Is unilateral action a right of a superpower? (1 Viewer)

[loquasagacious]

Well inspired by the tangent we disappeared on in the ANZAC day thread this thread is the:

“Is unilateral action a right of a superpower?”

In my opinion the two basic positions are, “Yes, might makes right.” and “no, I am an internationalist miscellaneous”. As many of you may have gathered from my posts, I fall in the former camp. So what follows is an outline of my basic position:

The international system is anarchic and every state within it is first and foremost concerned with their own selfish and pragmatic national interest. And will act in a rational way as best to achieve this.

The national interest being survival, self-betterment (that is to say betterment of that state) and relative gains over other states in that order. For this reason states will seek firstly to defend themselves, then to enrich themselves (and their populations) and then to compete with others.

Defense is typically considered to be a deterrent accomplished through a combination of a military and alliances, treaties, etc which is great enough to dissuade others from attacking (the best defense being never used defensively). The balance of treaties v. military will be determined by a combination of factors including:
* Budgetary constraints (eg Belgium does not have the finances to sustain a military capable of defending it from its neighbours – so will favour treaties).
* The threats in the area (eg Israel is under greater threat than Denmark – so will have a bigger military).
* Stability of the area (eg treaties with unstable states are a poorer guarantee of security).
* The viability of treaties (eg will other parties honor them).
* Whether the country in question is expansionist or not (expansionists for obvious reasons preferring a military to treaties).

In general terms small countries (or comparatively small) will seek to ally themselves with others as in strength of numbers they can compare more favorably to a perceived threat. Some examples of this being NATO to deter the Soviet Union and Australia’s ‘Great and Powerful Friend’ (the UK and then US) to deter Asiatic powers.

Stronger states however have less need of and thus less interest in treaties, for instance the US. This is not to say that they will not conclude them as they will as a means of gaining influence and other advantage abroad. However they may be less inclined to honor them.

This brings me to my central point, unilateral action. I believe that unilateral action is indeed a right of the superpower, after all this is merely an extension of normal state actions. Any state which became a superpower would be fully prepared to act unilaterally, and indeed every superpower has. And a great number of regional powers have also done so.

It is ultimately a case of might makes right, as a state you have the complete right to do anything that fulfils your goals that is if acting unilaterally is imperative to survival it must be done, if it can yield benefits then it is an option.

There is no higher authority than the state and no bar upon a states actions beyond competing states, hence it is right to do anything which they can not stop you doing. It is not necessarily moral however morals do not feature in the purpose of a state, a state exists solely to defend and better its peoples and is bound to do everything in its power to do so.

My position as far as those who disagree with this stance is that they comprehensively fail to understand how the international system works and the premises under which states operate and exist. To have an international system such as they support, of the warm and fuzzy variety would require a completely different concept of the state. Given how the modern state has evolved and its intrinsic link to the violently competitive nature of man I believe this alternate ‘fuzzy’ state to be not only non-existent but can not exist. Following this a ‘fuzzy’ international system can not exist.

States that argue for a more internationalist approach are doing so as a part of their defense interests. Being weaker states they stand to benefit from an international system which gives them more clout than their population or power warrant and effectively (and cheaply) protects them from aggression. Strong states are however intrinsically opposed to an internationalist system because it serves to weaken them compared to others by reducing their clout and restricting their freedom to act.

As a result the closest we can come to such a ‘fuzzy’ internationalist system as some dream of is the creation of amalgamated states, such as the European Union one day becoming a unified European state whose power would then be commensurate to the USA’s where as the individual power of members compares poorly. However this also has weaknesses as strong states in Europe (France, UK, Germany, Russia) will be less willing to unify than weak ones (Belgium, Austria, etc). Ultimately the only real drive to unify is external in the face of a threat/competing force – in this case the USA. And still reactionary nationalists will agitate against it because of the long tradition of inter-European conflict.

In my opinion the only real challenge to the current system of international relations is not fuzzy internationalism which is only a logical reaction of the weak and thus doomed to fail as the weak become strong is neo-liberalism. This is because neo-liberalism is an attack on the state itself which I have already established is the underpinning of the international system.

Neo-liberalism does this by ‘going above the states head’ that is by attacking its power base, neo-liberalism erodes citizens belief in the state. It does this by appealing to our most basic of instincts, that of competition with our fellows. The self same instinct that bought the modern state into being (its existence being to enable groups to better compete with opposing groups). However returning to the subject at hand, neo-liberalism appeals to and harnesses our basic instincts of competition, specifically greed and individualism.

