War and State Sovereignty

Introduction

The political aspect of defining what war is, causes the primary philosophical difficulty, however once this is recognized, a description which arrests the clash of weapons, the condition of common tension and danger of aggression among groups, the approved pronouncement by a sovereign state, and so on can be looked upon to differentiate wars from insurgences and rebellions, combined fighting from personal fighting, metaphorical conflicts of values from real or threatened conflicts of arms. According to Cicero, war is ‘a contention by force’ while, Thomas Hobbes states that “war is also an attitude” Another description of war is that; war is an all-pervasive occurrence of the world. Consequently, wars are simple signs of the basic aggressive manner of the world. The motives as to why states and individuals may get into war has remained a subject of moral scrutiny

State sovereignty

For hundred of years state sovereignty has, been a significant rule of interstate relationships and a basis of the world order, The concept of State sovereignty lies at the core of both the traditional international rule and also the United Nations (UN) Charter. It has remained both a critical element of the preservation of global peace and security and more so a protection of weak nations against strong ones. In addition, the conception has never been as sacred, both in practice or law, as an official legal description may imply. According to past UN Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, "The time of absolute sovereignty has passed; its theory was never matched by reality." (Angelo, 2006)

Practically, sovereignty of states’ has regularly been dishonoured by powerful nations. In the present’s globalized world, it is commonly accepted that cultural, economic and environmental influences do not respect boundaries nor does it require an access visa. The conception of state sovereignty is extensively ingrained in legal and also political dissertation. Similarly, territorial bounders are becoming under pressure and have weakened in importance as an outcome of modern international relationships. both communications and technology  has made boundaries permeable, while the political elements of internal turmoil and misery have also frequently resulted in larger international turmoil. (Angelo, 2006)

Meaning and reason of sovereignty

State sovereignty stand for the capability, independent or self-government, and lawful equality of nations. The conception is usually used to include all issues in which all state is permitted through international law in deciding and acting without interferences from any other sovereign nations or states. These issues comprise the selection of political, social, cultural and economic systems and the crafting of foreign policy. The range of the autonomy of option of a state in these issues is limited; it depends upon advancements in the international law (which includes agreements formed voluntarily) and the international relations. (Angelo, 2006)

As a characteristic of statehood territorial sovereignty, lies behind the structure of international arrangement in relationships amongst states. An action of hostility is illegal, not only as it challenges international world order, but also since states have applied their sovereignty to forbid war. More so, the breakdown or deteriorating of state ability which brings around a political void inside states results to human sufferings and regional and international insecurity. Aggressive, oppressive, or disintegrated states might lead in threats to regional and international security and peace. (Angelo, 2006)

Theories of war: Balance of Power Theory

The balance of power theory forecasts that swift alterations in the international supremacy and status, particularly efforts by one nation to conquer a region, will inflame counterbalancing acts. Because of this, the balancing process assists to preserve the stability of relationship among states. It has been observed that, a balance of power structure works most successfully when coalitions are fluid that is when coalitions are easily created or wrecked on the foundation of convenience, in spite of religion, history, values or type of regime. Infrequently a one nation plays a balancer function, changing it’s oppose or support whatever nation or coalition is strongest. A limitation of the balance of power theory is the complexity of calculating power. . (Keohane and Nye, 1977)

Complex Interdependence Theory

The phrase “complex interdependence” was formulated by Keohane Robert and Nye Joseph and it refers to different, complex transnational interdependencies (connections) among nations and communities. Interdependence theorists observed that such relationships, in particular economic relations were raising; whereas the using of military power and also power balancing conception were reducing (though remained significant). Thinking about these developments, Interdependence theorists stated that the decrease of military power as a policy instrument and the raise in economical and other types of interdependence ought to enhance the possibility of collaboration amongst nations. The complex interdependence structure can be viewed as an effort to combine aspects of liberal and realist thought. Finally, foreseeing difficulties of cheating and comparative benefits elevated by the realists, the interdependence theorists brought in the conception of “regimes” to lessen anarchism and assist cooperation and collaboration. (Keohane and Nye, 1977)

