Why do Nations go to War: A Neoliberal Perspective Neoliberal institutionalism is a political ideology that recognizes the importance of the state as a rational and central actor in international politics, but as its name suggests, it also accords value to the presence of international institutions. Though, as do realists, they also believe that states are self-interested, the neoliberal paradigm puts great emphasis on cooperation and change rather than the omnipresent threat of war as a consequence of living in an anarchic world. Due to this, nations going to war in a liberal’s perspective is a rarity. War is fought for an instrumental purpose. War is going to be looked at as a problem of bargaining over goods.
Terrorism can be defined as, ‘The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.’ (FBI). Strategic Warfare can be defined by breaking it into two parts. Merriam-Webster defines Strategic as, ‘A plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.’ and warfare as ‘Engagement in or the activities involved in war or conflict’. Thus in essence strategic warfare is planned actions during a conflict with the aim of victory, but in context Strategic Warfare is the use of attacks, whether it be on military or civilian targets, with the aim to push the enemy into surrender. Using a variety of tactics, such as, demoralization of enemy population (Nazi Blitz of London WWII) and, embargo and seizure of materials entering a nation (British policy on goods travelling to Germany during WWI), militaries have changed the parameters and rules of war to those of a ‘Strategic’ nature.
Shakespeare uses language to show many different perspectives on war. The first perspective is war as a mighty force. Shakespeare compares the English advance into France with a natural, aggressive disaster. He says the English "came pouring like the tide into a breach" (1.2.149), likening it to an unpredictable and unstoppable force of nature. This shows war to be a great force to be feared.
Michael Walzer argues that there is an important moral difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism in his just war theory. The war convention prohibits combatants from intentionally killing civilians and imposing foreseeable harm on noncombatants that are disproportionate to a military end, thus the jus in bello criteria of proportionality and discrimination are crucial for assessing whether or not a military action is just and morally acceptable. Walzer argues that it is most preferable that civilians have a right that “due care” is taken by combatants to avoid imposing unnecessary and inappropriate risks of harm and death upon them.  This claim about civilian rights and noncombatant immunity works to impose restrictions and prohibitions on certain military tactics and strategies in an effort to prevent military and political leaders from weighing victory over concern for human rights to life and liberty. Walzer distinguishes between guerilla warfare and terrorism, arguing that the latter’s conduct is not justified according to the established rules of war.
It is characterized by extreme aggression, economic disintegration and irrationality, social disruption, and usually high mortality. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence or intervention. The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war is usually called peace. The political and economic circumstances, in the peace that follows war, usually depend on the facts on the ground.
Terrorism – A Global Issue “Terrorism shares many qualities with military and paramilitary groups’ actions, as well as criminal organizations and activities, constituting what is often referred to as grey-area phenomena because terrorism’s multifaceted qualities permit it to fall between the cracks of hard-and-fast identification and definition” (Lentini, 2008, para. 2). Terrorism, led by political motivation, is often dictated by who has the power or control at that time. It is not just the act of the people or groups against the government but the government against its people. State sanctioned
What problems are created by war? And can wars be justified; can there be an appropriate reason to go to war which could take precedence over the first two questions? War is a state of conflict and each time war is declared the main aim is to try and solve a problem. War is different in each situation and you cannot say that every war solved the problems that induced fighting in the first place. The recent invasion of Iraq was caused because several governments, primarily the American, believed that Iraq was creating Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The point of terrorism is to cause a wide and extreme sense of fear and also to prove a point or purpose, which mostly is another person or country. Terrorism is always carried out in a way that it draws an audience. Differences in terrorism involve to people who are being targeted and how terrorism is carried out. The next think you should be informed of is the term “justification”. What is justification?
The first part of the essay will focus on the question of ‘what is terrorism?’ I will outline the key aspects of what classes an act an act of terrorism. I will then go onto define the act of freedom fighting. The second part of the essay discusses the differences and similarities between the tactics used in these two acts. Lastly I will argue that the biggest difference between terrorism and freedom fighting is ultimately how one perceives an act as either legitimate or illegitimate and also how the outcome of the conflict affects this distinction between these acts. To understand the differences between an act of terrorism and an act of freedom fighting it is important to understand the true definition of ‘terrorism’.
Terrorism has a long history, and still there is not an accepted definition. The most used is the one that the United States has in it´s constitution: “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience" I think that the “noncombatant” part is only to justify war, wich I think that should be considered as a type of terrorism too, because works the same way, and are very similar if you analise it. A more accurate definition would be “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.” (taken from an english dictionary) Terrorism is now an important problem to the world and Europe. There have been many councils to analyse and find a way to fight against it. This problem is now so big that the European Union has as a priority project to erradicate it.