A government has an monopoly on legitimate use of force. Internationally, force is applied for the sake of its protection and security. Answering the question that why use of force on national level is not different from the international level, I would like to cite an example considering above mentioned arguments. Use of private force against a single authority or against multiple authorities threaten international system along with national structure. Al Qaeda in the past two or three decades and ISIS in recent years are the examples of private forces which have continuously threaten the governments of the countries in which they operate and with their global agenda, are source of constant trouble for international community. The reason why these private forces are able to encompass both national and international arena in their domain of influence is the increase of their resources and with the ever growing technology expanding their horizons. Governments, trying to eradicate these forces from their territories are also forming international coalitions with the countries other than it, which are also effecting by them to fight against them.
In my opinion, issues of the kind of ISIS or Al Qaeda are bound to be national as well as internationally influential due to the global agenda and the modern day technology they enjoyed. However, some issues can only pertain to the national level only like a militant group fighting for autonomy in that state only and government can handle it the way it want but in this technological world, states need not to distinguish between national and international conflicts.
National system is not one of self-help. The international system is and I think that is the only distinguishable factor between use of force on national level versus international level, like on national level as illustrated by the above example, government has to use its legitimate right of using force but on international arena, states have to worry about their survival. They have to evaluate their options that are favoring their interests and then, they are bound to solve that issue collaboratively.
In my opinion, issues of the kind of ISIS or Al Qaeda are bound to be national as well as internationally influential due to the global agenda and the modern day technology they enjoyed. However, some issues can only pertain to the national level only like a militant group fighting for autonomy in that state only and government can handle it the way it want but in this technological world, states need not to distinguish between national and international conflicts.
National system is not one of self-help. The international system is and I think that is the only distinguishable factor between use of force on national level versus international level, like on national level as illustrated by the above example, government has to use its legitimate right of using force but on international arena, states have to worry about their survival. They have to evaluate their options that are favoring their interests and then, they are bound to solve that issue collaboratively.
I think that the Al - Qaeda example is a good application of Waltz's concept of force in the international and national arena.It is not always necessary that international and national threats to peace can be neatly distinguished and set apart.
ReplyDeleteThat is the reason why modern political structures should be formulated such that they can also contribute towards foreign policy in contrast to the classic authors who suggest that IR is a distinguished class from national politics.
DeleteI agree with your view about Al Qaeda being a national and an international threat for many. Even though it is just one force, it is not only threatening national but also international securities of many. There are several countries who suffer from this ordeal.
ReplyDeleteDistinguishing between national and international threats is important. I agree that Al Qaeda is a national threat to some states - but even then, not as big of a threat as people think - but I would argue that it is not an international threat in spite of its goals.
ReplyDelete