Defensive Realism

Defensive realism theory is an umbrella phrase for numerous theories regarding international politics and foreign policy which was builds on Robert Jervis's works about the security predicament and also to a small degree on Kenneth Waltz's balance of power concept (neo-realism). (Taliaferro, 2001)  Defensive realism argues that, the global system offers inducements for extension simply under some circumstances. Anarchy (lack of a worldwide sovereign or universal government) forms circumstances where by the instruments which one nation uses to amplify it security reduces the security level of other nations. Such a security dilemma leads nations to be troubled about each other's future intents and comparative power. Pairs of nations might follow solely security seeking strategies; however unintentionally create spirals of common hostility or disagreement. Nations frequently, though not always, follow expansionist policies since their leaders incorrectly think that hostility is the only method which can make their action safe. Defensive realism foresees big difference in internationally directed extension and proposes that nations must generally pursue modest strategies as the most excellent path to achieving security. Under many situations, the powerful nations in the international structure ought to pursue diplomatic, military and also foreign economic strategies which communicate self-control. The Examples of defensive realism comprise: offence defence theory (Jervis, et al), balance of power theory (Posen Barry, Mastanduno Michael), balance of threat theory (Walt Stephen), domestic mobilization theory (Snyder Jack, Christensen Thomas, and Friedberg Aron), and the security dilemma theory (Christensen Thomas, Ross Robert, and Rose William). (Taliaferro, 2001)

Strategic theory

Strategic theory is an arm of social theory which is concerned about the application of force in achieving the objectives of one state or community in a conflict with others. The theory aims at outlining a good understanding of the way to use armed forces in advancing social, economic, political, cultural and even ideological interest. The first thing in strategic analysis, according to Napoleon is to question what the war is all about (Taliaferro, 2001).  If war is about nothing then it is only a maze of bloodshed which can just be talk about technical terms. Thus, it is as a result of war being an organized social venture, that strategic theory is required which entails calculating use of collective fighting for some unknown aim becomes necessary and also possible.

It is important to understand thee question of Napoleon on the aim of the war, because ones the aim is known it becomes easy to formulate a strategy.  The cause of war is also important to formulating the strategy. War is normally, caused by a myriad of complex political social and even cultural reasons which bring about war. In addition a strategy also is brought about by the military capabilities of a state or a group which is involved in the war. Strategy conception have gained acceptance over time and currently since many states use military force their military strategies resembles so much despite their differences in cultural settings. During the world wars, all the armies fighting had a similar strategy of concentrating stronger forces to fight against weak ones. Studies has revealed that anything fight on land whether is a strong force of armies or military vehicles is usually vulnerable at the flanks and the rear than  at the front, as such soldiers fighting exploit such weak areas. Thus, the aim of strategy in a war is to find the weak areas and fully exploit them while covering yours. Strategy in the current world has becoming more crucial in the face of advanced technology and war tactics. (Gat, 2006)

The US- Soviet Union cold war

The Cold War era started from 1985 and ended in 1991, the era started with Mikhail Gorbachev arising to power as the Soviet leader, and ended up with the collapsing of the mighty Soviet Union in 1991. Some of the reasons of the cold war were;

• American’s dread of communist assault
• Truman’s hate of Stalin
• Russia’s dread of American’s atomic bomb 
• Russia’s hate of capitalism
• Russia’s acts in the Soviet region of Germany
• America’s rejection in sharing nuclear secrets
• Russia’s requirement for a protected western border
• Russia’s objective of extending world communism

These feelings of suspicion resulted to mutual mistrust and this caused a huge deal to intensify the Cold War. (Raymond, 2000)

Ending cold war

Past US president Ronald Reagan, retired as his biggest legacy in his role in assisting speed up the ending of the Cold War. The international rivalry among the US and the Soviet Union, that devoted the two nations for about 46 years, which cost a lot of billions of dollars and resulted to formation of the highest destructive arms ever recognized, arrived at its peak in the Reagan's presidency days and then perished just a few years subsequent to him leaving the office. (Raymond, 2000)

The causes for this unexpected turn about of happenings are bigger than Reagan and extent far past his administration. The origins can be established in stagnation of the Soviet structure in the 1970s and early on 1980s and possibly most significantly in the leadership of Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, who unlocked the gates of change. (Raymond, 2000)

The US in the period previous to and throughout the Reagan administration, experienced a revolution in latest technology which the Soviet Union could not equal. The Soviet administration was undergoing strain from Reagan's administration defence upsurge and operation of medium-range missiles arms in Europe, the mujaheddin who were CIA-backed fighting with Soviet armed forces in Afghanistan and also Reagan's intend missile defence structure. And more so the US challenged the Soviet in a number of conflicts from Angola to Nicaragua. These last wars of Cold War formed Reagan's foreign policies. (Raymond, 2000)