Neo-liberalism is in this sense a bottom-up movement (and could thus be defined as a revolution) it is driven by the desires of the masses. It is the ideology of the free market which is perhaps the ultimate expression of human nature, it is our very nature to form and participate in such markets.

To improve productivity and efficiency governments have been progressively reducing and removing interventions in markets (tariffs, subsidies, quotas, price floors and ceilings, etc) a direct result of this has been an increasing global economic integration. As we harness comparative advantage (to yield an increase in absolute production and welfare) we have become increasingly integrated.

This has two critical byproducts:
* Capital and labour move increasingly freely and with decreasing state allegiance which is a challenge to the notion of the state as the representative of the nation;* the nation becoming part of a larger global community and representing itself.
* The state (and its fellows) is decreasingly able to wage war, which requires a state of autarky – of which neo-liberalism is the obverse.

Basically the state is becoming progressively smaller internally in the name of economic efficiency a pattern that is being repeated externally and is seeing declining the importance of the state as the power of non-state actors increases.

The state is based upon a nation and a territory and the defense of both, it logically ceases to exist when the distinctive nation disappears and the sovereignty of territory disappears. I therefore predict that as neo-liberal globalization accelerates the world will become increasingly integrated and interdependent. Individual nations, as marked by culture, will become parts of a greater whole. The capacity and will of states to wage war will decline and ultimately (eventually) the state will wither away.

As the state dies so does our current system of International Relations and it is hard to envisage what will replace it, however it will be an undeniably more peaceful world order.


………………………………………………………………………………………….


In précis:

I believe that ultimately neo-liberal globalization will bring the state and the international system to an end. In the mean-time:

I believe that realism (offensive neo-Realism to be precise) is the best guide to understanding and predicting how, why, when and where states will act or not act.

As a realist I believe that superpowers are fully entitled to act unilaterally.

And now let battle be joined and the debate begun!







*For Alex.

EDIT: Note in the transfer from word some formatting has been lost, I'll fix that tomorrow.

 

[Iron]

What a stupid thread idea.

 

[loquasagacious]

Communist!

 

[walrusbear]

i don't see how it's a "right" to do take unilateral action. of course it's going to happen, but why should it be accepted as a positive thing? it doesn't seem preferable for the international community at large.

 

[_dhj_]

The state will not logically cease to exist. You fall into the Marxist analysis trap of viewing history as a continuous and logical progression. In reality, history has turning points. It's more like a business cycle in its movement from left to right, and back again; from protection to international free trade and back to protection; from internationalism to nationalism and back to internationalism etc. etc.

 

[loquasagacious]

How is it not preferable for a strong state to take unilateral action?

Obviously it is not preferable to the target nor possibly to other weak states, but how is it not preferable for the strong state?

Unilateral action is an overwhelmingly good thing for the strong state to do.

As far as it being a right, right is perhaps the wrong word but it is a valid choice (hence they have the right to exercise it) and it is the rational imperative of the state to make the best possible choice given a scenario, often unilateral action is the best choice for a strong state.

 

[loquasagacious]

The state will not logically cease to exist. You fall into the Marxist analysis trap of viewing history as a continuous and logical progression. In reality, history has turning points. It's more like a business cycle in its movement from left to right, and back again; from protection to international free trade and back to protection; from internationalism to nationalism and back to internationalism etc. etc.

Now this is an interesting proposition and an entirely valid point and in some ways I agree, however I think neo-liberalism has the potential to break the cycle.

If we look back over history we see that neo-liberalism is actually a new thing to us, whilst lassiez faire economics of the 19th century had the hall marks of neo-liberalism domestically they did not internationally. In the international realm protectionist mercantilism was the order of the day.

This became a war state autarky with the coming of WWI which further compounded it, the Great Depression caused states to look inward and raise protectionism and then WWII again called for autarky economics.

In the aftermath of WWII states for the most part raised protectionist barriers, this was because governments at the time were nationalistic (thus having a preference to autarky), it was believed to better help the state recover from war and socialist thinking also played a part. The exception being Western Europe which at this point began the first tentative moves towards a common market.

The important point being that true trade liberalisation is a very recent occurence and one that has not been seen on the same scale in the lifetime of the modern state.

