| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "WAR THEORY": |
|
|
Post-Modernism, Post-War Critical Theory and Marxism, 2003.
A comparative analysis of post-modernist theories with post-war critical theory.
3,148 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 12 sources, MLA, $ 91.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper embarks on an examination of the work of post-war critical theorists Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse who capture the dominant themes of post-war Critical Theory well. It proceeds to show how many parallels are evident between post-war Critical Theory and the more recently formulated postmodernist theories. An examination of postmodernist theories then ensues, taking as exemplars the work of Baudrillard, Jameson and Harvey. It concludes by arguing that postmodernist theories do indeed revisit the critique of modern culture, which post-war Critical Theory began and they do so without the political commitment to Marxism. An explanation for this follows, discussing the events which "shattered a whole generation of French intellectual's beliefs in the moral supremacy of Marxism" and sheds light on the climate which ultimately paved way for the emergence of postmodernism.
From the Paper
"Advertising encourages individuals to view themselves primarily as consumers, and under the guise of entertainment, audiences are manipulated into accepting and conforming to existing society. Kellner captures this sentiment well claiming "advertising progressively fuses in style and technique with the entertainment of the culture industry, which in turn can be read as a series of advertisements for existing society and the established way of life" (1989:33). The culture industry is designed to discourage individuals from challenging the given order, to think critically and indeed, think for themselves. "The need, which might resist control, has already been suppressed by the control of individual consciousness" (1995: 121). Adorno and Horkheimer show how the products of the culture industry are similar to those produced in a factory, sharing their belief that "under monopoly all mass culture is identical". (1995: 121)."
| |
|
An Examination of Just War Theory, 2001.
This paper argues that just war theory, and the international law which is based upon it, are inherently flawed and lead powerful states justifying violent actions.
2,700 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 12 sources, $ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper, it is argued that throughout history and in present day, the criteria of just war theory, and the international law which is based upon, have been applied only subjectively toward the fulfillment of national and self-interest, and that the plurality of human culture and the nature of war itself make it impossible to ever apply the criteria of just war theory in an objective manner. Because just war theory can never succeed in its goals of objectively determining when a state can justly go to war or how a war can be morally waged, it serves only as justification for the actions taken by states powerful enough to fulfill their national interest through violent conflict.
From the paper:
""This semester, I had the opportunity to participate in a seminar on the foreign policy of the Clinton administration taught by Leon Fuerth, the national security advisor to former Vice-President Al Gore. As a member of the national security council, Fuerth provided an inside look at how American foreign policy was formulated over the last eight years. During one session, Fuerth discussed the process of deciding what objects to target during the Kosovo air campaign. He related that "the lawyers" advised the administration that it could not legally bomb the power grids of Serbian cities because it may lead to civilian injury. However, Fuerth recalled, they found no legal quandary with deploying a massive invasion force in Serbian territory or the civilian casualties that could result from such an invasion. Fuerth asked the class, almost rhetorically, which option was more moral?"
| |
|
Just War Theory, 2008.
A discussion of just war theory as delineated by two main authors on the subject, Michael Walzer and Brian Orend.
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper provides a basic outline of just war theory, drawing from Michael Walzer's book "Just and Unjust Wars" and Brian Orend's book "The Morality of War". Just war theory is used to determine whether or not a war is indeed justifiable. In simplest terms, a war is just if one country imposes moral and physical aggression on another country. The paper uses this theory to examine particular examples from contemporary history, such as the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and the war on Iraq and terrorism. In conclusion, the paper maintains that determining whether a war is just or unjust remains complex and controversial.
From the Paper
"Just war theory begins with a theory of aggression and a consideration of the limits of aggression. Such an approach is not surprising to most people today as it might have been in the past. After the War in Vietnam, the issue of the just war has been much argued as political leaders and the press consider every potential military action and whether or not it can be justified as an ethical and moral decision. War as a defensive measure is more clearly an ethical action, for instance, while any sort of pre-emptive war has to be justified. The current war in Iraq was justified by the Bush administration as a pre-emptive act to defend against purported nuclear weapons (or weapons of mass destruction, as they were called), and such a defensive act would make this a just war. The fact that no such weapons were found after the fact raised numerous questions about the justness of the war, questions which the administration continues to gloss over while trying to justify the war on the basis of crimes committed by Saddam Hussein, or because of supposed terrorist ties, or for whatever reason works best. Orend would not accept such shifting territory as a real justification, and certainly Michael Walzer, the best known theorist on the subject, also would not."
| |
|
The Just War Theory, 2004.
