|
Topics:
|
|
|---|---|
Words: |
1107 |
Pages:
|
2
This essay sample was donated by a student to help the academic community. Papers provided by EduBirdie writers usually outdo students' samples.
|
Cite this essay
Download
The influence of non-state actors on global politics is growing, especially in the era of globalization. Throughout the history of international relations, terrorism has not posed a significant threat to states. Before the end of the Cold War, the main threat for the state was caused by the same actors, states. The major achievement of the Westphalian international order was the state, as a main player in the system, based on the principles of sovereignty, equality and non-interference in internal affairs.
After the end of Cold War, international system changed from bipolar system into the unipolar one with the USA as the only hegemon. The 2001 terrorist attack against USA was a major factor driving the change in the international system because the hegemonic state was attacked by non-state actor. 9/11 showed that all nation-states, including strongest one, are vulnerable to terrorism which itself has a greatest impact on international politics.
The change in the nature of international politics is clearly evidenced by the actions taken against terrorism:
Security dilemma is the key point in Westphalian order. In the system, where there is no supreme authority and therefore system is anarchic, states operate in self-help regime/system. Because of the mutual distrusted caused by anarchic nature of the system, one’s military advantage may cause another state’s weakness in the security. Absolute security is impossible. Accordingly, states are in a dilemma called a security dilemma.
In today's international system, the use of force is no longer exclusively a state privilege, and non-state actors also have significant resources in this regard. The traditional concept of 'security dilemma' loses its value because, according to this approach, the main threats arise only from states, which makes them in the security dilemma with each other. However, nowadays, terrorist organizations are also keen to obtain weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, which is a significant challenge to the states and thus they constitute elements of the 'security dilemma'.
9/11 has had an impact on international politics. Bilateral relations between US and Europe, Russia and China have been significantly strengthened. France and Germany’s position on the war in Iraq almost undermined the existence of the NATO. By thwarting NATO's ability to protect Turkey (a NATO member) against attack in the war, France and Germany have broken a central tenet of the NATO Charter—that an attack against one NATO member is an attack against all NATO members (Wagner, Daniel; 2003). If we use realist’s assumptions, US has used threat of terrorism to justify its harsher immigration laws, high military and intelligence budgets, and restrictions on civil liberties as well as interceptions on the sovereignty of ‘hostile states’ (Wagner, Daniel; 2003).
Besides, terrorism has weakened the role of international law. For example, GWOT gave Russia good argument and justification for its violent activities in Chechnya. Besides, Turkey also began framing Kurds as terrorists to justify their violent oppression.
Terrorist organizations are not powerful enough to destroy the core pillars of the international system, but their success in seizing and controlling territory abroad has led to public skepticism about liberal and interconnected international order. Terrorism threat has provoked debates about limitations of fundamental rights of citizens, created space for populist politicians to promote restriction of immigration and reassertion of national borders. This has poisoned the daily life of many Westerners now living amid normalized fear and routinized conflict, with a considerable part of societies expressing racism toward Muslims, including fellow nationals of their countries reflexively associated with terrorism (Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, 2017).
Some concepts of international politics became very popular and debating after GWOT, such as humanitarian interventions, regime change, weapons of mass destruction, failed state. These concepts were used to justify the actions (wars) that states took in the name ‘War on Terror’. Such operations contravene the principles of liberal world order and international conventions on waging war when at the same time they argue for the necessity to defend the very same order. Ambition to spread liberal world order led to fault line conflicts which undermine the credibility and legitimacy of liberal order itself. The measures adopted by states to counter terrorism have themselves often posed serious challenges to human rights and the rule of law.
Relations between terrorist activities and state of emergency is another issue of debate which also demonstrates the impact that terrorism has on international politics and international law. After terrorist attacks, the states who were attacked or the states who were influenced by those attacks, usually introduce number of tighter laws that lead to wider authority for the intelligence services and the police, more surveillance and control, and restrictions on freedom of expression (for example, the USA, France and Denmark). For example, the USA has conducted targeted killings in up to 70 states during GWOT. Both the Taliban and al-Qaeda were out of Afghanistan by spring 2002, but GWOT continued because it was also about spreading liberal order through war and strategy to oust regimes, not only combatting terrorism after 9/11.
Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.
Fair Use Policy
EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via support@edubirdie.com.
Stuck on your essay?