Furthermore I contend that as neo-liberal globalisation accelerates we will increasingly reach a critical mass situation in which countries can no longer disengage from the system and wage war.

Potential upsets are only going to come from our super-powers (who have in some sense the most to loose), because being so large and diverse they will not be as affected by interdependence as other states.

However their size also means that they have in some ways the most to gain in absolute terms from integrating, which is why we see China increasingly joining the world of neo-liberalism.

The other reason of course is that other doctrines have simply failed, communism has comprehensively failed in every single application of it. Mercantilism has similarly failed by proving unsustainable (eg the collapse of the European empires). This leaves neo-liberalism as the winning team.

Oh and as a side note: Whilst I run the danger of falling into a marxist trap, you run the danger of falling into a cyclical one.

 

[The Brucemaster]

I don't think either a Marxist or a cyclical view are traps, rather they are simply differing points of view that oppose each other and thus you both disagree with one another.

You make some interesting points LG, first that the State has no interest in morals because the defence of the nation and its citizens is its first priority because this serves the betterment of the people.
There are two main points here:
First, by saying that the aim of the State is to better its people you are admitting that the people are the higher goal of The State and thus they are servile to the people's betterment.
Second, if the goal of the State is the betterment of the people then that implies that The State has a moral obligation to the people thus morals must be considered.

Essentially, what you are saying is in fact "falling in to the Marixist trap" in that it follows his predictions about the breaking down of international barriers and the rise to power of the working class.
The international barriers idea is evident from your argument about neo-liberalism but obviously the working class power idea is not so I shall try and explain.
Whats happening in society now economically and the political effect that is having is in fact, similar to what was happening in Rome in the Late Republic.

Side Note: This is why people should study history, we can learn from it.

Continuing on, whats happening now is we are seeing an increasing dominance/influence of corporate power or, more generally, wealth. People are mostly pre-occupied with financial security etc. etc. due to the influence of the Howard government and its strong economic focus. Over the period of the Howard Government's reign, for want of a better word, we have seen a general increase in living standards, privatisation and im sure a number of other economic factors that LG would be better equipped to discuss.
The same thing happened in Rome in the era of the Late Republic, people became primarily occupied with wealth and in both Rome and contemporary society what followed was a moral decline, not in the sense of morals we have to day but in a Roman context: people became more politically apathetic, less concerned with the future of The State and more concerned with their own interests. As such resources were overused, Rome expanded rapidly in order to support itself economically and a vast majority of the wealthy citizens moved away from Rome in order to expand their wealth. As such, the working class were the only ones who remained in Rome to vote and they subsequently ended up running the show and ruining the joint.
Obviously this doesnt excactly apply to contemporary Australia for obvious reasons however the principle remains the same: Due to an increased focus on wealth and personal interest the State suffers.

In relation to unilateral action this focus is only going to accelerate such a process, which is not, in my opinion beneficial to the people. If a strong state, such as the USA, pursues unilateral action in its 'defence' then tensions between larger and smaller nations are going to increase due to the threat of force. Thus alliances will increase for protection and the breaking down of barriers will be perpetuated.

Finally, your idea on the right/validity of military action in defence of the national interest. First of all to clarify, are we talking about affirmative action here or a defensive response or both?
Defensive response I have no problem at all as long as it is of course a legitimate threat.
Affirmative action, however, can be a dodgy issue, because in the "defence" of one nation's sovereignty another's is invariably violated. Whilst idealistically the principle is sound, its application is not necessarily reflective of the principle behind affirmative action. Moreso, it is not necessarily used as a response to a direct threat to the nation i.e. a mobilisation of armed forces but rather for political purposes i.e. the communist "threat" in Vietnam didn't represent a direct threat to US security but rather it was used as a platform for the government's anti-Communist stance.

To summarise:

1) The State has a moral obligation to its citizens thus is servile to the people.
2) Neo-liberalism and resulting globalisation will result in the decline of The State and, as such, detriment the people in general.
3) Uni-lateral action ideally is fine but can and has been abused thus I disagree insofar as it has practicality problems.

 

[Frogurt]

I don't think either a Marxist or a cyclical view are traps, rather they are simply differing points of view that oppose each other and thus you both disagree with one another.

of course you think that your in an institution (NSW Highschool) that makes Post modernism appear to be a godsend.