An analysis of whether the war in Iraq is justified, with a focus on the just war theory.
1,712 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the concept of war from the point of view of the just war theory. The paper explains that in order to better understand war, one must look at the concept from all angles including the point of view of peace movements. The paper questions what the Just War theory is and what its principles are; what the theory represents and who believes in it. By answering such questions, the paper estimates that one can better understand the state of the war's current conflicts that are resulting in death and destruction. More specifically, this paper examines the current war in Iraq and discusses the question: is the war in Iraq justified? The paper presents sources that attest to both sides of the issue in the hope of finding that the war is not justified at this moment.
From the Paper
"The Just War Theory is most the popular view of war among Christians. The just war approach is based "upon the moral theory known as natural law morality" (Hill 2). What natural law morality refers to is that all people know that certain kinds of behavior are immoral, irrespective of their own religious loyalties. This includes all major world religions such as: Islam, Judaism, Hindu, Buddhism and Christianity. This means that all these world religions agree murder, theft and dishonesty are immoral. This concept applied not only in society but also across cultures. A good example of how the natural law morality works within society is the Nazi war criminals were tried and convicted because of their crimes against humanity as a result of the immoral aspects of their conduct. Within the just war theory exist elements which must be obeyed and they are as follows: (1) Declaration by a lawful government, (2) Just cause, (3) Just intent, (4) Last resort and (5) Immunity of non-combatants."
| |
|
'Just War' Theory, 2004.
An examination of the 'just war' theory, which deals with the justification of how wars are fought and why.
3,233 words (approx. 12.9 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 93.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains the concept of a just war and examines the theoretical aspect and historical aspect of the just war theory. The paper explains that the theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying the engagement of war as well as the forms of warfare and that the historical aspect is concerned with the historical body of rules or mutual agreements existing in various wars across the ages. The paper also explains that the idea of a just war has historical precedent and can be seen as far back as biblical times and extends down through the Middle Ages and the time of Shakespeare.
From the Paper
"The idea of a 'just war' is a conundrum. How can one group of people consider their actions 'right' or 'just' to apply military force against a another group. When can one group's actions, which will create devastation, economic difficulty, and death to thousands of people, be considered 'right?' In a civilized society, the concept of a 'just war' has become the centerpiece of many discussions, and has acted as a gate keeper, restraining hawkish tendencies of nations who pride themselves in freedom, and individual liberty. In order for a nation to engage in an activity which creates harm for another group, there must be a justifiable reason."
| |
|
The Just War Theory, 2002.
Questions whether the recent US and British military action against Iraq satisfy the requirements of a just war theory.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 11 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the ethical issues of just war as they relate to the US-Iraq war and of gun control. The two cases illustrate the ethical dilemmas that underlie seemingly simple issues.
| |
|
The Just War Theory, 2007.
The paper discusses the factors necessary for a war to be considered just and moral.
1,100 words (approx. 4.4 pages), 7 sources, APA, $ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper explains that the just war theory is based on the ideal that war should be "restrained, made more humane and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice." The paper discusses how in order for a war to be considered "just," it must fit a set of predefined criteria. The paper discusses President Bush's declaration of war against terrorism, the Vietnam war and the American Civil War. The paper reveals that the difficulty with forming a "just war" is that there is no person capable of applying the criteria; which person can impose a definition of harm versus good?
From the Paper
"While humanizing war efforts is effective in minimizing cost, trade damage, and loss of life, it also has another significant advantage: by agreeing upon certain conventions for war, the two enemies have established that the war is between two rational parties that, despite their irresolvable conflict or conflicts, understand that war is an ends to a means and not a trend to be set and never revoked. "It is only when the enemy is seen to be a people with whom one will do business in the following peace that tacit or explicit rules are formed for how wars should be fought and who they should involve." "
| |
|
Just War Theory, 2004.
A look at the ethics and morality of the concept of 'just war', with an emphasis on Iraq.
1,826 words (approx. 7.3 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how conflicts and wars have been part of the human civilization since time immemorial and how, throughout the different eons of history, we have accounts of the destructive effects of wars, irrespective of the cause for which they were fought. It discusses how wars are very much a part of the political system of the world and how every religion in the world has had its own maxims and directives used as the standard for either supporting or disapproving of a war. It looks at how, from the Christian perspective, St. Augustine's 'Just cause theory' is the principle doctrine used for justifying a war. It discusses the philosophy of the 'just war' and ascertains whether or not it was followed in the U.S. war with Iraq.
