Effects of Rules of International Security on Military Force Practices - Coursework Example

EFFECTS OF THE RULES AND NORMS OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ON MILITARY FORCE PRACTICES   Introduction Over the past decades, there have been remarkable progresses in the development of military operation practices and collective security systems across international platforms. Traditional forms of military practices are maintained and further developed in conjunction with new developments that respond to the challenges of attaining international security, multinational cooperation and legal regulation. Treaty law, customary law and best practices appropriate for military operations are developed from various branches of international law. Cooperation between states and international society brings progressive development applicable rules and the need for legal rules and best practices and best practices. The above factors assess military operations.1 The consequences of failure to maintain appropriate standards have profound military and political effect on the defiant nation. This makes the identification and correct application of international society’s rules and norms crucial in planning and conducting military operations. This paper examines the ways in which international society’s rules and norms affect the ways in which states use military force. The integration of nations through the United Nations (UN) made it easy to address security concerns in the globe efficiently. United Nations Security Council is charged with issues of international security. The council makes rules in collaboration with member states that address vast areas of security concerns including terrorism, rules of engaging in wars with other nations, peaceful ways of inter-border conflict resolution, weaponry to use in wars and military operations and practices appropriate to each war situation. The council lays down rules on how to handle international conflicts. It mainly advocates for peaceful resolution through negotiations and arbitration. All member states must first try to resolve a conflict peacefully before resulting to armed conflicts.2 The Security Council acts as an arbitrator among member states and advices them on the best practices to solve the conflict peacefully. Where the members fail to comply with the peaceful strategies given solve the conflict, the council acts as a neutral factor in the ensuing war and regulates the best military practices such as restricting of unwarranted force to defeat the opponent and protect the interests of civilians. The international society lays rules and norms on what kind of military weapons to use in any kind of war. Following the World War 2 and the Vietnam War where there was use of nuclear weapons, the international community banned manufacture and use of nuclear weapons in military operations and practices. Nuclear weapons are dangerous weapons for mass destructions. They cause permanent injuries to civilians and irrecoverable damage to the environment. For example, during the Vietnam War, nuclear weapons were used to bomb Japan, Vietnam and other areas. These bombs killed masses of civilians, destroyed the environment completely and altered the genetic makeup of individuals, causing negative health and environmental that have affected many generations. Following this attack, the international society banned use of nuclear weapons for any kind of military operations. The International society monitors nations to ensure that they don’t manufacture nuclear weapons. If nations manufacture such weapons, the Society destroys them and prohibits their active testing and use. According to Andrew Smith (2003), the international society lays down the military practise to use to counteract terrorism. Waging war on terrorism poses significant challenges for liberal democratic governments. The greatest challenge for nations perhaps lay in the range of complexity of terrorism countermeasures that are comprehensive to end the terrorism menace across the international borders. The international society helps in the development and implementation of military strategies to counter terrorism worldwide. The strategies developed require international cooperation, planning and coordination. This type of planning is difficult to achieve without international society involvement (Smith 2003). Counter terrorism measures require efficient management and centralised approach to military strategic planning and execution. The international society assists in development of highly efficient military plans by eradicating traditional autonomy and replacing it with intra-state jurisdictions. The aim of this move is to involve all nations and to coordinate their military opponents so that they target the terrorists without harming the civilians. Therefore, the international society develops strategic global military plans to counter terrorism and end the menace in all countries. According to Roberts, the international society has rules that dictate how foreign nations can intervene in domestic wars to control and bring peace in the warring nation.3 This minimises the limitations of military doctrines and practices that are often exposed in events that follow foreign military involvement in domestic conflicts of a nation. For example, international society rules on military involvement in foreign intervention helps to reduce resistance to international aid aimed to improve the conflict situation by the locals.4 For example, international society involvement in the Afghanistan helped to counteract the stiff resistance that US-Led- military intervention faced from the locals. The Afghan War in the 19th century formed the foundation for the view of the country and its people. The people especially displayed unusual resistance to any form of military aid and control, actual or perceived. The people resisted any form of foreign control which made it difficult for foreign intervention to end ethnic conflicts in the country. The international community lays down rules on how foreign countries can use military operations without controlling the country in crisis to minimise resistance to military aid by the locals who don’t want to lose their Nation’s sovereignty and control to foreigners.5 Roberts argues that the international society has revived the doctrine of counter-insurgency because if properly used, it can be very effective in conflict resolution.6 The revival of the doctrine was contributed by events in Iraq and the development of the insurgency in Afghanistan. The revival was foreseen as an adversary response to unique patterns of US dominance on the battlefield. The adversary responses to US dominance came in form of guerrillas and terrorism attacks from its adversaries. The international security laws state that a nation can use its military power and resources to retaliate in attacks initiated by enemy states, to protect its people and sovereignty. Therefore, reviving the doctrine was important to allow US and other nations to protect their sovereignty and protect its people against external aggression.7 However, the international society gives rules on the military operations used by countries to protect itself. For example, it lays down the weapons that can be used depending on the force used by the