You make some interesting points LG, first that the State has no interest in morals because the defence of the nation and its citizens is its first priority because this serves the betterment of the people.
There are two main points here:
First, by saying that the aim of the State is to better its people you are admitting that the people are the higher goal of The State and thus they are servile to the people's betterment.
Second, if the goal of the State is the betterment of the people then that implies that The State has a moral obligation to the people thus morals must be considered.

no, this is a common misunderstanding when people try and approach Realism and Neo-Realism. the structure of Realism are as follows;

1) there is no higher Authority than the State
2)Survival is the primary focus of any State
3)Self reliance must be ensured to provide for the Security of the State.

that is the theory in its most simplistic forms. individuals are irrelevent and if a moral conflicts with the survival of the state then it must be disregarded to ensure survival since the dead don't have morals and the State is the security of the people. now you might say that's communism or whatever, the difference being that Realists believe in structural hierarchy and maintaining the "status quo" Balance must be achieved to ensure order.

In relation to unilateral action this focus is only going to accelerate such a process, which is not, in my opinion beneficial to the people. If a strong state, such as the USA, pursues unilateral action in its 'defence' then tensions between larger and smaller nations are going to increase due to the threat of force. Thus alliances will increase for protection and the breaking down of barriers will be perpetuated.

the breaking down of barriers would not occur out of an alliance of convenience, which is what you are proposing there when you talk about increases of alliances. they are not formed out of genuine good will but rather the Survival instinct (we are back to Realism again ). barriers will only break down if both sides are acting without co-option or coercion from a third overwhelming threat.

Defensive response I have no problem at all as long as it is of course a legitimate threat.

who decides what is legitimate precisely?

Affirmative action, however, can be a dodgy issue, because in the "defence" of one nation's sovereignty another's is invariably violated. Whilst idealistically the principle is sound, its application is not necessarily reflective of the principle behind affirmative action.

it is reflected when your principle is identified as Survival, then you have a situation where you must choose to ensure your survival and remove a threat before it develops or wait until the threat has grown to an extent where it can fundamentally challenge your survival.

Moreso, it is not necessarily used as a response to a direct threat to the nation i.e. a mobilisation of armed forces but rather for political purposes i.e. the communist "threat" in Vietnam didn't represent a direct threat to US security but rather it was used as a platform for the government's anti-Communist stance.

you should follow your advice about history.

Vietnam wasn't about Vietnamese communists and to suggest such is a misconception, US involvement within Vietnam was a "return favour", prior to WWII the US was supporting the group that eventually became the "VietKong"(and that was an american coined phrase rather than something they took on themselves) break away from the French and have Self-Determination. Post WWII the French allowed the US to have various areas within France as part of their Containment policy for the USSR but in return the US was obligated to help them with their failing colonies. as such the group taht the US was previously supporting were now unable to do so. the "Vietkong" nervous about the French gaining the US as allies subsequently went to the Soviets for help. the rest is history.

1) The State has a moral obligation to its citizens thus is servile to the people.

again i ask dictated by whom?

2) Neo-liberalism and resulting globalisation will result in the decline of The State and, as such, detriment the people in general.

whilst this is no doubt a possibility the release of soveriegnty i think will make this a little more complex than you appear to believe it to be. the rejection of the EU constitution is demonstrative of this as well as the structure of the UN (in regards to having to ask the States permission to enter a state)

3) Uni-lateral action ideally is fine but can and has been abused thus I disagree insofar as it has practicality problems.

you should expand on the first half of this sentence more, ie: the ideally part.

practicality wise, yes it has problems but not for the reasons that you outlined. it leaves the State open as military actions are long drawn out things having large impacts on the States overal security(if troops are commited elsewhere the security of the state is compromised, with unilateral action more troops would be required than through a multi-national task force), the economy and obviously the human cost(now this may appear as a contradiction from my previous statement regarding Survival, however i am not saying that the cost shouldn't be considered rather that State Survival under Realism has a higher priority).

 

[The Brucemaster]

of course you think that your in an institution (NSW Highschool) that makes Post modernism appear to be a godsend.

I wouldn't be so hasty in judging my thoughts if I were you.

no, this is a common misunderstanding when people try and approach Realism and Neo-Realism. the structure of Realism are as follows;

1) there is no higher Authority than the State
2)Survival is the primary focus of any State
3)Self reliance must be ensured to provide for the Security of the State.

that is the theory in its most simplistic forms. individuals are irrelevent and if a moral conflicts with the survival of the state then it must be disregarded to ensure survival since the dead don't have morals and the State is the security of the people. now you might say that's communism or whatever, the difference being that Realists believe in structural hierarchy and maintaining the "status quo" Balance must be achieved to ensure order.