Outline
Introduction
War and Humanity
Just War Doctrine
War and Ethical Reasoning
Terrorism and Just War
War with Iraq (Preemptive Strike)
Preemptive Attack and Consequences
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Given that wars imply destruction on a large scale and the loss of divinely ordained human life we are faced with the dilemma as to weather or not it is ethical to support it under any circumstances. Certainly we must strive towards peaceful means of settling issues and must avoid war at any cost. Wars that have the motive of national fame, territorial gains and purposes of a non-defensive nature are clearly a breach of ethical and moral code of conduct and should be properly regarded as unjustifiable. But under certain conditions when war is forced upon a nation it stands ethically and morally responsible to defend its people from the onslaught of the attackers."
| |
|
Sri Lanka's Civil War and IR Theory, 2005.
A look at different theories why the Sri Lankan civil war is not being resolved.
2,913 words (approx. 11.7 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 86.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The author analyzes the reason why some conflicts do not receive a response, despite an urgent need for such a response. More precisely, through the use of both liberalism and realism, the Sri Lankan conflict is analyzed, with the goal being to understand why, despite almost fifty years of obvious oppression, civil war, and apartheid by the Sri Lankan government against the Tamil, there has been no international response.
Outline
The Civil War
The Conflict from the Liberalist Perspective
The Conflict from the Realist Perspective
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Within the greater field of political science, international relations comes out as one of the more interesting areas of study. International relations is fascinating both to observe and two analyze for a number of reasons. First of all, although we often see international relations as referring only to the relationship between nations and different world governments and, hence, think of it as something which is remote from us, as individuals and citizens, it has a profound impact upon our lives. For example, the Syrian government's isolation from the non-Arab international community and the recent threats expressed by the United States regarding the consequences of refusing to withdraw from Lebanon, affect the lives of the average Syrian citizens. It affects them economically since trade and economic sanctions reduce investment and employment opportunities in the Syrian economy and affect their educational and even leisure opportunities as political sanctions make traveling all the more difficult for these citizens because they confront stricter visa requirements. The purpose of this particular example is to show that even though international relations appear remote, it is not. International relations is a part of our lives."
| |
|
The Gulf War and Liberalism Theory, 2005.
An analysis of the Gulf War within the structure of international relations.
2,910 words (approx. 11.6 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 86.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues that, while the first Gulf War may be understood through the application of the liberalism theory, it is more deeply and correctly comprehended through the lens of the realism theory of international relations.
From the Paper
"The first Gulf War did not end with the conclusion of the fighting and the restoring of Kuwait's sovereignty. According to Abbas Alnasrawi, the Gulf War continued in the political and economic sanctions suffered by Iraq and the inspection regime that it was subjected to throughout the aftermath of the Gulf War (211) until, we can say, the present war. The United Nations Security Council, led by the United States was determined to ensure that Iraq never have the capability of attacking one of its neighbours again, taking the invasion of Kuwait very seriously. Hence, Iraq suffered an embargo which lasted, according to Alnasrawi, 11 years (205) but considering that he had written this in 2001, we can say that the embargo lasted until the American invasion of Iraq."
| |
|
Globalist Theory and the War in Iraq, 2004.
Applies the perspectives of various global theories to the war in Iraq.
1,349 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the war in Iraq through the globalist perspectives of Karl Marx and Immanuel Wallerstein and through the neo-Marxist concept of hegemony. The paper explains how each philosophy would view America's actions in Iraq and how these philosophies would argue that historical and economic factors contributed to those actions.
From the Paper
"Traditionally, international relations is defined as the study of interstate behavior. The causes of war and conditions for peace have historically centered on the state. However, this traditional view has largely been challenged by the emergence and development of a globalist perspective. This viewpoint stresses the global effects that local actions have, and explores the motivations and consequences of individual nations trying to exert power and influence internationally. The present war in Iraq could be analyzed through different perspectives. On one side, the war could be understood as a humanitarian effort to liberate a nation from the strife and hardship experienced under a dictatorial regime, on the other side, the war in Iraq could be interpreted as an effort of one superpower to gain economic and political control over a weak nation in order to further self interest and promote local influence. A Globalist theory would follow this latter line of thought."
| |
|
Conflict Theory and the War In Iraq, 2002.