enemy. According to Mark, the international society analysis wars and advice nations on the best way to handle conflict without resulting to violent means.8 The society analysis reveals the falsity of the assumption that wars are won by the party having military superiority. For example, the recent conflict between America War in Vietnam reveals that conventional military superiority prevails in any war. The War revealed that military superiority doesn’t necessarily guarantee victory and in some cases may be counter-productive. The war also revealed that under some conditions, the battle field may extend to include the political and social institutions of external power. The Vietnam war was fought on two fronts-one was bloody and indecisive in the mountains and forests of Indochina while the other was non-violent, yet more decisive within the political and social institutions of the US.9 The American’s experience in the War was unique. In1954, the Vietminh destroyed the French forces. The Vietminh didn’t defeat the French forces after this attack because they lacked military capability. However, they destroyed French’s political capability to mobilize further troops to continue the struggle. Therefore, international society educate nations to focus on important military practices and aspects such as destroying opponent’s political capability and will to prevent conflicts. Andrew argues that international society reminds nations that wars are won by strategies rather than military capabilities. The Vietnam War was a reminder that in wars, the ultimate goal is to affect the enemies will. Most nations currently focus on suppressing the enemy’s military capability to wage wars in order to destroy his will to continue the struggle. Therefore, nations now turn to technology as strategic weapons are deployed to protect nations from external aggression. Because guerrillas lack the technological weapons to defeat their enemies, they focus on destroying his political capability. This strategy works because if they destroy the target’s will to continue the struggle, then the military capability, no matter its power is irrelevant. Therefore, international society warns nations not to rush into weaponry wars because they have military resources. Rather, nations are advised to wage strategic military operations to weaken the opponents will to continue the struggle.10 Through this, the war is defeated without bloodshed and costly military operations. Nations focus on using superior military strategy to suppress conflicts rather than focus on military capability to achieve the same objective. International rules and norms gives guidelines that enable a country to maintain national solidarity when faced with an external threat. The guidelines point out that an external threat is necessary and sufficient condition for the emergence of a popular front. These guidelines give the international countries legitimacy to build weapons and prepare to wage war where an opponent attacks them. The international society doesn’t advocate for violent resolution of conflict unless there is an ambush of an external threat, in which case, the victim can retaliate violently in self-defence. Even so, the international community gives rules on type of weapons to use depending on the opponents force and prevailing conditions.11 The society also intervenes between the warring parties to help them resolve the conflicts peacefully, rather than result to military force. These guidelines help to contain conflicts them from infiltrating into the political and social systems where they will be difficult to contain and suppress. Henry Kissinger emphasized the power of strategic military operations by making several observations from the American War in Vietnam.12 He observed that the Americans sought physical attrition while Vietnam, fought a political war. The Vietminh aimed for American’s psychological exhaustion. In the process, Americans lost sight of a key maxim of guerrilla warfare… “Guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win”. Similarly, international society believes that nations with legislative bodies cannot get involved in a war of attrition either financially or psychologically. The multiparty political structure makes commitment to long term wars a political suicide.13 Financial burden for such attrition would increase with time resulting in an outcry against the war which will weaken the troop’s ability to continue the fight. Therefore, strategic military plan of suppressing an enemy’s will to fight is the cheapest way to fight the enemy and the most expensive for the enemy. Conclusion Over the past decades, there have been remarkable progresses in the development of military operation practices and collective security systems across international platforms. Treaty law, customary law and best practices appropriate for military operations are developed from various branches of international law. Cooperation between states and international society brings progressive development applicable rules and the need for legal rules and best practices. The consequences of failure to maintain appropriate standards have profound military and political effect on the defiant nation. This makes the identification and correct application of international society’s rules and norms crucial in planning and conducting military operations. The integration of nations through the United Nations (UN) made it easy to address security concerns in the globe efficiently.14 The international society lays rules and norms on what kind of military weapons to use in any kind of war. The society lays down the military practise to use to counteract terrorism. It also advices nations to use strategic military practices to reduce political capability and willingness to wage wars rather than engage in physical military wars. The rules concerning military practices dictate how nations wage wars and military practices used to contain violent practices and maintain peaceful negotiations. Bibliography Adam Roberts. “Doctrine and Reality in Afghanistan, Survival: Global Politics and Strategy”, 51:1 (2009) 29-60, Beitz, Charles R. Political theory and international relations. Vol. 13. Princeton: Princeton University Press, (2009). Checkel, Jeffrey T. "The constructive turn in international relations theory."World politics 50, no. 02 (2008): 324-348. Cortell, Andrew P., and James W. Davis Jr. "How do international institutions matter? The domestic impact of international rules and norms." International Studies Quarterly (2006): 451-478. Farrell, Theo. "Transnational Norms and Military Development: Constructing Irelands Professional Army." European Journal of International Relations 7, no. 1 (2001): 63-102. Kissinger, Henry, and Vera Wellings. American foreign policy. Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind Tertiary Resource Service., 1969. Mack, Andrew. "Why big nations lose small wars: The politics of asymmetric conflict." World Politics 27, no. 02 (1975): 175-200. Risse, Thomas, and Kathryn Sikkink. "The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: introduction." CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 66 (2009): 1-38. Walker, Rob BJ. Inside/outside: international relations as political theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (2003) Read More