Short Answer*
1. The peace of Westphalia end the thirty Years’ War between Spain, the Dutch and parts of German sects. It set the ground for modern sovereignty because before the war, Europe was under a feudal system. The treaty outlined state sovereignty and took away the power of the church by giving power to states within their own territory.
2. The constructivist theory states that society is constructed by norms and ideas. These Norms change within a scale. This scale ‘Norm emergence, tipping point, norm cascade, and internationalization’ Basically, it starts with a start of a norm or idea. So, a norm must be taken under way in the first stage, as state feels betters them domestically or foreign. Next the ‘turning point’ is when a good …show more content…
The theory is classified into three categories. (Jus ad bellum) (Jus in Bello) and (jus post bellum). Each category highlights moral principles in which a state uses to justify going, or not going to war. They are (Jus ad Bellum) right to go to war, just conduct in War (Jus in Bello) and Justice after war (Jus post bellum). Under these guidelines, a state can practically conduct whether they are going to war for the right reasons, as well as reasons that benefit both sides, and that is not inherently set out for the wrong intentions. As for the Syrian Civil War, the just war theory provides a framework that narrowly defines it as not a just war. I will explain …show more content…
It is not. Since the theory says it is only just went acting out in self-defense. Within Syria we would not be acting out in self-defense, rather we would be just choosing sides in which benefit us. Also, the US has not been directly attacked by the aggressors, or have any national interests been jeopardized, which makes our claim of just cause false. Next, we must look at the overall intention of the war. The question here is whether the US is acting for its own interests and feel that, intervention will lead to democracy within the state, or if the US is truly acting against Islamic terrorism within the state to help Syrian civilians. I believe the US is acting only to its own interests. This is meaning, the intention of war, would benefit the US because, one, they would have another reason to have troops within the region, and to interfere with what is going on to make sure actions suit national interests, and not the interests of Syrian civilians. Next, just war theory asks whether all possible other scenarios have been exhausted prior to the choice of going to war. This I would say, the US has not met. They continue to just adhere to the status quo. I feel there is other options the US can take before choosing to go to war. Such as establishing a relationship with Russia that offers a possible solution to the conflict in which benefits all parties. The next facet the theory
1. The peace of Westphalia end the thirty Years’ War between Spain, the Dutch and parts of German sects. It set the ground for modern sovereignty because before the war, Europe was under a feudal system. The treaty outlined state sovereignty and took away the power of the church by giving power to states within their own territory.
2. The constructivist theory states that society is constructed by norms and ideas. These Norms change within a scale. This scale ‘Norm emergence, tipping point, norm cascade, and internationalization’ Basically, it starts with a start of a norm or idea. So, a norm must be taken under way in the first stage, as state feels betters them domestically or foreign. Next the ‘turning point’ is when a good …show more content…
The theory is classified into three categories. (Jus ad bellum) (Jus in Bello) and (jus post bellum). Each category highlights moral principles in which a state uses to justify going, or not going to war. They are (Jus ad Bellum) right to go to war, just conduct in War (Jus in Bello) and Justice after war (Jus post bellum). Under these guidelines, a state can practically conduct whether they are going to war for the right reasons, as well as reasons that benefit both sides, and that is not inherently set out for the wrong intentions. As for the Syrian Civil War, the just war theory provides a framework that narrowly defines it as not a just war. I will explain …show more content…
It is not. Since the theory says it is only just went acting out in self-defense. Within Syria we would not be acting out in self-defense, rather we would be just choosing sides in which benefit us. Also, the US has not been directly attacked by the aggressors, or have any national interests been jeopardized, which makes our claim of just cause false. Next, we must look at the overall intention of the war. The question here is whether the US is acting for its own interests and feel that, intervention will lead to democracy within the state, or if the US is truly acting against Islamic terrorism within the state to help Syrian civilians. I believe the US is acting only to its own interests. This is meaning, the intention of war, would benefit the US because, one, they would have another reason to have troops within the region, and to interfere with what is going on to make sure actions suit national interests, and not the interests of Syrian civilians. Next, just war theory asks whether all possible other scenarios have been exhausted prior to the choice of going to war. This I would say, the US has not met. They continue to just adhere to the status quo. I feel there is other options the US can take before choosing to go to war. Such as establishing a relationship with Russia that offers a possible solution to the conflict in which benefits all parties. The next facet the theory