Is

What is negative peace?

absence of war and no large scale, active, organized military violence. Can exist in the absence of culturally accepted notions of social justice. Although negative peace means there is no violence, it does not mean that the underlying issues of certain problems are solved.

What is positive peace?

An end state in which there is no physical or structural violence• A just, sustainable order; a world characterized by life-affirming and life-enhancing values and structures• A world in which every individual can reach their full human potential.- A process, in other words, a world that actively and self-consciously works toward a just, sustainable order

What is structural violence?

Situations that have the effect, even if not the intention, of denying people rights or which stunt the optimum development of any individual.- Reason for the indeterminism of positive peace as an end state• Hurting without Hitting- Violence can be done without a knowledge of doing it, by means of the institutions, practices, and structures of society

How does the Bom Jesus de Mata barrio in northeastern Brazil illustrate the dynamic and dilemma of structural violence?

Wages of the urban poor are too low to allow workers to provide basic needs for their families• Malnutrition results in a variety of physical and cognitive problems that limit people's potential• Both rich and poor attribute problems to the inferiority of the people, not poverty• Babies who die of malnutrition are seen as weak and lacking the will to live

What were the beliefs of Thomas Hobbes?

The state of nature is a condition of war of every man against every man.- Life is nasty, cruel, brutish, and short- Social institutions, such as absolute monarchy, exist to limit violence

What were the beliefs of John Locke?

In a state of nature violence is no more likely than cooperation- Violence is a function of social structures and human weakness- People can learn and can create societies/develop culture such that violence is unnecessary or illogical

What were the beliefs of Sigmund Freud?

There exist within all people a creative (erotic) instinct and a destructive instinct.• We cannot suppress these instincts, but we can create institutions (social/psychological) to control them.- Foremost among these is identification and feelings of community- Cultural change has an impact on the psyche and holds the possibility of rechanneling these instincts.

Why did Margaret Mead believe that war is preventable?

War is a social/cultural invention.• Evidence the Eskimos, a people who have all the reasons for war and all the pre-adaptations necessary for war. But they do not know war.• To end war, two things are required:- We need to recognize the defects of the old invention;- Someone needs to invent a better alternative.

How does the conflict between the German and Anglo-American schools of sociology illustrate the argument that human culture can either make war more acceptable and likely, or less acceptable and thus possibly also less likely?

Pre-war German school of sociology sees war as necessary to social development.• Based in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche (exceptional people—supermen)• Foundation of Nazi and Fascist fascination with war. The German school of sociology, with its emphasis on power and competition, tended to view war as a natural and necessary aspect of social life, while the Anglo-American school of sociology, with its emphasis on social harmony and cooperation, tended to view war as a tragic and avoidable outcome of failed negotiations.

For each of the three theorists, what is the relationship between socio-political-economic institutions (culture) and the propensity for violence and war?

2 / 2

In terms of the relationship between socio-political-economic institutions (culture) and the propensity for violence and war, Hobbes believed that a strong central authority was necessary to maintain order and prevent violent conflict. Locke, on the other hand, believed that a system of representative government and protection of individual rights would promote peace and stability.

Freud, meanwhile, suggested that cultural institutions such as religion, law, and morality play a crucial role in regulating our impulses and behaviors. In his view, these institutions serve as a kind of psychological "armor" that protects us from our own aggressive impulses and the destructive forces of society.

How have changes in the technology of war both discouraged war and made war more palatable?

The changes in the technology of war have had complex and varied effects on the propensity for war. On one hand, certain technological advances have made war more destructive, and thus more costly and less attractive as a means of resolving conflicts. For example, the development of nuclear weapons has made the potential consequences of war so catastrophic that it has discouraged states from engaging in direct military conflict with one another. Similarly, advances in medical technology have made it possible to save more lives on the battlefield, reducing the psychological and physical costs of war.

On the other hand, some technological changes have made war more palatable or even more likely. For example, the development of unmanned drones and other remote-controlled weapons has made it easier and less risky for states to engage in military interventions without putting their own troops in harm's way. This has led some scholars to argue that the use of drones has made military force a more attractive option for states, potentially increasing the likelihood of conflict.

