• —> conflicts more intrastate conflicts •

• in pcw period we came to see ethnic, religious, tribal identities clashing with each other
• —> as we approach s rather than states being security providers
• —> central auth. became problem. of sec for citizens
• —> what if state is killing its ppl?
• either hijaced by one group—> i.e. Rwanda, Serbia
• interstate conutrid killing each other
example:
• one state witnessing biased/sided with one group in conflict in own country
• so before states have monopoly of force, are protectors, protecting from outside but now threat inside
• that emanated in traditional understanding from other states
• but what happened by end of cw the threat started coming from different groups within the states
• option 1: states fail, groups attack each other
• option 2: state feel threatened and become murder states —> killing own ppl
• when states collapse and intrastate conflict —> ethnically, religiously,
-
when there is no state to provide security : does int. society have responsibility to help out ?
• humanitarian intervention became more imp. issue in intl pol.
• let group fight or does intl. society does have response
• what you gonna do with a murder state
• should we think what goes on in domestic arena doesn’t concern intl. arena
• should we think that states wether they are member of intl. society or think to do sth and intervene in murder states which are at war with own citizens
• —> 90-91. 6-7-8 decision on north flight zones on Iraq of un—> hussein kilig kurds in north, shiva in south
• 1. Humanitarian intervention first blow to the heart of 1648, bc 1648 is based on nonintervention whatever happens
• 2. challenge to question sovereignty
• —> sovereignty should be minimal
• new kinds of conflicts within states <—most imp issues
38

• starts automatically having sovereign right, requiring nonintervention to domestic affairs —> radically challenged after pcw
• sovereignty not see as given thing, but needs to be proved—> questioning 1648
• at the same time we witnesses more traditional concerns of int. politics
• —> change not always progressive, linear
• .—> can be receded, can backlash
• starting of cw questioning 1648—> question of nonintervention —> i.e syria al assad <— concerned with what is happening to 1648 order
• order vs jusice comes up
• 2nd : what is happening to state—> bc of proliferation of different actors
• —> bc of glob, more transnational mvmts becoming global after east west conflict
• the set in pcw challenged by supernational actors as well as multinational coop.
• state under attack by competing identities within
• (homogenising ???)
• transnational terrorism challenging
• we have seen globalisation of terror and that whatever challenge state could adjust—> interstate coop. solving world probs
- dominance of realism ( late s)
• —> poverty,hunger on agenda
• dominance of cw made IR discipline prioritise high politics
• high pol conflicts wars, real threats military force, issues of power
• —> about power politics btw states
• low pol. : env., econ, less important bc of wars during cw period
• after cw we have seen a revival in discourse, actors proliferating, issues of intl. politics proliferating
• shift from state sector to human sector utmost fundamental
• —> does not only mean protection from military threat
• —> but also minimal access to clean water, nutrition—> certain standards of dev.
• rather than looking at high politics as function of state
39

• —> but build a protective system
• call in dizcilen not only how oxide but how they protect ppl inside , issues of development gender, HR, fight against poverty
• —> now states responsible of indv.
- world politics
• liberal optimistic of future world
• undermining that cw was overtime for individ. to enjoy full freedom, live away from constant threat of war
• liberal ideas—> Fukoyama's end of history tell us no ideological conflicts, world settled into equilibrium in time
• end of history —> there won’t be wars, bc no ideologies

Download 0.86 Mb.

Share with your friends: