Please note! This essay has been submitted by a student.
This essay discusses the relationship between terrorism and civil war in order to explore the reasons, effectiveness and institutional use of terrorism as a policy tool in the political system. Therefore, from the perspective of the concept of non state terrorism, terrorism, as a means used by various actors, including state actors and non state actors, must be transformed into a policy instrument. Secondly, terrorism is one of the causes of civil war, especially civil war. When a country regards terrorism as a national policy.
For example, careful observation of the ongoing civil war shows that the use of violence to silence the voices of people in Syria, Sudan and Congo is one of the root causes of national policy. In other words, the definition of terrorism must include the use of terrorism or any policy aimed at causing fear in certain sectors or in the population / population as a whole or in society or ethnic groups. Therefore, in order to illustrate this theoretical point of view, this paper discusses the comparative analysis of some cases of long-term civil wars and the use of terrorism as a policy in Syria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan, the Philippines and Yemen.
Tools provided by different types of participants (national and non-national). For example, scholars have identified the use of state policies in cases of ethnic persecution, which can be classified as violent acts of terrorism, one of the main causes of Civil War (Fearon and Laitin 75-76). In addition, it reviewed the institutional structures and procedures for curbing terrorism at the regional and international levels. Therefore, this paper attempts to analyze the effectiveness and problems of the United Nations system in curbing terrorism and controlling civil war.
Like other concepts. In this regard, the report provides a detailed analysis of the main institutional arrangements, the concept of collective and regional security and the right to intervene, and refers to their effectiveness in preventing state or non state actors from using terrorism as a policy tool. The link between terrorist activities refers, even more broadly, to violent activities by non-state actors aimed at subverting existing institutions or destabilizing them and at creating fear among a larger population. In their study, findley and young found that more than 75% of terrorist activity occurred in the space and time of the civil war (findley and young 284-285).
The study covered more than 30 years of data, covering cases from around the world between 1970 and 2004. However, one may disagree with the actual cause-and-effect relationship between civil war and terrorism, which is clear or implicit. These data do have some limitations, but there are many databases that provide a variety of data on terrorism and civil war in different temporal and spatial dimensions. Conflict with uppsala database and armed conflict in place and regularly updated database event data (ACLED) project, this is a set of reliable data, this study used the data to support the argument about close ties between terrorism and civil war as a result, the starting point of this article is that terrorism as a policy and citizen
There is a strong connection between the wars. Secondly, the definition of terrorism must include any ACTS of violence by state or non-state actors, since the underlying assumption is that terrorist activities and civil wars are directed towards certain political objectives. In other words, the achievement of certain political objectives is a common factor in defining civil war and terrorism (tilly).
The idea that state actors engage in ‘terrorist’ activities that lead to civil war is the basis of the concept of humanitarian intervention. The politics of empirical cases and the geopolitical logic of intervention in some cases are controversial, but the implicit design of the right of intervention is to stop the terrorist or violent activities of state actors. In other words, although the word terror is not explicitly used, the state’s activities include the violent persecution of minorities such as the kurds in Iraq and kosovo, the two major humanitarian interventions of the post-cold war era.
The idea is that state actors do commit ACTS of terror, and therefore, from this point of view, terrorism is also strongly linked to civil war. The Syrian government in Syria a civil war in the early use of chemical weapons, a controversial case is another indication that country’s behaviour will be chemical weapons as a political tool create fear in the civilian examples of this and the other will terrorism as a political tool of non-state actors is no different, they either create fear, either to create fear among the masses or destabilize the political institutions.
The concepts of civil war and terrorism are examined primarily in the context of international relations within the broader framework of violence perpetrated by state and non-state actors, which contributes to an understanding of the underlying motives in general prior to an in-depth analysis of specific cases. While violence remains an essential feature of the concepts of terrorism and civil war, it is important to distinguish between the two, even if the dividing line is not always clear or transparent.
While it can be agreed that both of these ACTS use extreme violence, motivated primarily by politics or ideology and directed primarily at ordinary citizens, a major difference between the two is that they are protected by different laws with different standards and consequences. It is worth noting that there are several complex issues in defining war. It is generally accepted that war often takes place between two sovereign entities, an understanding that is now invalid given that the concept of civil war takes place within sovereign boundaries between opposing political groups. On top of that, there are proxy wars, or economic trade-offs, whose consequences are equivalent to total war.
Similarly, while there seems to be a common understanding of what terrorism means, a clear definition of terrorism seems impossible to arrive at. However, it is understood that terrorist ACTS often have a larger purpose, a point or something that the group carrying out the act wishes to draw attention to. It is often ideologically motivated and involves extreme violence. Terrorism is also often symbolic in nature and its purpose is to have a psychological impact beyond the immediate consequences. While the concept of civil war usually involves two opposing armed groups, terrorism is primarily directed against unarmed civilians, further victimizing entrenched ideas of violence.
Although in modern times, people have debated the nature of the actual implementation of such violence behavior body, regardless of what is on the label, but it should be noted is that non-state actors both in the civil war and terrorism, are confronted with difficulty in actual to mobilize resources to implement the above attacks, but national actors face the same problem. State actors also frequently use the legitimacy acquired by their offices to justify any act of violence, another significant departure from non-state actors.
However, there are similarities between these concepts, such as the method of violence or the asymmetric nature of the above attacks – conflicts often occur between groups with unequal capabilities. Examples of civil wars can also be analyzed through external factors, such as the attempt by foreign interest groups to influence domestic affairs, or even the spillover effect when regional conflicts cause domino effects. Studies have shown that, in most cases, internal conflicts also occur in countries affected by terrorism, establishing a direct link between the two forms of violence.