Similarly, advances in communication technology have made it easier for states to engage in propaganda and psychological warfare, shaping public opinion and perceptions of the enemy. This has made it easier for states to mobilize support for war and to dehumanize their opponents, potentially increasing the likelihood of violent conflict.

What is militant enthusiasm, and what are the four conditions that excite the war reflex according to Konrad Lorenz?

Socio-political efforts to create support for a particular war. refers to a state of fervor and passion towards a particular cause or belief, often accompanied by a willingness to engage in aggressive or violent actions to defend or promote that cause.Threat from the outside- Negative emotions toward the source of the threat- An elite willing to mobilize the response- Other individuals who join with us and re-enforce the reflex

How does in-group identity, which has been essential for the survival of the human species, also encourage war

Competition for resources: When two groups with distinct in-group identities live in close proximity, they may compete for the same resources, such as land, water, or food. This competition can escalate into conflict, as each group seeks to protect its own interests and secure the resources it needs to survive.

Perception of threat: In-group identity can create a sense of us vs. them mentality, where members of the in-group see outsiders as a potential threat to their survival. This perception of threat can lead to aggression and conflict, as the in-group seeks to eliminate the perceived threat.

Justification for violence: In-group identity can provide a justification for violence against outsiders, as members of the in-group may view violence as necessary to protect their group and maintain their identity. This justification can make it easier for individuals to engage in violent behavior and justify their actions to themselves and others.

Groupthink: In-group identity can also contribute to groupthink, a phenomenon where members of a group conform to the group's norms and values, even if those norms and values are destructive or irrational. This can lead to a group making decisions that are not in their best interest, such as going to war based on faulty intelligence or irrational beliefs.

What is pseudo-speciation, and how is it related to bias against out-groups and the potential for war?

Characterizations that make others less human and, thus, it is more acceptable to kill them. Dehumanization: When individuals perceive members of an out-group as fundamentally different from themselves, they may be more likely to dehumanize them, viewing them as less than human and therefore, less deserving of compassion and respect. This can lead to the justification of violence and war against the out-group, as they are seen as less important or valuable than the in-group.

In-group favoritism: Pseudo-speciation can also lead to in-group favoritism, where individuals show more compassion and concern for members of their own group than for members of out-groups. This can create a sense of bias against out-groups, leading to discrimination and conflict.

Stereotyping: When individuals perceive members of an out-group as fundamentally different, they may rely on stereotypes and preconceptions about that group, rather than on individual characteristics or behaviors. This can lead to inaccurate and negative perceptions of the out-group, which can fuel bias and conflict.

Group polarization: Pseudo-speciation can also contribute to group polarization, where members of a group become more extreme in their views and actions, as they seek to protect their in-group identity and reject out-group influences. This can create an atmosphere of hostility and conflict, making it more likely that war or other forms of violence will occur.

What does Chris Hedges mean when he says that two key social functions of war are to give meaning to the lives of individuals and unity of purpose to society?What are the implications of this for Margaret Mead's idea that, to end war, we must understand its social function and find new institutions to replace it?

A cause; Unity within society—militant enthusiasm• Camaraderie of the war-fighters replaces social isolation. We must create institutions that provide a cause in society and create a community.

What are the four trends that Michael Klare argues might promote war in the 21st century?

Globalization- Internationalization of finance, manufacturing and trade- Growing middle class, rising consumption- China: autos alone may rise from 63 million in 2009 to 210 million by 2020• Population Growth- Global population will increase from 6.9 billion in 2010 to 9.3 billion in 2050.• Resource Depletion- Non-renewables: petroleum- Renewables: fisheries, forests, keystone animal species• Global Climate Change- Food production- Water

Why does Samuel Huntington believe that differences among cultures in the world will reemerge as the principal cause of war in the 21st century?

End of the Cold War has increased the salience of value/worldview conflicts between civilizations• Why?- Differences between civilizations are real and basic- Interactions between peoples of different civilizations are increasing (globalization)- Economic modernization and social change are threatening local identities and traditions- Civilization-consciousness in non-Western civilizations is growing at a time when Western power is at its height- Cultural conflicts are less negotiable or subject to compromise

How is his argument related to the dynamics of in-group/out-group bias? How might the promotion of multiple loyalties dampen the clash between civilizations?