Yes but that definition differs signifcantly from LG's definition where he says:
"...a state exists solely to defend and better its peoples and is bound to do everything in its power to do so."
This statement clearly implies a moral obligation and if not moral then at least some form of obligation to the people that make up a State, thus The State is servile to the people's need (in this case security).

the breaking down of barriers would not occur out of an alliance of convenience, which is what you are proposing there when you talk about increases of alliances. they are not formed out of genuine good will but rather the Survival instinct (we are back to Realism again ). barriers will only break down if both sides are acting without co-option or coercion from a third overwhelming threat.

I disagree, case in point, World War One: many alliances in the period leading up to the war were formed due to the increasing threat of military action by either Germany or Britain (arms race, particularly navy).
In to Ancient History now, the same thing happened in the lead up and even during the Peloponnesian War.
So alliances are made due to a military threat. Perhaps not always, but they do occur.

who decides what is legitimate precisely?

An excellent point. I have no answer save perhaps the people whose security is at risk? Ill sleep on it.

Vietnam wasn't about Vietnamese communists and to suggest such is a misconception

I never suggested it was about Communism as such, rather that it was used by the American government to consolidate their anti-Communist position.
In any event the Vietcong were fighting the NVA, who were the military for North Vietnam, which was a communist State.

again i ask dictated by whom?

To suggest that The State has no obigation to its people whatsoever is fundamentally flawed if you then turn around and say that the State is only obliged to serve the nation's security. The nation is made up of citizens, there is no point defending land with no people on it so therefore you are protecting not only the nation but the people who inhabit it.
Thus, the obligation for national security is entirely aimed at the protection of a nation's citizens.

whilst this is no doubt a possibility the release of soveriegnty i think will make this a little more complex than you appear to believe it to be. the rejection of the EU constitution is demonstrative of this as well as the structure of the UN (in regards to having to ask the States permission to enter a state)

I apologise but as I am unfamiliar with the EU and the structure of the UN you will have to elaborate on your argument here.

you should expand on the first half of this sentence more, ie: the ideally part.

As in if it is used as a defensive response to a direct threat to national security i.e. an impending invasion/military strike of some description, then i believe it to be valid/right.
Basically, in theory its fine but in practice i have my reservations.

 

[gerhard]

morals > survival

for me anyway

 

[Iron]

Sticking to the question, who would validate any right to unilateral action? The superpower would obviously excercise it regardless.
From what I can make out from this broad series of I.R. lectures, the thrust of the pro-camp is that power gives rise to a right? This is NAZI talk - 'a world bereft of morals is only validated by grabs for naked power' (loose translation from Hitler's brand of German).
I'll have no part in this NAZI-parade.

Fascists!
[edit, *tips hat to gerhard camp, not the concentration one*]

 

[loquasagacious]

I don't think either a Marxist or a cyclical view are traps, rather they are simply differing points of view that oppose each other and thus you both disagree with one another.

Disagreement as a reason to shut down debate is a cop-out, desist.

You make some interesting points LG, first that the State has no interest in morals because the defence of the nation and its citizens is its first priority because this serves the betterment of the people.
There are two main points here:
First, by saying that the aim of the State is to better its people you are admitting that the people are the higher goal of The State and thus they are servile to the people's betterment.
Second, if the goal of the State is the betterment of the people then that implies that The State has a moral obligation to the people thus morals must be considered.

You indicate that there is a contradiction in that I hold the state as a moral-less entity yet having a moral obligation. You are blurring the lines here in that:

The state does not have a moral obligation to its nation, it's existence is based on protecting and bettering its nation. This is more of an instinct or base motive than moral. There is no compulsion to act morally in regard to other peoples and you missed that I prioritised the goals of the state, the state is servile to the people's survival above all else. Thus acting morally towards its own citizens is secondary to survival.

And also as I'm sure you are aware morals are flexible and not necasserily universal.

Historical point

This was rather confused and non-applicable, I doubt a proletarian revolution eventuating because they are the only ones that remain tied to the state.

And I think you ended up agreeing that the pursuit of wealth reduces state power?