While terrorist acts can be said to be motivated by political/ideological motives, internal conflicts are often motivated by unequal interests within societies and by causes related to the control of territory, power relations and socio-economic resources. Internal conflicts caused by territorial factors generally reflect major trends. One is separatism, where certain groups demand a separation of their territorial entities from existing units or are dissatisfied with existing policies.
The other is the interest of certain groups in identifying themselves with another territorial unit, that is, another sovereign state, based primarily on ethnic or religious relations, beyond existing territorial divisions. There are several examples of successful separatist movements, such as the Kosovo conflict in 2008, or eritrea becoming an independent entity in 1993. Similarly, the protests of Serbs living in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina can serve as an example of an irreversible internal conflict. Civil strife may also stem from policy demands, such as the telangana movement in India or the shia-majority protests in Iraq.
Sovereign state within the lingering resentment often further driven by foreign powers, sometimes even have a vested interest in regime change foreign people, both political, strategic and other common relations – so direct/indirect support dissident groups – for example, the Serbian support dissident serbs live in Croatia, also support Irish americans support the Irish in Northern Ireland. However, the success of such internal conflicts depends on a number of internal factors related to the stability of the political process in the countries concerned, as well as the degree of socio-economic equality experienced by countries that have experienced poverty or other forms of social inequality are more susceptible to civil conflicts as compared to developed countries with a stable economy and certain living standards (Kalyvas).
However, the absence of a clear label for such acts of violence means that there are some difficulties in establishing a framework specifically designed to prevent such incidents, since the scope and degree of authority of such a framework remain unclear. An example of this is the lack of a United Nations convention dealing specifically with terrorism, despite repeated efforts, owing to differences in the definition of terrorism among member states.
This principle, guided also by the framework of international humanitarian law, is designed to ensure that warring entities have an obligation to maintain human standards in their treatment of prisoners of war, wounded and other affected civilians. Similarly, R2P basically says that the United Nations has a moral obligation to intervene in cases of serious human rights violations by state actors, such as the Rwandan genocide. Yet, as with the abuse of the veto, even invoking R2P has been criticised for being politically motivated rather than humanitarian.
The collective security system has long been regarded as a reliable tool for preventing violence between sovereign states, promoting interdependence among states and strengthening security. History, however, shows that while such collective security organizations promise strength on paper, they fall short in practice. It is a recurring argument in world politics that a divided system of alliances was one of the main factors that led to the great war. In his article, he pointed out that the whole purpose of establishing a collective security organization is to thwart any attempt by any country to undermine the existing world order.
The concept of collective security, while taking into account the concept of balance of power, also incorporates the concept of a global society in which state actors are equal stakeholders in global peace. However, a series of conflicts and the second world war showed how inherently flawed the system was. The collective security system assumes that all states are willing to fulfil their contractual obligations in good faith and will automatically come together when world peace is threatened. However, it is argued that state actors will inevitably put their respective national interests above anything else, and that they are unwilling to see themselves first as members of the world community and then as individual sovereign entities. Joint decision-making would therefore be a problem, as national interests would clash.
Given that the principle of collective security also posits the use of force against threats, not only does it ignore the means of non-violent solutions to problems, but what was originally a collective commitment to the maintenance of peace may well evolve into a collective commitment to the use of force, which is ultimately what happened in both countries in the world war. The league of nations, formed after world war I, It is still unsuccessful, mainly because of the asymmetric responsibilities of its member states in the settlement of disputes. Despite other attempts at collective action, such as NATO, only the United Nations was established to prevent any violence that threatened world peace and global social welfare.
The Council is mandated to take legal measures to maintain and restore world peace, which may include military action and sanctions. However, the charter is vague in defining ‘threats to peace, breaches of peace or acts of aggression’ as outlined in Article 39 of the Charter. It must be noted, however, that no such threat is necessarily international in nature, as the Council recognizes that certain domestic situations may pose a threat, including human rights violations or terrorist acts (Lopez Jacobite). The UN Security Council currently has 15 members, five of which are permanent members with veto power, while the United States, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom have veto power.
The remaining ten members were elected in other member states for a term of two years. Since its establishment, however, the Council has been plagued by its failure to make a clear decision. The permanent members’ use of the veto in critical situations has weakened the potential of the Security Council to truly resolve international disputes, which remains a matter of sustained concern. The veto was originally used as an instrument of inspection and balance. However, the blatant use of nuclear weapons by permanent members can only further demonstrate that it is still impossible to transcend their national interests and support global concerns.
This is particularly evident in some successful examples of the United Nations, where only one or more permanent members did not participate / vote. One of the basic reasons for the ineffectiveness of the United Nations seems to be ineffectiveness, although its positive intentions can be traced back to the idea of collective security organizations, which is based on specific assumptions and hopes that state behaviour will in some way – constantly criticize reality. Thinkers, especially considering contemporary global issues. The strong argument of the realism camp is that these organizations serve the self-interest of the big powers, and they play their respective influences or obstacles according to the relevant disputes about how to deal with the personal national agenda, and why Rwandans do so, while South Korea still has practical significance. One of the main reasons for the failure of the United Nations is the incompatibility between its basic principles and real-time Politics (rittberger et al)
Although civil war can be said to be still different from terrorist acts, in terms of its location, motivation and the different actors responsible for these events – basically not very different in terms of its consequences – it is often innocent civilians who pay for violence. The difference in interests between state or non state actors is also a major similarity between the two concepts. Although there has been sufficient discussion and debate on the nature and consequences of such violence, it remains unclear how the international community can counter and prevent such incidents in the larger interests of human beings and global peace. In many ways, the sovereign nature of state actors has become an obstacle because states act in their own interests – even at the expense of their own people. Finally, there is an urgent need for humanitarian intervention by supranational organizations that have legitimacy and are not affected by the interests of Member States, whose purpose is only to protect the interests and human rights of ordinary people.