The states that joined NATO were willing to put their personal state goals aside to cooperate and achieve a goal for the common good; in the case of the Cold War defeating the Soviet threat based on its communist ideologies (Walt, 1998). During the Cold War NATO strengthened the trans-Atlantic relations between the countries while simultaneously deterring the Soviet threat through its various institutions (Webber, 2009). Many of NATO’s members had common economic, political and social values thus the connection between the countries was strong, and I believe that this was a driving factor in the outcome of the Cold War. In the late 1980’s, toward the end of the Cold War, Gorbechuv realized that the Soviet Union’s economy was failing and was unable to keep up with NATO so he created liberal policies that were inline with NATO’s policies and ideologies (Doyle, 1996). These new policies led to even further weakening of the Soviet Union, economically and politically and as a result there were revolutions against the communist governments of many of the Warsaw Pact alliance member (Doyle, 1996).
Chaos/Complexity Theory and Deterrence Deterrence was once successful during the cold war as there were calls in preventing a major war. However, when history is reviewed, deterrence has not worked so well. The bipolar simplicity of Cold war, strong command and control systems, and the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation showed the extreme cases of deterrence. Deterrence proved just to work well during the Cold war as opposed to after it. Its ineffective nature could be because of getting involved in conflict that we could actually avoid.
Government officials agreed with the Espionage and Seditions Acts. The Acts were passed so that people could not say any statements that could interfere with the success of winning the war. People in the United States wanted to win the war, so they were willing to give up some of their rights. In 1918, Charles T. Schenck was convicted because he violated the Espionage Act. The Supreme Court said that “When a nation is at war many things which might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its efforts that their utterance will not be endured as long as men fight.” They upheld his conviction and sent him to prison.
This was due to the position of the USA that the juridical content of the ‘laws of humanity’ could not be defined. They went into the nature of war, after taking objection to the use of the terms ‘Laws of Humanity’, wherein they went on to say that the war by its nature was inhuman, but consistent with the laws and customs of war and they further said that the judicial tribunal could only deals with and administers the existing laws and it is not the forum to discuss the moral laws and laws contrary to principles and laws of humanity. “ The
Institutionalists also focus on the free riding problem, which assumes that nations will tend to cheat and not do their part in producing public goods. International institutions, such as the United Nations or World Trade Organization, can help in establishing and sustaining cooperation among states by reducing transaction costs, helping with monitoring (free riding problem), and offering third party mediation. Neorealism and institutionalism have their differences, but they share also some common assumptions. Therefore, both perspectives agree that states are the main actors in international relations, act in rational self-interest, and are faced with anarchy as an obstacle to cooperation. However, neorealists view anarchy as a threat to survival, while institutionalists see it as a threat to cooperation.
Conflict constitutes a major threat to the development of African countries in terms of the loss of human life, destruction of property, displacement of people, diversion of resources and the funding of expensive peacekeeping support operations. Peace, in my perspective, is the means to the end of developed state. Specifically, the term refers to the state of mutual harmony between two parties which encompasses an environment that can allow for growth. There are however various reasons that can hinder the attainment of peace in a specific country. National interests of a superior state may prevent the attainment of peace in a developing state.
the main problem that the military faced during this time was still the Great Depression which made it hard to really start expanding and the president at the time Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not in any sort of mood to increase government spending including the military. He did have a very decent idea that the world was coming closer to another world war however he had already promised not to increase government spending so he limited the amount of rearmament that the military was able to do. Eventually once the United States had left the depression to expand more and adopted the Navy Second To None policy which showed as our Battleship count to Japan's Battleship count was 15 to 10 however Japan still Trump's America in several field such as destroyers in which Japan had 122 and America had 104. This is also the same case for submarines showing the United States had 56 and Japan had 62. All I know the tensions around the world rows and America still struggled to properly mobilize themselves.
Unfortunately, there are many more locations that need an intermediary nation to fix their issues and policies. The United States has long been the country of control and should continue to promote its ideas across the world, disregarding the criticisms. Although there is a counterculture that is condemning the imperialistic actions of the United States in the past, the results of these actions are key factors in the balance of powers. Ordinarily, imperialism is a controversial term due to its history, but the idea is not as negative as portrayed. Rather, the implementation had selfish tendencies, but if viewed on a larger scale, the effects were extremely beneficial by supplying nations with democratic thinking.
Their roles could be to encourage peace and security by focusing on peacekeeping in disputed areas, promoting dispute resolution via peaceful means or diplomatic ways e.g. negotiation and compromise. As well, some international organizations are obligatory to encourage the colonized countries to have fully autonomous control of their areas under the regulations set by themselves. As the peace is what to be the common goal of international organization, hence they partake in stop the use of of weapons and focus on weapons control as well as the ban of nuclear weapons testing to strengthen mutual security. The importance of international organization in political aspect has been more increasingly vivid since the end of World War I which led to many ruins and costly lessons to all involved countries due to the high death
According to this school of thought, International Relations is an arena where different sovereign states acts as a rational unit and sets aside morals and values for their own political and economic advancement and the thought also mentioned that the only way of achieving international security is to balance the power among the powerful states within the arena, which results in states continuously enacting and creating International Laws and Policies to even the scales. The different needs and desires of man potentially brings out the rational capabilities of the state to think for itself and its own. As to my opinion on the matter I consider International Laws and Policies as a result of a cause and effect, it can be the cause as well as the effect per se. It is a cause in a sense that man continuously create and enact International Laws and Policies to succeed or improve the previous law, and an effect in a sense that it is the results of man’s desire to promote and advance his own welfare and property, Which ultimately leads to these kinds of laws and policies. The effect of international law is additive, not absolute.