AA35750C0A9659C8B63&scp=7&sq=jimmy%20carter
%20&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/washington/20carter.html?scp=8&sq=jimmy
%20carter%20may%202007&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/world/asia/18korea.html?scp=13&sq=North
%20Korea&st=cse
Korea

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/03/content_10450620.htm
unicef