Does the United Nations create peace? or, did peace create the United Nations?
The United Nations, as well as League of Nations, were created after major wars, WW I and WW II. During the wars, they were not built.
That means that they were created during no war, peace. But, the purpose of them is to build peace.
Which is which?
The United Nations is making efforts to build and maintain world peace. It is enough for me. I like it.
However, this shows the weakness of the United Nations.
Both world wars have started with an aggression of one state, and the war was expanded over the world because of alliances that the aggressor had. The alliances involved many states in the wars. Then, a war between two states gradually became a world war.
....Alliance
Yes, the Untied Nations is a kind of alliance. Alliance seeks collective defense. If one state attacks another, the other states who have an alliance with the attacked state join the war against the attacking state.
I think the United Nations is large organization enough to prevent world war, but systemically it is possible for the next world war occur due to the United Nations as one alliance.
There is no guarantee that the world war will never happen again.
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Possibility of the Third World War
As you know, or generally speaking, World War III hasn't started...yet. I would say, 'yet' because there is enough possibility that it occurs.
The United Nations, mainly General Assembly and Security Council, are authorized by the United Nations Charter. The charter says that these institutions are responsible for international peace and security. Therefore, the UN may intervene into international conflict, which means conflicts of more than two states. However, the charter does not include any civil war which means internal conflict that happens within one state. The charter never talks about it. That means that the state where a conflict is happening has to solve the conflict by itself, basically.
Also, one more thing that has to be pointed is that the Untied Nations ant its charter were created, based on the world experience: World War I and II. Both the wars started with aggression of states: Germany in WW I and Japan in WW II. Aggression simply refers to an attack from one state to another without any reasonable or legal consequence. The framers have assumed that world war may occur with such an aggression of a state. They have not thought of nonstate behaviors.
The possibility of the Third World War comes from, maybe, nongovernmental, interest, or religious groups. Such wars are already happening in the world, such as War on Terror, which is kind of religious war from one perspective. If this war was more worldwide, such as that, for example, Islam extremists acting over the world and if such activities involved more more states, isn't the war 'world war'?
Actually, I cannot still clearly imagine such a situation. However, this is true that wars are not necessarily done by states, but they can be done by nonstate actors, like religion.
I used to believe that the world is more peaceful than it used to be, and I haven't taken such wars involving nonstate actors. I used to think that religious conflict is a small part of war or just a conflict. I have never thought that such conflict could be worldwide and involve many states in the world.
It is too hard to express what I am thinking as sentences and even as speaking. Language I use doesn't matter. But, what I learned today, which is a great astonishment to me, was this: the Third World War can happen.
I want to do more and more research on this topic.
I, of course, do not want WW III to happen.
The United Nations, mainly General Assembly and Security Council, are authorized by the United Nations Charter. The charter says that these institutions are responsible for international peace and security. Therefore, the UN may intervene into international conflict, which means conflicts of more than two states. However, the charter does not include any civil war which means internal conflict that happens within one state. The charter never talks about it. That means that the state where a conflict is happening has to solve the conflict by itself, basically.
Also, one more thing that has to be pointed is that the Untied Nations ant its charter were created, based on the world experience: World War I and II. Both the wars started with aggression of states: Germany in WW I and Japan in WW II. Aggression simply refers to an attack from one state to another without any reasonable or legal consequence. The framers have assumed that world war may occur with such an aggression of a state. They have not thought of nonstate behaviors.
The possibility of the Third World War comes from, maybe, nongovernmental, interest, or religious groups. Such wars are already happening in the world, such as War on Terror, which is kind of religious war from one perspective. If this war was more worldwide, such as that, for example, Islam extremists acting over the world and if such activities involved more more states, isn't the war 'world war'?
Actually, I cannot still clearly imagine such a situation. However, this is true that wars are not necessarily done by states, but they can be done by nonstate actors, like religion.
I used to believe that the world is more peaceful than it used to be, and I haven't taken such wars involving nonstate actors. I used to think that religious conflict is a small part of war or just a conflict. I have never thought that such conflict could be worldwide and involve many states in the world.
It is too hard to express what I am thinking as sentences and even as speaking. Language I use doesn't matter. But, what I learned today, which is a great astonishment to me, was this: the Third World War can happen.
I want to do more and more research on this topic.
I, of course, do not want WW III to happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)