This paper examines various theories of conflict resolution as can be applied in the case of the American war on Iraq.
2,516 words (approx. 10.1 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 76.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at classical theorists such as Karl Marx and Max Weber, as well as modern theorists such as Ralph Dahrendorf, Lewis Coser, Randall Collins and Immanuel Wallerstein. The different views they have of conflict theory are then be applied to the war in Iraq. Once an understanding of conflict theory is established based on how these particular theorists choose to view it, a comparison and contrast of the beliefs that they hold is discussed as well.
From the Paper
"Classical theorists include Karl Marx and Max Weber. Karl Marx is basically the father of conflict theory, and many of the conflict and other social theories around today came from his beliefs and opinions. Marx believed in a materialist view of history, and saw the most important part of a social life as being the work that individuals were doing. This was especially true of work that resulted in the basic necessities such as shelter, clothing, and food. The value of society therefore resulted from human labor, and everything that men and women were doing to create society and shape it actually created the conditions for their very own existence (McClelland, 2000)."
| |
|
Theories of War, 2005.
This paper defines three interrelated theories of war: Realism, security dilemma and the balance of power.
3,950 words (approx. 15.8 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 107.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the concept of realism has been one of the most important and dominating theories which has come into force especially after the World War II. At the core of the principle is the question of whether justice must be applied when carrying out international affairs. The author points out that the security dilemma theory elucidates that when a state tries to increase its own security, it eventually tends to decrease the security of others. The paper relates that, over the years, the United States of America has as its foreign policy the concept of balance of power, which is used to control any big country trying to challenge her hegemony in the Asia-Pacific regions.
From the Paper
"A realist believes that moral principles such as justice must not be forced onto theories of War and the principles involved in maintaining international relations. A realist prefers to state that the issues of power and security must be given more importance that those of morals, and that a given state must concentrate on developing its own self-interests, and that the world of international affairs is an arena in which to display their own power in a sort of anarchical regime. A realist also believes that the idea that War is in itself an anarchical thought since it involves the entire anarchical world system that relies on national self-interest, where once a war has begun, it is imperative that one must make all the necessary attempts to win the war."
| |
|
Examines possible reasons for US entry into the Korean War (1950-53), with reference to several political science theories, such as balance of power and public opinion theories.US Involvement in the Korean War, 2001.
1,560 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 7 sources, $ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Examines possible reasons for US entry into the Korean War (1950-53), with reference to several political science theories, such as balance of power and public opinion theories.
From the Paper
"The most apparent theory behind the United States' involvement in the Korean War must be the balance of power theory. Russia was obviously the most threatening side in the Korean War, therefore the states aligned against the Soviet Union. The United States was resolved to contain Russian influence, and prevent threats to world peace and the independence and stability of other nations by resorting to collective security arrangements and acting through the United Nations."
| |
|
The Korean War and the Korean War Veterans' Memorial, 2005.
This paper discusses the forgotten war, the Korean War, and describes the Korean War Veterans' Memorial.
1,050 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, although statistically the Korean War took more lives than the Vietnam War, the Korean War has been branded as America's "Forgotten War" because it was over-shined by two "greater" wars, the Second World War and the Vietnam War, which dragged on for more than a decade. The author points out that the Korean War is important because it (1) started the end of the communist expansion in the world, (2) laid the ground for the entry of democracy in the states in Eastern Europe and Russia and (3) began the American foreign policy of military intervention to gain or maintain security, freedom and democracy in the world resulting in a number of military conflicts which continues today. The paper describes in detail the Korean War Veterans' Memorial, adjacent to the Lincoln Memorial directly across the reflecting pool from the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial in Washington, D.C., which was dedicated in 1995 by Bill Clinton and Kim Young Sam, then presidents of the U.S. and South Korea.
From the Paper
"The symbolisms in the memorial are brilliant pictures of a war that will never be forgotten. For as long as the memorial continues to exist, the memories of a war, which advanced freedom at the cost of the lives of millions of people, will eternally be thought of and etched in the minds of guests. Moreover, this memorial also serves as a reminder that freedom, though sweet and liberating, must never be taken for granted and must certainly be forever guarded, secured and remain dear in our hearts. It must also be remembered that there are still countries in the world that do not enjoy the rights given by a true democracy. The pursuit for the expansion of democracy must certainly not be abandoned. Still, millions of people are yearning for a free, equal state where social, economic and political justice stands and endures."
|
|
|