Huntington's argument is related to the dynamics of in-group/out-group bias, as individuals tend to perceive those who are part of their cultural or religious group as "us" and those who are not as "them." This in-group/out-group bias can lead to conflict and tension between different civilizations, as each perceives the other as a threat to its way of life.

One way to dampen the clash between civilizations is to promote the idea of multiple loyalties, which involves encouraging individuals to identify with multiple groups and to recognize the shared values and interests that exist across different civilizations. This can help to bridge the divide between different cultures and promote greater understanding and cooperation. It can also help to reduce the influence of in-group/out-group bias by encouraging people to see themselves as part of a larger community of human beings, rather than solely as members of their own cultural or religious group.

What is diplomacy?

The use of authoritative agents to maintain mutual relations, communicate, and carry out political, economic, and legal transactions between states.- Direct communication between actors (states, groups) aimed at coordinating their behavior or at minimizing/changing perceptions of threat that result from the security dilemma.

What is negotiation?

Direct communication between parties to a conflict aimed at resolving or at least managing a conflict without resort to violence.

What is the security dilemma?

Uncertainty about the intentions of other actors which encourages each to act as if the other could pose a threat.

Why does the security dilemma make war more likely?

Misinterpretation of Intentions: As one state takes actions to increase its own security, other states may misinterpret those actions as hostile or aggressive. This misinterpretation can create a sense of fear and insecurity in other states, leading them to take their own defensive measures, which can further escalate tensions.

Arms Race: The security dilemma can create an arms race, where states try to outdo each other in terms of military capabilities. This can lead to a situation where states are constantly increasing their military spending and building up their arsenals, which can increase the likelihood of war by creating a situation of mutual vulnerability and fear.

Preemptive Action: In extreme cases, states may feel that their security is so threatened that they need to take preemptive action to protect themselves. This can lead to a situation where a state launches a military strike against another state, either to prevent an imminent attack or to eliminate a perceived threat.

How does diplomacy seek to overcome the security dilemma?

Confidence-Building Measures: Diplomacy can be used to establish confidence-building measures that help to build trust between states. These measures can include transparency and information-sharing, joint military exercises, and the establishment of hotlines for crisis communication.

Negotiated Settlements: Diplomacy can be used to negotiate settlements to disputes that address the concerns and interests of all parties involved. By reaching a mutually acceptable agreement, states can reduce the likelihood of conflict and build trust.

Multilateralism: Diplomacy can also be used to promote multilateralism, which is the practice of addressing international issues through the cooperation of multiple states. Multilateralism can help to reduce the security dilemma by creating a framework for states to work together to address common challenges.

Conflict Prevention: Finally, diplomacy can be used to prevent conflicts from arising in the first place. By engaging in early warning and early action, states can identify and address potential sources of conflict before they escalate.

What is the first known peace treaty?

The first known peace treaty in recorded history is the Treaty of Kadesh, which was signed in 1258 BCE between the Hittite Empire and the New Kingdom of Egypt. The treaty ended the conflict between the two powers over control of the city of Kadesh in modern-day Syria.

The Treaty of Kadesh illustrates the ancient origins of negotiation and diplomacy in several ways:

Written Agreement: The treaty was a written agreement between the two powers, which was unusual at the time. This demonstrates an early recognition of the importance of documenting agreements in order to prevent future misunderstandings and disputes.

Mutual Recognition: The treaty recognized the legitimacy of both the Hittite and Egyptian empires and established a framework for peaceful coexistence. This recognition of each other's sovereignty and legitimacy was an important step towards establishing a system of international relations based on negotiation and diplomacy.

Exchange of Gifts: As part of the treaty, both sides exchanged gifts and established a system of regular tribute payments. This exchange of gifts was an early recognition of the importance of building personal relationships and establishing a sense of reciprocity in negotiations.

Third-Party Mediation: The treaty was mediated by a third party, the king of the Mitanni kingdom, who was an ally of both the Hittites and the Egyptians. This demonstrates an early recognition of the importance of impartial mediators in negotiations and the value of engaging in negotiations with the assistance of a neutral third party.

