International Relations Essay范文-预防冲突的战略，本文是一篇留学生国际关系专业课程作业写作写作，主要内容是引用“一盎司预防抵得上一磅干预”。阐述对已经爆发的冲突进行干预的过程代价高昂、耗时，往往会导致失败。另一方面，预防冲突具有更大的吸引力。一旦成功，预防就有能力避免大规模死亡和国内流离失所，并为国家节省大量资源成本。即使冲突成功结束，也有更多的长期危险可以忘记。疾病蔓延、政治不稳定、武器贩运和寻求移民到既定国家的难民潮，在这方面，预防性战略对自由主义和现实政治逻辑都很有吸引力。预防冲突的理念在整个20世纪90年代都有所发展，并在冷战结束后很快成为国际讨论的主要特征。因此，预防已成功地长期纳入全球安全和治理议程。正如前联合国秘书长科菲·安南将军所言，“预防胜于治疗，这是一个近乎普遍的共识”。此外，“预防战略必须解决冲突的根源，而不仅仅是暴力症状”。自20世纪50年代以来，已经开展了大量关于预防冲突的研究，以及一系列国际范围的预防机制。学者们认为，预防冲突在某些方面仍然不发达和无效。许多可以避免的冲突，如卢旺达和南斯拉夫的冲突，都鼓励预防成为阻止人们伤害他人的一种方法。因此，本文旨在通过分析冲突预防在确保避免区域和国际冲突方面的有效性，回答“我们如何才能阻止人们伤害他人”的问题。本文将首先探讨预防冲突是否是维持和平的成功方法。在审查实施这种维持和平方法的主要障碍之前。最后，将仔细审查预防措施，并根据该方法是否能阻止人们伤害他人得出结论。
How can we stop people from harming others? 我们如何阻止人们伤害他人？
‘An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of intervention’ (Menkhaus, 2004). The process of intervening in conflicts that have already broken out is both costly, time consuming and often results in failure. The prevention of conflicts, on the other hand, holds a greater appeal. When successful, prevention has the ability to avoid large scale deaths, displacement within countries and saves countries large costs in terms of resources. Even if conflict is ended successfully, there are further long term dangers that can be forgotten. Such as, the spread of disease, political instability, arms trafficking and surges of refugees seeking to migrate to established countries preventative strategies, in this regard, are appealing to both liberal and realpolitik logic (Menkhaus, 2004). The idea of conflict prevention grew throughout the 1990s and soon became a dominant feature in international discussions after the end of the Cold War. As a result, prevention has been successfully incorporated into global security and governance agendas on a long term basis. As General Kofi Annan, a past United Nations (UN) secretary stated, ‘there is a near-universal agreement that prevention is preferable to cure’. In addition, ‘strategies of prevention must address the root causes of conflicts, not simply their violent symptoms’ (Mack and Furlong cited in Price and Zacher, 2004, pg. 65). Since the 1950s an abundance of research on conflict prevention has been produced (Ramsbotham et al, 2011), alongside an array of preventative mechanisms on an international scale. Scholars suggest that conflict prevention remains underdeveloped and ineffective in some regards. Many avoidable conflicts, such as that of Rwanda and Yugoslavia, have encouraged prevention to be a method used in stopping people from harming others. Therefore, this essay will aim to answer the question of ‘how can we stop people from harming others’ by analysing the effectiveness of conflict prevention in ensuring the avoidance of conflict both regionally and internationally. This essay, will first look at whether conflict prevention has been successful method of peacekeeping. Before examining the key obstacles of implementing this method of peacekeeping. Finally, prevention will be scrutinized and a conclusion will be formed on the basis of whether or not the method can stop people from harming others.
Before proceeding further into the essay, it is important to explain how the term ‘we’ will be defined throughout this discussion. ‘We’ refers to a lawful authority and the international community. ‘Harm’ will be interpreted based on a United Nations (UN) understanding ‘cultural or socio conventional motives which have harmful consequences on the rights’ and security of individuals (UN, 2009). In the context of this essay, conflict prevention, refers to ‘a situation where the conflict parties enter into an agreement that solves their central incompatibilities, accept each other’s continued existence as parties and cease all violent action against each other’ (Wallensteen, 2018).
