War and International Law
Carl von Clausewitz theory remain prevalent despite the development of multi polar entities on the international chess board policy instruments like international law create space for soft power and far less aggressive pragmatism. Article 2, Section 1 of the UN Charter states that “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Section 3 states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations.”( Un.org). One has to then inquire as to once warfare has commenced can our warriors be held criminally liable for operations conducted under the command of the President? Can information gathered be legally used in court and what methods are legal in the U.S. to obtain information? How does this affect the 2009 National Security Strategy and future strategies in the future?
Clausewitz Principles of War
Carl von Clausewitz concepts of the nature of war are identical to what the historical and current philosophy that shapes our contemporary security strategies. Our country until 1996 operated with consistency on the premise that war is and should be a last resort in our National Security Strategy. The United States government was hesitant to enter the Revolution, both World Wars, and Vietnam. The Korean War was the exception is in some historian’s vantage point. There is great debate as to whether the Korean War an s a war of choice or necessity. Some say that when Truman and MacArthur choose to go past the 38th Parallel they made it a war of choice many agrees and disagree with this. Clausewitz's establishes three major principles in the first three chapters and throughout his writings. The first being that war should never be seen in what he calls a “Purpose to itself”, rather a way of “physically forcing an entities opposition. To quote Clausewitz directly in chapter one he defines war and says “War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, political commerce” (Clausewitz ,1982). Clausewitz next principle is war falls into two categories; wars that disarm and wars that achieve limited aims. Clausewitz‘s third principle is that war tends to favor the party employing more force and resources.
The Role of Humanitarian Law
Clausewitz basically creates the principles that create a foundation for the security policy post World War II. Based on these assumptions we see a rapid decline in humanitarian rights and the international community authority over the protection of Human rights and a rapid evolution of nation states acting unilaterally to use war as a primary tool to achieve political goals.(Clausewitz ,1982). Humanitarian law and the very premise of human rights is in danger. Humanitarian Law protects the basic human rights of the parties involved during =and after conflict and ultimately ensure that polices remain to objective and issue such as genocide do not occur. Arguments that support
First, they attach to persons rather than to particular jurisdictions; that is, they apply regardless of who violates them or where the violations occur. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article (2) states that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it is independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Second, they are globally recognized as standards of legitimacy binding not only on states but also on IGOs, TNCs, and the like. This reason is supported in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article (30) Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. This runs counter to the assertion that war is a political tool.
Third, and related, human rights as to war do not require a comprehensive political framework for their implementation; their protection is compatible with the multiplicity of governance including democratic state government characteristic of global politics. This reason is supported in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article (29) (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
Offense vs Defense
The Offense-defense theory was created by Robert Jervi. This theory has been two different variants, ie being the threat variant. The threat variant states that the greater the security threat a states faces the more aggressive they should become. The fundamental idea is the “states seek security and clash because their goals and actions threaten others security. The search and desire for security is a primary reason for wars and weapon proliferation. War is more likely when conquest is easy less likely when conquest is hard states fear conquest and aggress o avert it. The sub variant is fear violence against their citizens and aggresses to avert it. The second variant is called the opportunity variant which simply establishes the premises that the more easily a state can conquer the more aggressive they will become. A state will seize what its power will allow and an empire will grow a contract as its power rises and falls.
As the offense grows stronger, war is more likely to result in either the total victory or total defeat of a state’s army, and less likely to yield stalemate or small changes in territorial holdings. This means that offensive advantages make war less safe for leaders interested in retaining power in a capital city. When defense dominates, leaders can prosecute war “with little fear of being deposed or otherwise subjected by a conquering army. Robert Jervis argued that technological, geographical, and political factors that render offensive operations less costly and more effective tend to make security competition fiercer and wars more likely. This is significant to US national security because we have based our security plan solely on the basis of strength thus we armed ourselves with weapons and technology that gives us an offensive advantage. We do not defend our home territory we instead move with aggressive offensive tactical strategy that allows us to establish air, ground and sea dominance. We developed this tactic during WWII and have perfected it over the last six decades. This was apparent in the second Gulf war and in the Bosnian war. US forces established Air superiority using strikes by aircraft, cruise missiles strikes. The US uses its navy to support land and air missions and use ground forces to capture and maintain strategic outpost.
Non Interventionism vs. Interventionism
Internal sources base their opposition two factors. The first factor is exporting democracy they argue that countries citizens are the only ones who can promote democracy. The desire for and struggle for has to come from within. Christopher Coyne establishes that cooperation and self governance is a habit. Citizens volunteer cooperation around liberal democratic institutions as well as self sustaining. Cone stress the point that without independent development constant coercion and intervention will be needed i.e “nation building”. This position of intervention is simply motivated not mainly by the desire to spread democracy but on behalf of more self-interested objectives. Sometimes the motivating force is national interest, and promoting democracy is how policymakers sell the war-and subsequent occupation- to the American public.
The second factor is that those who support nonintervention also base their arguments that the promotion of democracy add, that democracies are not necessarily peaceful in their relations with other kinds of political systems. Owens argues that democratic peace is vulnerable in three areas: Still, they insist that sovereign stable democracies have never waged war with each other in the modern international system. “The first it contains two inherent ambiguities, democracy is immeasurable, democracy is undefined and lastly democratic peace lacks a convincing theoretical foundation (Owen). The ability to conjugate democracy will determine the effectiveness of democratic peace. Democracy is more likely to emerge in countries whose neighbors are democratic, presumably due to the cross-border exchanges and peer-to-peer learning that close proximity allows between nations.
External sources and regional stability
Propositions argue that the peace between democracies is based on shared democratic norms or political institutions. The relationship of relative peace among democracies is a result of some features of democracy; and it is not caused exclusively by economic or geopolitical characteristics of the state. External sources argue in support a semi pluralist and semi globalist position. Pluralism is created on a different set assumptions than a realistic form of government in pluralism we see that this form uses a multiple bodies working cohesively to produce policy rather than one solitary entity. No one body actually rules yet they rule by consensus of the cooperative bodies. In globalism there are three fundamental assumptions: The first is that the origins of relations between democratic nations exist only in a global context. The second assumption is all international relations between democratic nations are viewed from historical context, and last coalitions between democratic nations focus on the mechanism of domination. When examining exporting democracy, one cannot help but draw the conclusion that organizations such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the infamous International Atomic Energy Agency. Under the primary assumption the “big picture” ideology is paramount and primary to the approach to actual governance. The idea that the parts are less important to the whole is the mission and policy of exporting democracy. This assumption makes no room for nationalism or protectionism.
Using Leverage vs. International Trade to promote stability .
Leverage does not work in the long term promotion and sustainment of democracy. Leverage is used to target external exposure and is defined by non interventionist like Coyne also argue that the method in which the promotion of democracy occurs is a paramount as the motivation, and can yield more counterproductive results to a nation state. Goldsmith argues that the use of leverage or “gun barrel” diplomacy or “military interventionism” is the proposed policy of nonintervention and free trade does not work in the case of failed states. On page 12 of "Making the World Safe for Partial Democracy? Questioning the Premises of Democracy Promotion" Arthur Goldsmith states that the relative absence of pluralistic political systems in the Greater Middle East thus also works against the emergence of additional institutionally consistent democratic regimes across that region (Arthur).
Finally, human rights articulate aims rather than mechanisms. They describe what should be achieved, not how it should be achieved. This makes them flexibility and adaption to diversity of existing and emerging forms of governance. This reason is supported in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.