Xenia in the odyssey essay hook art and craft essay vaa3d image analysis essay leigh hunt essays on the great."Countries maintain peaceful relations through diplomacy" Do you agree?
General overviews of the history of diplomacy, not surprisingly, tend to be historically oriented, although a number of studies especially recommend themselves to students of international relations. Undergraduates and graduate students, as well as veteran scholars, will find a wealth of ideas, insights, and possible research topics in these surveys. is an excellent starting point for new students in ancient and medieval diplomacy. Eleven well-written, wide-ranging, and accessible essays provide a solid grounding in the period, while also highlighting the many parallels and divergences between ancient and modern diplomacy. Designed primarily for undergraduates, is an excellent chronological and thematic introduction to early modern and modern diplomacy. takes a similar approach, outlining the evolution of modern diplomatic practice from the ancient period to the modern, primarily for an undergraduate audience. adopts a similar chronology, but focuses instead on the major diplomatic theorists from Machiavelli to Kissinger. For an introduction to 19th- and 20th-century diplomacy, is a lucid place to begin, combining a solid grasp of history with the author’s own personal experiences. is another excellent overview of 20th-century international relations that expertly introduces the student to every important diplomatic event of the period. Those seeking a more theoretical approach to the subject will find and easily accessible, expansive, and stimulating introductory readers.
Nine very useful essays on key diplomatic theorists from the Renaissance to the modern era. Includes lucid and thoughtful essays on Machiavelli, Grotius, Richelieu, Satow, Nicolson, and Kissinger. Historians and international-relations scholars of all periods and experience will find much to appreciate here.
Broad and well-written collection of thematic and chronological chapters on history of early modern and modern diplomacy. Aimed at undergraduates. Topics range from ancien régime diplomacy to aspirations of international peace to balance of power diplomacy. Very helpful survey for beginning researchers; useful insights for veteran researchers. Valuable bibliographical essay.
Engaging introduction to diplomacy in the ancient and medieval periods. Collection of eleven lucid essays covering Greek, Persian, Roman, Byzantine, and Anglo-Saxon diplomacy. Focus on treaties, peacemaking, and war. Also useful for historians of modern diplomacy. Suitable for undergraduates, with new insights for graduate students and experienced researchers.
Traditionally the concept of deterrence has been associated with nuclear weapons although in fact the concept is also applicable to other weapons of mass destruction as well as even conventional weapons. Needless to say the concept fits more neatly with weapons or weapons’ systems that have devastating effects, because the rational behind being deterred from acting as a result of the presence of a particular weapon or weapons’ system is that the consequences would be so costly that the state decides not to take such actions. If the consequences of action were not consequential, the deterrent effect would be minimal and the probability that states would risk challenging the deterrent would increase.
Asset or Liability
Similarly, I believe that the concept of deterrence is more effective in global strategic security paradigms. In such circumstances, the states are high and issues more clearly defined. In regional circumstances, deterrence concepts still apply but they are more circumspect, essentially because strategic weapons cannot easily be utilized without having ramifications also on the deterrent holder. A case in point in the Middle East was the 1973 Arab/Israeli war. Its relations with its military supplier, the Soviet Union, tenuous at times. Egypt initiated the war, with limited military and ambitious political objectives. The goal immediately was to shatter the aura of invincibility that the Israeli army had acquired, not really to liberate the Sinai. Politically, the plan was to create a new paradigm with a level of uncertainty with risks and opportunities for regional and global stakeholders that would generate a political and diplomatic process as a catalyst for a negotiated Arab/Israeli comprehensive peace. It is noteworthy that Egypt initiated the 1973 war for the fore-mentioned purposes in spite of its prior knowledge that Israel had significant nuclear potential, in other worlds was not deterred by this potential.
Another interesting Middle East example that reflects on the whole concept of deterrence is the Egyptian position refusing to join the Chemical and Biological Weapons conventions until Israel ratifies the Treaty on the Non proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This position implies a balance of deterrence between difference weapons systems factoring in a complex calculation of the respective capacities of states to bear or envisage losses.
Slightly dated but nevertheless important attempt to bridge historical and theoretical studies of diplomacy. Concerned partly with improving interdisciplinary communication and partly with the uses of history in policy making. Essays consider quantitative approaches, crisis decision making, bureaucratic politics, coercive diplomacy, and alliances.