What is the difference between bilateral and multilateral diplomacy?

Bilateral diplomacy refers to the practice of engaging in diplomatic negotiations and communication between two states or actors. In bilateral diplomacy, the focus is on direct communication and negotiation between two parties to resolve a specific issue or address a specific set of concerns.

Multilateral diplomacy, on the other hand, refers to the practice of engaging in diplomatic negotiations and communication between three or more states or actors. In multilateral diplomacy, the focus is on working together with multiple parties to address a common issue or challenge.

The main differences between bilateral and multilateral diplomacy are:

Number of Parties Involved: As mentioned, bilateral diplomacy involves two parties, while multilateral diplomacy involves three or more parties.

Level of Complexity: Multilateral diplomacy is generally more complex than bilateral diplomacy, as it involves coordinating the interests and concerns of multiple parties.

Range of Issues: Bilateral diplomacy is often used to address specific issues or concerns between two parties, while multilateral diplomacy is used to address a wide range of issues that affect multiple parties.

Negotiation Process: The negotiation process in bilateral diplomacy is often more direct and focused, while multilateral negotiations often involve a more complex and multi-layered negotiation process.

What is hard power? Examples?

Hard power refers to a nation's ability to use military and economic coercion to achieve its objectives. This can include the use of military force, economic sanctions, and other forms of coercion. Hard power is often contrasted with "soft power," which refers to a nation's ability to achieve its goals through attraction, persuasion, and diplomacy. A nation with strong hard power is seen as having the ability to influence events and achieve its goals through force, while a nation with strong soft power is seen as having the ability to influence events and achieve its goals through persuasion and attraction.

What is soft power?

Soft power is the ability of a nation to influence events and achieve its goals through attraction, persuasion, and diplomacy rather than coercion or force. Soft power can be achieved through various means such as a nation's culture, political values, foreign policy, and other non-military or economic aspects of its society. For example, a country with a strong democracy, a well-regarded educational system, and a thriving entertainment industry may be seen as having strong soft power, as other nations may be attracted to these aspects of its society and seek to emulate them. Soft power is often contrasted with "hard power," which refers to a nation's ability to achieve its objectives through military and economic coercion.

What is soft and hard powers' relationship to diplomacy?

In practice, diplomacy often involves a combination of both soft power and hard power approaches. Diplomats may use their communication skills to persuade other countries to align with their interests, while also leveraging the threat of military force or economic sanctions to achieve their objectives. The effective use of both soft power and hard power, in conjunction with diplomacy, can help countries achieve their foreign policy goals while minimizing the risk of conflict.

According to Fisher, Ury, and Patton, what are the four principles for conducting win-win or "principled" negotiation?

Separate people from the problem- Focus on interests, not positions- Generate a variety of options- Insist that the result meets some objective standard

According to negotiation theory, what are the four strategies for achieving a win-win or integrative result in negotiations?

Expanding the Pie: Make distributional issues go away.- Nonspecific Compensation: Provide something of equal value but outside the conflict to make up for lost goals.- Logrolling: Giving each party what they really want as opposed to what they are explicitly demanding.- Bridging: Finding creative alternatives that satisfy needs, usually in unanticipated ways.

According to Malley and Agha, the Camp David negotiations in 2000 were probably doomed from the outset. Why?

Barak's all or nothing approach, due to fears of Palestinian manipulation and of opposition within Israel, exaggerated Palestinian mistrust. Emphasis on big, historic proposal that never came. No genuine, written, "Israeli" proposal. No recognition that past backtracking had made confidence building essential. Arafat felt forced into the summit and distrusted Barak's actions Believed summit intended to force him into a bad deal or to mobilize world opinion against him. Fearing a trap, he focused on cutting his loses not on maximizing his gains.• Palestinian delegation could not mobilize to support any proposals or positions.

What are Good Offices and Mediation?

Providing a neutral place and friendly assistance without becoming involved in the discussion of issues- Oslo Peace Accords

Participating actively in the discussion of issues by offering proposals and interpretations that facilitate resolution of the conflict.- Camp David

What are Arms Control and Disarmament?