If a strong state, such as the USA, pursues unilateral action in its 'defence' then tensions between larger and smaller nations are going to increase due to the threat of force. Thus alliances will increase for protection and the breaking down of barriers will be perpetuated.

Who said unilateral action should only be used in defence? If the benefits to a state outweigh the costs then it should act unilaterally, offensively or defensively.

The violation of the weaks soveriegnty is the imperative of the strong. States do anything they can't be stopped from doing. If it is in the interests of a strong state to invade a weak one then it will. It has no reason to consider the interests of the weak.

To summarise:

1) The State has a moral obligation to its citizens thus is servile to the people.
2) Neo-liberalism and resulting globalisation will result in the decline of The State and, as such, detriment the people in general.
3) Uni-lateral action ideally is fine but can and has been abused thus I disagree insofar as it has practicality problems.

People are the basis of the state hence it is servile - obvious.
Decline of the state is in the interests of the people as this leads to more efficient economics (eg more money) and less war/conflict.
Unilateral action can not be abused, only used or not - it is not a value laden tool but a strategy.

now you might say that's communism or whatever, the difference being that Realists believe in structural hierarchy and maintaining the "status quo" Balance must be achieved to ensure order.

Ironically communist states are also realist players and settle into promoting balance and order. Doubt me? then look at soviet foriegn policy - I can direct you to suitable books if you desire.

the breaking down of barriers would not occur out of an alliance of convenience, which is what you are proposing there when you talk about increases of alliances. they are not formed out of genuine good will but rather the Survival instinct (we are back to Realism again ). barriers will only break down if both sides are acting without co-option or coercion from a third overwhelming threat.

Correct, though I would extend an explannatory note why a common enemy does not barriers break. Because the common enemy is the uniting factor, the vanquishing of the enemy (failure to vanquish renders it a moot point) removes the uniting force and the alliance collapses (see the allies after WWII).

Vietnam

I would say that there were several other factors:

Global policy of containment.
Sino-Soviet cold war.
Inertial escalation.
Domestic pressures to be there.

Subsequent reply worthy ideas have been addressed above already.

 

[Frogurt]

I disagree, case in point, World War One: many alliances in the period leading up to the war were formed due to the increasing threat of military action by either Germany or Britain (arms race, particularly navy).

but you've just proven my point here, alliances formed due to a increasing threat from a third party rather than an actual desire to increase relationships, in this case the threat from German and British power.

In to Ancient History now, the same thing happened in the lead up and even during the Peloponnesian War.
So alliances are made due to a military threat. Perhaps not always, but they do occur.

it's been three years since i've studied this could you refresh my memory with regards to this?

I never suggested it was about Communism as such, rather that it was used by the American government to consolidate their anti-Communist position.
In any event the Vietcong were fighting the NVA, who were the military for North Vietnam, which was a communist State.

alright now i see what you were saying, it wasn't entirely clear in your first post.

To suggest that The State has no obigation to its people whatsoever is fundamentally flawed if you then turn around and say that the State is only obliged to serve the nation's security. The nation is made up of citizens, there is no point defending land with no people on it so therefore you are protecting not only the nation but the people who inhabit it.
Thus, the obligation for national security is entirely aimed at the protection of a nation's citizens.

Nation and State are two very different things and whilst i'm not trying to come across as condesending here you have to be very careful about your definitions.

Nation refers to the people themselves, and the links by Culture, language religion or whatever.

State refers to the organised method of Governance. the State is not the people but rahter the "machine" by which people are organised.

these are loose definitions there is obviously more to it than this but for now this should suffice.


now whilst the protection of the citizens is a valid arguement, the counter arguement is that you can't please everyone and that in order to ensure the overall survival of these people concessions must be made in order to ensure that survival. if it is one moral or ethical principle then this is considered a fair sacrifice under the proposed theory. the question then becomes how far would you be prepared to go to ensure Survival.

I apologise but as I am unfamiliar with the EU and the structure of the UN you will have to elaborate on your argument here.

thats cool. basically a summary of the EU constitution would have seen the breaking down of State barriers and the handing over of Soveriegnty to the EU itself (rather than the State being the highest level of Authority you now have something else, namely the EU) this didn't sit well with the people of Europe who wished to retain their State as well as their National Identities and as such it was rejected when a referendum occured by many of the states.

