There is a relationship between manliness, violence, and heroism which originates from the nature of activities and characteristics of each theme me. The correlation between violence, manliness, and heroism originates from the fact that they both show a willingness to take risks, possession of strong personality, and showing leadership abilities. Historically, the meaning of manliness differs across cultures but warrior exists as a characteristic across all cultures ( Ricordeau, 2017). Most of the cultural backgrounds associate manhood with issues of culture which indicates that there is some level of risk taking for an individual to show manhood (Klein, 2018). On the other hand, heroism describes the struggle by an individual or a group of people to fight evil and achieve the good. For instance, people described as heroic in history played a significant role in fighting for the right of citizens. Violence is perceived as the struggle by an individual and application of physical force to injure people or property to achieve the desired outcome.
There has been an increasing concern about the issues of genocide and other deaths associated with aristocracy ( Griffin, 2017). As a result, the government has established some mechanisms designed to reduce the issues of mass killing of civilians. The first approach is the humanitarian intervention mechanism designed to prevent the mass killing of civilian through the use of armed forces without authorization by the U.N security (Petty, 2012). The second step is a responsibility to protect which gives the state the mandate to protect its citizens from issues such as mass and protection of human rights. In situations where a state fails to protect its citizens, its sovereignty is taken over by the international community. In both approaches, the state through its government is given the mandate of protecting its citizens from issues of mass death and protection of human rights ( Bentley, 2015). Though there has been a significant reduction in issues of mass death across many nations, it is evident that current steps against atrocity are not effective because there is a lack of consensus among states about the approaches. For instance, responsibility to protect approach is viewed as an attempt to deprive the state of its sovereignty.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Just War, Just Peace
1. What is the meaning of jus ad bellum, and what are its criteria?
Jus ad Bellum is a term used in war to describe the rules governing operation in the war. The primary objective of these laws is to evaluate whether the laws were conducted in a justifiable manner indicating that war should meet a particular criterion (Bellamy, 2008). For example, there should be a justifiable reason at the international level allowing a country to declare war against another ( NA, 2016) . The evaluation criteria focus on evaluating whether the war is declared by proper authority and public declaration. In this case, war is justifiable only in situations where the war is declared by a legitimate authority (. Frowe, 2015). There is also an evaluation of whether the law has the intention of re-establishing peace in the country but not the primary objective of serving the country’s interests (. Von Elbe, 2017). The grounds on which the war is based on should also be justifiable in ensuring meaning that the cause of the war should be understood and all non-violent options should first be explored.
2. Is warfare ever justifiable?
War can be justified in situations where an individual or a country engages in war fighting for a good reason ( Barash, D2017). For example, if people engage in war in an attempt of ensuring that there is a justification of the things that people are doing, it is evident if people or a country engages in war with another nation because they criticize issues such as genocide, war is justifiable and people should continue (Bellamy, 2008). In most cases, people fight for peace, religion, and friendship while others fight with a goal of ensuring that they restore peace among people in different countries or within a particular community.
War's Future
1. What is the future of war likely to look like?
With the emergence of modern technology, it is evident that war will take new battlegrounds in the future. In the future, people will have avoided the war and people will have avoided the nuclear weapon and adopted new fighting techniques. There will be no longer shedding of blood from war exercised by individuals (McMaster, 2015). In this case, a majority of people would be fighting against issues such as the expansion of trading blocs with corporations having taken over space and exploitation from bankrupt governments ( Giacaman, 2016) . The increasing cases of climate change will change everything about a war to revolve around economic competition across the globe ( Dumas & Thee, 2014). There is a probability that the majority of people in the society will be out of work and the rich would be fighting against the poor. As a result, there will be a bloodless fight and violence revolving around economic aspects in the future.
2. Is world peace possible?
It is possible to achieve world peace but it is essential to accept that it is not an easy process to be achieved. There are several reasons as to why world peace is perceived to be possible and also other subsequent challenges behind the achievement of world peace ( Bach, 2018). . Idealistically, it is possible to achieve world peace because issues of war and conflict can be prevented. Such characteristics and causes of war originate from the fact that they are created by human beings meaning that there can be an establishment of mechanisms capable of achieving world peace (McMaster, 2015). Despite the expected easiness in achieving these goals, it is evident that there must be challenges in guiding the nations to reach a consensus about the mechanisms to be applied in combating war and conflict t ( Thompson, 2017). The inability to mitigate war has resulted from the failure of those in political power to exercise mechanism designed to reduce levels of conflict.
References
Bach, N. (2018). World Peace in One Hour Peace is Profitable Roadmap to Peace. Journal of global health , 8 (1).
Barash, D. P. (2017). Approaches to peace (Vol. 199). Oxford University Press.
Bellamy, A. J. (2008). The responsibilities of victory: Jus post bellum and the just war. Review of International Studies , 34 (4), 601-625.
Bentley, T. (2015). Empires of Remorse: Narrative, postcolonialism and apologies for colonial atrocity . Routledge.
Dumas, L. J., & Thee, M. (2014). Making peace possible: the promise of economic conversion . Elsevier.
Frowe, H. (2015). The ethics of war and peace: an introduction . Routledge.
Giacaman, G. (2016). Is a Just and Lasting Peace Possible?. Mediterranean Politics , 21 (3), 447-451.
Griffin, R. (2017). The role of heroic doubling in ideologically motivated state and terrorist violence. International review of psychiatry , 29 (4), 355-361.
Klein, D. B. (Ed.). (2018). Societies Emerging from Conflict: The Aftermath of Atrocity . Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
McMaster, L. G. H. (2015). The Army Operating Concept and Clear Thinking About Future War. Military Review .
NA, N. (2016). Just war theory: a reappraisal . Springer.
Petty, K. A. (2012). Humanity and national security: the law of mass atrocity response operations. Mich. J. Int'l L. , 34 , 745.
Ricordeau, G. (2017). The History of Genocide in Cinema: Atrocities on Screen.
Thompson, P. (2017). Peace and war: a theory of international relations . Routledge.
Von Elbe, J. (2017). The evolution of the concept of the just war in international law. In The Use of Force in International Law (pp. 23-46). Routledge.