Chapter 6: Deterrence and diplomacy Singapore style Chapter outline Causes of international .Social Studies Deterrence and Diplomacy in Singapore SEQ Notes.
Speaker - General (ret.) Jehangir Karamat, former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Pakistan
Existing and Emerging Threats to International Security
A View from South Asia
South Asia is a region where the two biggest countries—India and Pakistan –are nuclear weapon states. It is a region where there is ongoing unrestricted activity to increase stockpiles and improve delivery systems. Both countries have unresolved disputes and a history of using conventional and asymmetric force against each other.
Till quite recently military or politico-military considerations dominated the policy discourse. There is a change now and increasingly economic, political and social factors are being factored into the security considerations and their interconnectedness with politico-military considerations is being highlighted. There is a much more comprehensive view of security of security now especially in Pakistan.
As in other regions the South Asian region has dynamics specific to it as a region. The contemporary situation in South Asia has its own geo-political environment, ethno-religious –cultural situations that shape domestic opinion and political debate and distinct military policies as well as civil-military relations. External players have an influence on the region and on both countries.
The region has faced deterrence stability crises, crises or situations from arms races and they have bipolar and multi-polar considerations that act as drivers for their policies. (There is the India-Pakistan relationship. India has concerns over China and China has concerns with India, Russia and the US. Iran could be a future issue for all).
There is an existing conventional force and nuclear weapons asymmetry between India and Pakistan that is steadily growing in India’s favor.
There is the protracted and seemingly intractable conflict over Kashmir that casts a long shadow over bilateral relations and has been the reason for past wars and use of sub-conventional violence. The issue remains unresolved.
The two countries have differing perceptions of the center of gravity of instability in the region. Pakistan looks at India as having regional hegemonic ambitions that it seeks to realize by weakening Pakistan and it resists this by all means. India sees its regional dominance as a consequence of its size and progress and does not see Pakistan as an equal—in fact it has concerns over radicalization and terror spreading from Pakistan. Neither has really discarded destabilization of the other as a tool of policy.
There are many asymmetries that influence present and future threats to security in the region. They view external players differently—US, China, Russia, Iran and Afghanistan. There is marked conventional force imbalance in India’s favor and this is growing as Pakistan can no longer match it---Pakistan’s policy now factors in this imbalance as a given. There is considerable difference in the civil and military roles in both countries with the civilian government dominant in India and Pakistan still struggling with sustainable democracy and civilian control over the military. Both sides have different perceptions of the threat to bilateral stability as their perceptions of themselves and each other and there is asymmetry in their nuclear policies—in terms of strategy, doctrine and command and control.
In the past India and Pakistan have tried to manage the threat to stability through deterrence, through a reduction in vulnerabilities and through confidence building measures and arms control. In the next discussion on deterrence we could focus on the crises between the two countries that threatened stability. These asymmetries and the dynamism inherent in them will influence future threats. We could also consider the new emerging threats from terrorism, radicalization and cyber warfare especially in the context of the risk of a nuclear exchange. These asymmetries drive and will continue to drive the increased reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence.
There are some other considerations that I will simply flag because they may be relevant to our discussion:
Tactical Nuclear Weapons as some kind of flexible or graduated response strategy especially when considered in the context of new thinking on limited war ‘under a nuclear overhang’ or responses like the Cold Start Doctrine or thinking influenced by the recent US incursion into Pakistan to get OBL. These responses may seem rational and thought out but the escalation and final outcome can be quite unpredictable.
With conventional force asymmetry driving policy there is a blurring between the use of conventional and nuclear weapons that can be dangerous for stability. This is more significant if there is no real concept of critical thresholds and minimum deterrence or credible nuclear deterrence and there is opacity in targeting and delegation procedures and security of assets. There are doctrinal aspects on both sides that inevitably condition threat perception.
Finally there is the whole issue of crises management and the command and control arrangements. Future plans for delivery systems and nuclear weapons though not clearly spelt out will be an important consideration if new confidence building measures, arms control agreements and the diplomatic dialogue do not make any headway.
It is therefore possible to very simply state deterrence as "You hit me, I hit you." For this essay, two main questions have to be addressed, ‘Has it worked?’ and ‘Does it make sense?’ To answer these questions, I will firstly define what deterrence is, I will then examine some of the main arguments for and against it, in theory and in reality; finally, I will show some of the consequences of states following such a policy....