Dis: Mutual agreement to eliminate weapons in order to eliminate large scale, organized military violence (war)- General Complete Disarmament- Partial Disarmament

Arms control: Mutual agreement to limit the number or capabilities of weapons in order to reduce the security dilemma or reduce the degree of violence if war occurs- Nuclear arms agreements during the Cold War- Part of multilateral sanctions in intrastate wars after 1990

Relationship between arms control and disarmament?

rms control and disarmament are two related but distinct concepts in the realm of international security.

Arms control refers to efforts to limit the proliferation, spread, and use of weapons through the use of agreements, treaties, and other measures. Arms control agreements may seek to limit the number or type of weapons a country can possess, restrict the transfer of weapons to other countries or non-state actors, or regulate the testing or deployment of certain weapons systems.

Disarmament, on the other hand, refers to the reduction or elimination of weapons altogether, either unilaterally or through negotiated agreements. Disarmament can take many forms, from the elimination of nuclear weapons to the reduction of conventional forces, and may be pursued for a variety of reasons, including reducing the risk of conflict, increasing global stability, or freeing up resources for other purposes.

While arms control and disarmament are distinct concepts, they are often closely related. Arms control agreements may serve as a stepping stone towards disarmament, by building trust and reducing tensions between countries, while disarmament may be seen as the ultimate goal of arms control efforts. Both arms control and disarmament require cooperation and trust between nations, and diplomacy plays a key role in both. Ultimately, the relationship between arms control and disarmament is one of mutual reinforcement, with each concept supporting and strengthening the other in pursuit of a safer and more stable world.

strengths of diplomacy and negotiation

Respond directly to the need for information about the intentions, demands, needs, interests of other actors, especially other parties to conflicts.- Make it possible for states to move beyond the security dilemma by establishing coherent, consistent relationships over time

weaknesses of diplomacy and negotiation

Tool of statecraft that can be used to enhance prospects for peace or to position a state favorably for war.- Can be undermined by psychological and social factors inherent in information processing and decision making.

strengths of third party involvement

Neutral party can be indispensable channel of communication in difficult times- Neutral party may• See real needs more clearly• See creative opportunities for bridging • Bring resources for compensation

weaknesses of third party involvement

Third party can distort communication or agenda• If it has a stake• Even if it does not- Third party may make enemies or lose legitimacy in the process of mediation• Teddy Roosevelt in the Russo-Japanese Peace Treaty (1905)- Third party cannot force agreement and may create false expectations• "If there is no common ground, no common desire for settlement, the United Nations can do little."

Strengths of arms control

Stabilize competition/reduce the likelihood of war• Antarctic Treaty (1959)• Outer Space Treaty (1966)• INF Treaty (1990)- Eliminate or reduce weapons that have little strategic value but do great potential harm• Biological Weapons Ban (1972)- Limit wasteful spending and stabilize arms competitions• London and Washington Naval Treaties (1922, 1930)- Create agreements that help build trust over time• Rush-Bagott (1817)• Partial Test-ban Treaty (1963)• SALT I, II (1972, 1979)

Weaknesses of arms control

Can all weapons be eliminated?- Verification dilemma• Cold War nuclear weapons treaties: Satellites, Sensors, Inspections- Uncertain impact given technical complexity• From limiting the number of launchers to limiting the number of warheads, but what about yield?• Alternative interpretations of certain provisions: Was Iran violating nuclear arms agreement? Was Russia violating the INF Treaty?- Legitimize other dimensions of the competition and create a false sense of security• London and Washington Naval Treaties: from battleships to aircraft carriers

What was Charles Osgood's GRIT strategy, and why was it not generally well-received by international relations researchers?

A thoughtful but academic strategy for disarmament- Widely discussed but not favorably received in its time among IR researchers• Goal: To reduce and control international tension to create an atmosphere of mutual trust within which negotiations on critical military and political issues can proceed.

The GRIT strategy was not generally well-received by international relations researchers for several reasons. One criticism was that the strategy was overly simplistic and unrealistic, as it assumed that both parties would be willing to reciprocate each other's conciliatory gestures and that conflicts could be resolved through a series of incremental steps. In reality, many conflicts are deeply entrenched and involve complex, deeply held beliefs and interests that cannot be easily resolved through small gestures.

