A civil conflict has traditionally been defined as “a war between political factions or regions within the same country.” However, it is equally important to take into account conflicts that are peaceful in nature, including religious tensions, non-violent political movements(e.g. imposition of a strong ideology: the war against communism in general for example, although it did contain elements of violence in certain regimes) as well as referendums. In light of the formal definition of a conflict, which is “a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one,” perhaps it would be more suitable to understand the term as any prolonged significant dispute over major political, religious, social or monetary issues between two or more influential parties that will affect a large number of people in any given country, and where force may not necessarily be involved.
The very first issue to take into consideration is the necessity of intervention. Indeed, we must ask ourselves the question of when it becomes morally acceptable for a foreign power to become involved with the affairs of others. It should be of no surprise that acting as an arbitrator in any …show more content…
With the annexation of the Crimea, Russia claimed that the majority of Ukraine were unhappy and thus pro-Russian. However, with a rigged public vote and the institution of a new pro-Russian Prime Minister Sergei Aksenov, the West looked on with suspicion. In response, heavy sanctions were placed on Russia by the US, who simultaneously back rebel fighters. In addition, the EU promoted trade with Ukraine in order to raise funds for pro-separatists forces. Even though the West did not intervene with military forces, it passively encouraged the use of violence. It might be argued that this is better than the previous example, since the use of lethal force should only ever be used as a last
The very first issue to take into consideration is the necessity of intervention. Indeed, we must ask ourselves the question of when it becomes morally acceptable for a foreign power to become involved with the affairs of others. It should be of no surprise that acting as an arbitrator in any …show more content…
With the annexation of the Crimea, Russia claimed that the majority of Ukraine were unhappy and thus pro-Russian. However, with a rigged public vote and the institution of a new pro-Russian Prime Minister Sergei Aksenov, the West looked on with suspicion. In response, heavy sanctions were placed on Russia by the US, who simultaneously back rebel fighters. In addition, the EU promoted trade with Ukraine in order to raise funds for pro-separatists forces. Even though the West did not intervene with military forces, it passively encouraged the use of violence. It might be argued that this is better than the previous example, since the use of lethal force should only ever be used as a last