Conflict prevention is by no means new to international diplomacy. A shift in emphasis towards preventative diplomacy was manifested by the UN in 1992 after the publication of the ‘An Agenda for Peace’ report . Preventative action was then universally accepted as ‘the most desirable and efficient’ option for preventing conflict (Boutros- Ghali, 1992). Since, the UN has successfully reinforced the importance of conflict prevention and its requirements for success, including; early warning, fact finding capabilities and an ability to rapidly deploy preventative peace forces. The idea of hybrid peace, sees the combination of both global rules regarding peace, partnered with local specifies. This bottom up approach to peacekeeping, has ensured countries, such as Liberia, can avoid a relapse into civil war. Two major civil wars in this country between 1989 and 2003, claimed the lives of over 250,000 people and led to the breakdown of law and order in the first independent African state. The UN successfully managed to get the parties involved to sign a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2003. Following this 150,000 UN troops were sent into the country in order to monitor a ceasefire, extend state authority and help to train Liberian law enforcement on how to build and maintain a working democratic state. Since the signing of the CPA, the country has successfully avoided a relapse into civil war and is working towards long term stability (United Nations Conflict Prevention and Preventive Diplomacy In Action, n.d). This proves that conflict prevention, if implemented properly, can be effective.
Institutions, such as the UN, are not always the most appropriate way to prevent conflict. Ackermann (2003), suggests that the way to overcome this is by taking a more decentralised approach to shift the responsibility down to regional level operations. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation (OSCE) in Europe has developed its use of preventative methods for regions; including field missions, monitoring and fact finding tasks (Ackermann, 2003). Similarly, the European Commission (EC) has begun to develop prevention tasks in regards to civilian crisis management. Conflict prevention missions have since been launched in countries such as Fiji and Napal (European Commission cited in Ackermann, 2003). For effective conflict prevention to occur non-governmental organisations must also incorporate preventative policies into their programmes. For example, Oxfam, are listening to this advice and adapting their aid programmes to address peacebuilding as a theme of their relief missions (Menkhaus, 2004). As a result, these agencies have become an integral part of preventing the harm of others as they are placed at a ‘grass root’ level and so, have the ability to monitor the tensions of particular cases. This further reiterates the success of a bottom up approach to peacekeeping.
Another criticism of conflict prevention is that, for it to be a successful method, accurate prediction of when and where conflict will occur is required. Hence why scholars are pushing for advances to occur in regards to ‘conflict causation’ (Ackermann, 2003). There is ample evidence to suggest that, by identifying the root causes behind conflicts makes prevention easier. The most commonly expressed underlying factors of conflict include; poverty, high levels of income inequality, over population and resource scarcity; political repression and human rights violations (Atmaar H et al., cited in Menkhaus, 2004) If these symptoms of conflict are ignored then conflict is only being prevented on a surface level and the likelihood of a reoccurrence becomes high. Scholars, who take the idea of root causes seriously, state that preventative strategies used must include promotion of human rights and the implementation of political structures. Effective preventative responses should, therefore be proactive and incorporate the conflict factors into their framework. Cockell (cited in Ackermann, 2003), explains that once preventative management has occurred, successful de-escalation can occur and narrowly focused intervention can be avoided. In doing so, root issues can be resolved fully, promoting successful long term stability. However, some critics suggest that, being so deeply involved in the structure of a state implies that some are doing so for their own gains, whether this be for resources or to gain ‘donor funding’ (Menkhaus, 2004). Current predictive capabilities have been shown to be weak with the most dramatic global events, such as the fall of the Berlin War in November 1991, were not effectively predicated.
Therefore, the ability to predict must include the use of an early warning system. Although, this idea is not new, as Kenneth Boulding called for a global network of monitoring systems decades ago (Weiss et al, 2001). The accumulation of past events and the recent rise in terrorism, more specifically the attacks on September 11, have made it imperative that such system exists. This has lead to the ‘warning response dilemma’. According, to Nyheim (cited in Meyer et al., 2010), if opportunities for prevention are missed as a result of lack of response then this provides a major obstacle to responding successfully. International agencies have since sort to build an early warning system, in order to effectively prevent conflicts. Proposals were first laid down within the UNs ‘Centre of Early Warning’. Created in 1992, the Department of Peace Operations (DPKO) has a 24 hour situation centre which ensures that links between the UN headquarters and those out on peace keeping missions are maintained. It contains the operations room (OR) which monitors news sources and covers geographic areas of concern. In theory, this idea increases the early warning opportunities, preventing the unnecessary harm to people. Though, staffing for this is inadequate, as only three individuals work at one time meaning if a member of staff is off sick the whole operation is affected. There is also the research and liaison unit (RLU) which collects data and produces daily, weekly and monthly reports of political, military and security trends that could potentially affect the effectiveness of preventative missions (Zenko, 2011).