Another criticism was that the GRIT strategy did not take into account power imbalances between parties, which can make it difficult for one party to make the first move or for both parties to trust each other enough to reciprocate conciliatory gestures.

Finally, some researchers argued that the GRIT strategy was too focused on short-term, tactical gains and did not address the underlying structural issues that can perpetuate conflicts over the long term. In other words, while the GRIT strategy may be useful in resolving specific disputes, it does not necessarily address the root causes of conflicts or lead to lasting peace and stability.

What is Balancing Power as a peace tool?

Creating sufficient military power, singly or in alliance with others, to deter aggression or remove threat of coercion by creating a stable equilibrium.- Negative peace is maintained because war is unlikely to achieve political aims at a reasonable cost.

What is the relationship between Alliances and Balancing Power?

Alliances are often used as a tool for balancing power. By forming an alliance with other states, a state can increase its own power and influence, and thus help to balance against the power of other states. For example, during the Cold War, the United States formed alliances with other Western countries to balance against the power of the Soviet Union and its allies.

Strengths of balancing power/alliances

Under the control of the state- Has a direct impact on the rationality of using war to achieve political or economic goals.

Weaknesses of balancing power/alliances

Creates or exaggerates an enemy mentality- Adding capabilities to balance exaggerates the security dilemma- Imbalances can trigger opportunistic wars- Less useful to less powerful states- Not useful versus non-state actors or others who use asymmetric warfare- What constitutes a balance can be ambiguous given imperfect information and cognitive impediments to rationality

What are the four cognitive impediments to rationality that we discussed in class?

Misperception• Communication problems and cultural differences imped good signaling• Tend to filter out or distrust information that goes against existing assumptions• Can under or overestimate capabilities or threat- Mirror-image• Tend to see yourself as constrained but an enemy as unfettered• Tend to see yourself as entirely good and your enemy as entirely bad- Wishful-thinking• Tend to convince yourself that actions will succeed or risks are not so great• Exaggerated in group settings- Crisis Decision-making• Short time horizon• Restrictions on circle of advisors and search for options and already sparse information• Increased stress increases use of cognitive short-cuts

What is Collective Security?

A system in which all, or at least the powerful, states agree to unite against any aggressor, in particular, members of the system.- Any member will be targeted if it commits aggression• Not aimed at a particular enemy• Against actors outside the system, it is no different than an alliance- Goal: to limit the impulse/opportunity for states to use violence to achieve goals or resolve conflicts- Operationalized in League of Nations and United Nations

How does collective security compensate for the weaknesses of balancing power?

Collective security compensates for these weaknesses by providing a more comprehensive and stable approach to security. Rather than relying solely on balancing power, collective security seeks to address security threats through collective action. By working together, states can pool their resources and capabilities to more effectively deter aggression and respond to security threats. Additionally, collective security can provide a more stable and predictable security environment, as states can have confidence that they will not be left to face security threats alone.

What are the weaknesses of collective security?

Actors must agree that aggression has occurred and who committed the aggression- Requires commitment to intervene in conflicts with no immediate link to national interests• Threat to peace anywhere is a threat to peace everywhere- Would be aggressors must assume that the system will work, or deterrence will fail- Turning back aggression militarily is, well, WAR!- Even economic sanctions are ultimately violent because they hurt probable innocents- Economic sanctions demand even more cooperation and take time to work

How do the two instances in which the UN used military sanctions to enforce collective security illustrate those weaknesses?

Limited participation: The collective security system of the UN relies on the participation of all member states. However, in both the cases of Iraq and Korea, not all member states participated in the military sanctions imposed by the UN. In the case of Iraq, some members of the Security Council, notably China and the Soviet Union, abstained from voting in favor of military action. In the case of Korea, the Soviet Union was absent from the Security Council, which allowed the United States to secure the resolution for military action.

Lack of consensus: The collective security system of the UN depends on consensus among member states. However, in both the cases of Iraq and Korea, there was no consensus among the member states regarding military action. In the case of Iraq, China and the Soviet Union did not agree with the United States' position on military action, leading to their abstention from the vote. In the case of Korea, the Soviet Union's absence from the Security Council was due to its disagreement with the United States' position on the representation of China.

