Carl Schmitt’s claim that politics is fundamentally distinct from other spheres is persuasive on the premise that the core of politics consists on the friend/enemy theory with each side of the conflict posing a perceived existential threat of violence to one another. However, his argument is less persuasive when he uses this premise to critique liberalism because he does not provide an alternative solution to his criticism. Schmitt contends that, “the political must rest on its own ultimate distinction, [and] the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is between friend and enemy” (Schmitt 26). Schmitt defines a political or public enemy as a collective group that poses an existential threat of violence, “the real possibility of physical killing” (Schmitt 33). Therefore Schmitt contends the political cannot exist without violence, or the threat/possibility of violence.
Going back to consider the political theory, authority, and liberty in history, we can take a look at Machiavelli and Hobbes’ perspectives and different features of documents as primary sources, so that we can comprehend how these two great philosophers viewed the themes differently. My first theme that I would extend on Machiavelli and Hobbes’ notions would be on political theory.
The purpose of this reaction paper is to examine the thoughts and feelings of the readings for the purpose of the interjection of opinion. The chapter that I read, discussed the topic of International Adoption or what is now referenced as Intercountry Adoption. In reading the chapter I was able to learn about the history of how intercountry adoption came approximate, the negative and positive attributes of intercountry adoption, and the organization(s) that have been set in place to guide intercountry adoptions. After reading the history of intercountry adoption I now know how international adoption came to pass. A war can ravish a land, leaving the individuals in that land without basic resources for survival.
First part of the quote corroborates my dissertation by emphasizing the feature of artificial race and second part that is questioning the power refers social classes which I am going to study on to fill the gap with field work. He continues that “the verb perceive emphasizes that national belonging and national identity is a mental and emotional matter (ibid.54). It is also for this reason that refers to nations as ‘imagined communities” (Anderson 1991). These arguments go along with the point that I have started for showing
This essay will try to analyze the main causes of violent conflicts, making reference to the literature and taking into consideration the theories of greed and grievance. Furthermore, structural violence and its relation to violent conflicts will be discussed, to make an analysis on how well the literature explain the connection between the causes and the dynamics of the conflict. On the second half of the essay, the role of different actors in conflict resolution will be discussed, with particular attention on the different levels of mediation, the resolution between states and the UN and NGOs as fairly important mediators. Finally, it will be analyzed the neutrality and the bias of the different mediators and how they could or could not be
Many international relation scholars use the three main schools of thought, realism, liberalism and constructivism, to understand and analyze states’ behaviors in the international arena. Each of the three theories uniquely explains the reasons behind a state’s behavior in times of peace or during a conflict. Realism is the school of thought that believes that the international system is anarchic and thus the states try to gain material power. On the other hand liberalism focuses on the power of institutions, which are founded on common values and goals of the state, in the international system. The last theory constructivism believes that state goals are a reflection of social norms, values and history of a state.
The second reason for that is that the idea Peacemaking is a philosophy and it is not a viable criminological theory because it cannot be analyze and empirically tested. Martin (2001) opposes that the word ‘theory’ in peacemaking did not do this philosophy any justice in regard to descriptive and applied purposes. The issue with peacemaking as a theory is that the ideas of the peacemaking philosophy has it fundamental background to spiritual revolutions, connectedness, service and empathy for others, awareness, and peace are defined narrowly by academicians. Criminology has been publicized as an unbiased science, a means of accurately measuring crime and ways to deal with crime. Additionally, criminologists find it tremendously repulsive to hypothesize such philosophies as connectedness and spirituality.
International relations exist in a state of anarchy. In this system, there is no central government, no written code of laws, and no standard for how to behave. Without laws, there is no definitive explanation for states’ behavior. Theorists such as John Mearsheimer and Robert Keohane, a neorealist and a neoliberalist respectively, have formulated arguments to explain international relations. Neorealists adopt a negative, structural view of world politics, while neoliberals take a more positive, cooperative approach.
Population and the ethics of triage are in it most extreme form that exemplifies that we should adopt to a triage policy. The triage is divided into three categories: individuals beyond the level of assistance, individuals who are better off with assistance, and individuals who do not require assistance. In this example, only the poor countries that need assistance would receive the help needed and the middle rich countries would benefit from assistance from the rich countries. According to the triage, we should only apply aid to countries that could benefit the most from it, but we should also not give assistance to countries that can assist themselves. We should also not aid any country who doesn’t have any control over their population.
because the French organizations had no piece of evidence that proved intentional threat to others (Court of Appeals). Therefore, Yahoo! won is due to the Nazi memorabilia was considered illegal and free speech, depending on location. It creates a new problem in categorizing hate speech as with the global connectivity of the internet, online speech cannot be applied to a country 's laws. On the side of regulation is Laura Beth Nielsen, professor at Northwestern and at the American Bar Foundation, who argues in, “The Case of Restricting Free Speech” that free speech is often ruled upon balancing rights and dangers.