The UN is similar in so far as it still recognises that the State as the highest level of Authority (else it would not be required to uphold Soveriegnty) and as such is powerless to act on an issue unless 1) the countries involved agree to let them in or 2) one of the five great powers sees fit to intervene. in both cases you have State actors dictating how the global governance should occur and you don't really have a breaking down of barriers rather a reinforcement of them.

As in if it is used as a defensive response to a direct threat to national security i.e. an impending invasion/military strike of some description, then i believe it to be valid/right.
Basically, in theory its fine but in practice i have my reservations.

ah ok, interesting.


Iron,
Very insightful always a delight to hear what you have to say, now that you've said it, perhaps you should take your soapbox elsewhere if you don't wish to engage in a debate of political theory.

LG,
it doesn't surprise me that they would be Realist players with regards to foreign policy to an extent. though my understanding of where the difference comes in is the Realist premice that "that the Powerful will do what they will and the weak will accept what they must", the structural hierarchy as opposed to the "we are one big happy family" (though i don't know much about Russian Politics so i could be wrong).

 

[Iron]

Do you hear the way they speak to me Gen? They get it from your side.

 

[withoutaface]

No it's not, just as an initiation of force is not the right of a private individual in society.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Ok, rather tired at the moment but I'll do my best.

but you've just proven my point here alliances formed due to a increasing threat from a third party...

Hang on you said previously:

barriers will only break down if both sides are acting without co-option or coercion from a third overwhelming threat.

Which one be it?

it's been three years since i've studied this could you refresh my memory with regards to this?

The city-state of Corcyra attempted to rebel against its colonial ruler Corinth, as such, Corinth besieged the coastal town of Epidamnus. As a result, Corcyra entered in to a defensive alliance with Athens and Athens supplied a small naval force to support the Corcyrans. This is commonly accepted as the first military action in the Peloponnesian War. Following this there was some fighting etc etc and as the war spread to other areas, many city-states who remained neutral were forced to enter the war eg Lesbos.

Nation and State are two very different things...

Makes sense but surely if the aim of the State is to protect the security of the people (nation) then the two are intrinsically linked?
Thus neither can be seen as having a higher authority because both require the other for existence.

 

[loquasagacious]

No it's not, just as an initiation of force is not the right of a private individual in society.

This actually reinforces my stance.

The initiation of force by an individual against another is an option, similarly the initiation of force by a state against another is an option.

The individual (like the state) weighs the pros and cons which are for the individual possibility of gain, possibility of punishment and are vaguely similar for the state.

The only difference is that in society the individual can be punished far more effectively than the state can be punished in the international system. And thus the state may appear to be more ammoral than the individual however merely has the latitude to do so that the individual does not.

 

[gerhard]

just because there is an uneffective punishment for initiation of force, doesnt make initiation of force a right.

 

[Frogurt]

Which one be it?

i'm not actually seeing where i contradicted myself there Bruce? my initial post said that barriers won't be broken if an alliance of convenience is formed, ie: to parties form an alliance not because they want to but because of an increased threat from a third party. you then spoke of States going to Britain and Germany because of their increased power, the choice of someone going to Germany primarily due to a percieved threat from Britain and vice verca, the alliance was still formed out of fear rather than a desire to co-operate.

The city-state of Corcyra attempted to rebel against its colonial ruler Corinth, as such, Corinth besieged the coastal town of Epidamnus. As a result, Corcyra entered in to a defensive alliance with Athens and Athens supplied a small naval force to support the Corcyrans. This is commonly accepted as the first military action in the Peloponnesian War. Following this there was some fighting etc etc and as the war spread to other areas, many city-states who remained neutral were forced to enter the war eg Lesbos.

ah ok thanks, now that i'm up to speed on it again, it would still seem that this situation proves my point, corcyra entered into the alliance with athens only because of the threat from Corinth, if Corinth was not a threat it is arguable that they would not have sought such an alliance with the Athenians.

Makes sense but surely if the aim of the State is to protect the security of the people (nation) then the two are intrinsically linked?
Thus neither can be seen as having a higher authority because both require the other for existence.

Yes i agree that they are linked, however you do not need morals or ethics to exist and that is the distinction i make, the State can overide morals or ethics because it does not threaten the survival of the State. this is not to say that it i agree with it or that this is the way things should be, but rather that you do not need ethics or morals in order to be alive, these factors only influence the kind of life that you have.