“There must be all sorts in the world.”[1] Cervantes.
Besides Antarctica, few places on Earth are not ruled by a state today. Since the treaties consecrating the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years’ War, states have multiplied until they, now, cover most of the land surface on the planet.[2] As a consequence of these treaties, the Roman-Catholic Church started to lose influence. In the meantime, states gradually became the most important players on the international arena. States interactions have grown daily ever since. Mostly peaceful, these interactions regrettably often turned into conflicts, sometimes the bloodiest ones, even total monstrosities in some instances such as the two world wars. In trying to avoid reproducing …show more content…
But, because the Cold War did not lead to another open and global confrontation, some people claim that “while force might have played a determining role in the creation and sustainment of international order in the past, it plays a limited role today, and promises to play a lesser one tomorrow.”[3] This essay defends that such views are to some extent simplistic, descriptive and overly optimistic. In contrast, this argument proposes an alternative analysis: If the open use of force was crucial in shaping the international order, its coercive use is and will remain paramount in keeping and expanding the international order, which, in turn, will legitimize coercive actions until military forces become steadily police …show more content…
Certainly not. As Andrew Hurrell underlines in the foreword, despite the multiplication of transnational corporations and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, which encouraged hopes in intergovernmental structures, the 2008 economic crisis renewed the importance of states.[7] Even some renowned scholars in economy like Peter Dicken embrace this now prevalent position.[8] Now, how do force and coercion fit in the relation of states in the anarchical international
Besides Antarctica, few places on Earth are not ruled by a state today. Since the treaties consecrating the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years’ War, states have multiplied until they, now, cover most of the land surface on the planet.[2] As a consequence of these treaties, the Roman-Catholic Church started to lose influence. In the meantime, states gradually became the most important players on the international arena. States interactions have grown daily ever since. Mostly peaceful, these interactions regrettably often turned into conflicts, sometimes the bloodiest ones, even total monstrosities in some instances such as the two world wars. In trying to avoid reproducing …show more content…
But, because the Cold War did not lead to another open and global confrontation, some people claim that “while force might have played a determining role in the creation and sustainment of international order in the past, it plays a limited role today, and promises to play a lesser one tomorrow.”[3] This essay defends that such views are to some extent simplistic, descriptive and overly optimistic. In contrast, this argument proposes an alternative analysis: If the open use of force was crucial in shaping the international order, its coercive use is and will remain paramount in keeping and expanding the international order, which, in turn, will legitimize coercive actions until military forces become steadily police …show more content…
Certainly not. As Andrew Hurrell underlines in the foreword, despite the multiplication of transnational corporations and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, which encouraged hopes in intergovernmental structures, the 2008 economic crisis renewed the importance of states.[7] Even some renowned scholars in economy like Peter Dicken embrace this now prevalent position.[8] Now, how do force and coercion fit in the relation of states in the anarchical international