East-West strains eased quickly following the climb of Mikhail Gorbachev. subsequent to the passing away of three successive aged Soviet leaders as from1982, the Soviet Union Politburo voted Gorbachev Communist Party  in March 1985, starting the ascend of a fresh generation of political leadership. In Gorbachev regime, comparatively young reform-based technocrats, who had started their professions in the peak days of “de-Stalinization” below reformist Nikita Khrushchev, (1953-1965), quickly strengthened their power, giving fresh thrust for economic and political liberalization and the momentum for creating warmer relationships and trade activities with the West. (Raymond, 2000)

The double weights of Cold War weapons competition, and the stipulation of huge sums of overseas and military support, that Soviet’s socialist partners had developed to anticipate, probably left Gorbachev's attempts to improve manufacture of consumer products and restructuring the languishing economy just impossible (Raymond, 2000)

The outcome was a double approach of better collaboration with the West jointly with economic reform and also democratization domestically, that finally made it not possible for Soviet’s Gorbachev to reclaim vital power and authority against Warsaw Pact member states. This finally led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and which signalled the end of the cold war. (Raymond, 2000)

Theories of peace: Democratic Peace

Every democratic peace theory seeks to clarify the uncertain empirical information that two legitimate democracies have not fought with one another in modern history (1816 upwards). Because of this, they lay on a related proposition: that relationships among coupling of democratic nations are naturally more peaceful than relationships among some other nation-type couplings (for example democratic vs. non-democratic or non-democratic vs. non-democratic). To demonstrate the actuality of democratic peace, philosophers for instance Michael Doyle have wanted to illustrate a underlying relations among the autonomous variable; “democratic political arrangements at the element level,” and dependant variable; “the asserted non-existence of war among democratic states”. Opponents, for example Ido Oren, disagree with the statements of democratic peace theorists through maintaining that there is a liberal prejudice in the explanation of “democracy” that weakens the substantiation. (Keohane and Nye, 1977)

Democratic peace theory to an extent has been particularly troublesome amongst political scientists, the theory is founded in the idealist and traditional liberalist practices and it opposes the earlier leading concept of realism. Nonetheless, democratic peace theory, has increasingly been more broadly accepted by many, and has been able in several democracies to effect policy adjustment. (Keohane and Nye, 1977)

Deterrence Theory

Deterrence is normally reflected upon in ways of convincing adversaries that a certain acts would bring out an answer resulting in deplorable damage which could overshadow any possible advantage. Slightly just like an easy cost/benefits computation, nevertheless, deterrence is highly beneficially considered in relations of a active procedure with stipulations for constant response. The process at first entails determining who should try to discourage whom from performing what, and through which means. Numerous significant suppositions underline most consideration concerning deterrence. Practitioners seem to imagine, for instance, that states are act in unison and rational in accordance to the Western ideas of rationality. Deterrence as well presumes that one can sufficiently comprehend the computations of an adversary. (Keohane and Nye, 1977)

An assumption which was very important throughout the Cold War was that, nuclear missiles were the highly successful deterrent to War involving the US and Soviet Union or their allies. This supposition, moved into post-Cold War period, nevertheless, might encourage nuclear weapon proliferation. in fact, a number of authors advocate that the increase of nuclear weaponry would deter a lot of states from starting  war amongst each other. The nuclear weapons would, it is observed, offer weaker nations with a lot of security against assaults from stronger neighbours. Certainly, this viewpoint is as well projected on the supposition that each state player's wisdom will operate against the using of these weaponry, and that nuclear weapons competitions will consequently not result in a nuclear fighting. (Keohane and Nye, 1977)

Conclusion

War is seen as apolitical tool, brought about as a continuation of the political acts through other ways. War occurs because the feuding parties have disagreed in one way or another in terms of ideology, political, social or even cultural aspects. However, According to the UN charter each state is sovereign and has a right to its own decisions, which should not be aggressive to other states. Several theories have been put across to explain both war and peace. The cold war between the US and Soviet Union was a result of mistrust and ended because of hardships in the Soviet Union. It is clear that war is a controversial aspect which lacks clear limitations.

Reference:

Angelo C (2006): War: Ends and Means; Potomac Books,  

Gat, A (2006): War in Human Civilization, Oxford University Press.

Keohane, R. and Nye, J (1977): Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Little-Brown, Boston,

Mearsheimer, J.J (2002): Tragedy of Great Power Politics, W.W. Norton, New York

Raymond, C (2000): Warless Societies and the Origin of War, University of Michigan Press.

Taliaferro, J. W (2001): Security-Seeking Under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Reconsidered,' International Security