Inadequate enforcement: The collective security system of the UN relies on the enforcement of sanctions through military action. However, in both the cases of Iraq and Korea, the military action did not achieve its intended objective. In the case of Iraq, the military action led to a prolonged conflict that lasted over a decade and resulted in significant loss of life and resources. In the case of Korea, the military action did not lead to a permanent resolution of the conflict, and the Korean peninsula remains divided to this day.

Questionable legitimacy: The collective security system of the UN relies on the legitimacy of its actions. However, in both the cases of Iraq and Korea, there were questions about the legitimacy of the military action. In the case of Iraq, some argued that the military action was motivated by the United States' geopolitical interests rather than a genuine concern for collective security. In the case of Korea, the military action was seen as a proxy war between the United States and the Soviet Union, rather than a legitimate response to a threat to international peace and security.

Even if economic sanctions are less violent than military sanctions, are they peaceful? Why not? Are economic sanctions more or less likely to succeed than military sanctions?

Economic sanctions are not necessarily peaceful as they can have significant negative impacts on the targeted country's population, particularly the most vulnerable, such as the poor, children, and the elderly. Sanctions can lead to a decline in living standards, reduced access to essential goods and services, and increased poverty, which can lead to economic instability, social unrest, and human suffering.

Additionally, economic sanctions can be viewed as a form of coercion that seeks to exert pressure on a country to change its behavior. While not as overtly violent as military action, economic sanctions can still have severe consequences for a targeted country's political and economic stability, potentially leading to conflict and violence.

The effectiveness of economic sanctions compared to military sanctions depends on various factors, including the nature of the targeted regime, the level of international support for the sanctions, and the target country's ability to withstand the economic pressure.

In general, economic sanctions are less likely to succeed than military sanctions in achieving their intended goals because they depend on the cooperation of other countries and the global economy. Economic sanctions can harm the targeted country's economy, but they may also lead to the development of black markets and smuggling, which can undermine the intended effects of the sanctions. Additionally, economic sanctions can harm innocent civilians, which can lead to resentment and hostility toward the countries imposing the sanctions, making diplomatic resolution of the conflict more difficult.

In contrast, military sanctions are more likely to achieve their goals of regime change or behavior modification through the use of force, but they can also have severe human and material costs, including loss of life and infrastructure damage.

What is Peacekeeping?

Peacekeeping is a process by which military, police, and civilian personnel work together to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for lasting peace. The primary objective of peacekeeping is to create and maintain a peaceful and secure environment, and to facilitate the rebuilding of infrastructure and government institutions in a post-conflict society.

What are the key differences between first-generation peacekeeping and the new peacekeeping that emerged after the end of the Cold War?

Traditional Peacekeeping: The introduction of neutral, lightly armed military forces, under international control and auspices and at the request of the parties to the conflict, to supervise the situation and separate opposing forces.• The goals of traditional peacekeeping:- To limit armed conflict while peacekeepers are in place- To help resolve the underlying conflict so fighting does not resume when peacekeepers leave- Peacekeeping missions are intended to create conditions in which the parties to the conflict can settle the issues that gave rise to the fighting.

Demand for peacekeeping increases dramatically- Domestic conflicts no longer suppressed by superpowers- Proxy wars no longer supported by superpowers• Supply increases as well- Security Council less divided- Increased willingness to intrude in internal affairs

Mandate: The first generation of peacekeeping was primarily concerned with monitoring ceasefires and maintaining peace, while the new peacekeeping has a broader mandate that includes using force to protect civilians and to enforce peace agreements.

Complexity: The new peacekeeping is more complex than the first generation of peacekeeping because it involves a wider range of activities beyond just monitoring ceasefires, including supporting the implementation of peace agreements, promoting and protecting human rights, supporting democratic governance, and providing basic services to the population.

Size: Multidimensional peacekeeping missions are generally larger and more complex than traditional peacekeeping missions. They require a more robust military presence, including armored vehicles and other heavy equipment, as well as a larger number of civilian personnel, such as police officers, judges, and lawyers.