Send papers for publication to ijr@ijrjournal.com table, th, td { border: 1px solid black; }
| Note for Authors | Indexing of IJR |
|---|---|
|
Send papers for publication to ijr@ijrjournal.com Link to fill the copyright form Link to Download Certificate of Publication. |
|
War, in the popular sense, a conflict between political groups involving hostilities of considerable duration and magnitude. In the usage of social science, certain qualifications are added. Sociologists usually apply the term to such conflicts only if they are initiated and conducted in accordance with socially recognized forms. They treat war as an institution recognized in custom or in law. Military writers usually confine the term to hostilities in which the contending groups are sufficiently equal in power to render the outcome uncertain for a time. Armed conflicts of powerful states with isolated and powerless peoples are usually called pacifications, military expeditions, or explorations; with small states, they are called interventions or reprisals; and with internal groups, rebellions or insurrections. Such incidents, if the resistance is sufficiently strong or protracted, may achieve a magnitude that entitles them to the name “war.”
In all ages war has been an important topic of analysis. In the latter part of the 20th century, in the aftermath of two World Wars and in the shadow of nuclear, biological, and chemical holocaust, more was written on the subject than ever before. Endeavours to understand the nature of war, to formulate some theory of its causes, conduct, and prevention, are of great importance, for theory shapes human expectations and determines human behaviour. .
The analysis of war may be divided into several categories. Philosophical, political, economic, technological, legal, sociological, and psychological approaches are frequently distinguished. These distinctions indicate the varying focuses of interest and the different analytical categories employed by the theoretician, but most of the actual theories are mixed because war is an extremely complex social phenomenon that cannot be explained by any single factor or through any single approach.
Reflecting changes in the international system, theories of war have passed through several phases in the course of the past three centuries. After the ending of the wars of religion, about the middle of the 17th century, wars were fought for the interests of individual sovereigns and were limited both in their objectives and in their scope. The art of maneuver became decisive, and analysis of war was couched accordingly in terms of strategies. The situation changed fundamentally with the outbreak of the French Revolution, which increased the size of forces from small professional to large conscript armies and broadened the objectives of war to the ideals of the revolution, ideals that appealed to the masses who were subject to conscription. In the relative order of post-Napoleonic Europe, the mainstream of theory returned to the idea of war as a rational, limited instrument of national policy. This approach was best articulated by the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz in his famous classic On War (1832–37).
World War I, which was “total” in character because it resulted in the mobilization of entire populations and economies for a prolonged period of time, did not fit into the Clausewitzian pattern of limited conflict, and it led to a renewal of other theories. These no longer regarded war as a rational instrument of state policy. The theorists held that war, in its modern, total form, if still conceived as a national state instrument, should be undertaken only if the most vital interests of the state, touching upon its very survival, are concerned. Otherwise, warfare serves broad ideologies and not the more narrowly defined interests of a sovereign or a nation. Like the religious wars of the 17th century, war becomes part of “grand designs,” such as the rising of the proletariat in communist eschatology or the Nazi doctrine of a master race.
Some theoreticians have gone even further, denying war any rational character whatsoever. To them war is a calamity and a social disaster, whether it is afflicted by one nation upon another or conceived of as afflicting humanity as a whole. The idea is not new—in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars it was articulated, for example, by Tolstoy in the concluding chapter of War and Peace (1865–69). In the second half of the 20th century it gained new currency in peace research, a contemporary form of theorizing that combines analysis of the origins of warfare with a strong normative element aiming at its prevention. Peace research concentrates on two areas: the analysis of the international system and the empirical study of the phenomenon of war.
World War II and the subsequent evolution of weapons of mass destruction made the task of understanding the nature of war even more urgent. On the one hand, war had become an intractable social phenomenon, the elimination of which seemed to be an essential precondition for the survival of mankind. On the other hand, the use of war as an instrument of policy was calculated in an unprecedented manner by the nuclear superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. War also remained a stark but rational instrumentality in certain more limited conflicts, such as those between Israel and the Arab nations. Thinking about war, consequently, became increasingly more differentiated because it had to answer questions related to very different types of conflict.
Clausewitz cogently defines war as a rational instrument of foreign policy: “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.” Modern definitions of war, such as “armed conflict between political units,” generally disregard the narrow, legalistic definitions characteristic of the 19th century, which limited the concept to formally declared war between states. Such a definition includes civil wars but at the same time excludes such phenomena as insurrections, banditry, or piracy. Finally, war is generally understood to embrace only armed conflicts on a fairly large scale, usually excluding conflicts in which fewer than 50,000 combatants are involved.
Contemporary theories of the causes of war divide roughly into two major schools. One attributes war to certain innate biological and psychological factors or drives, the other attributes it to certain social relations and institutions. Both schools include optimists and pessimists concerning the preventability of war.
Theories centring upon man’s innate drives are developed by ethologists, who draw analogies from animal behaviour, and also by psychologists and psychoanalysts.
Ethologists start with the persuasive argument that study of animal warfare may contribute toward an understanding of war as employed by man. The behaviour of monkeys and apes in captivity and the behaviour of young children, for example, show basic similarities. In both cases it is possible to observe that aggressive behaviour usually arises from several drives: rivalry for possession, the intrusion of a stranger, or frustration of an activity. The major conflict situations leading to aggression among animals, especially those concerning access of males to females and control of a territory for feeding and breeding, are usually associated with patterns of dominance.
The analogies of animal to human behaviour drawn by many ethologists, however, are severely questioned by their more restrained colleagues as well as by many social scientists. The term “aggression,” for example, is imprecisely and inconsistently used, often referring merely to the largely symbolic behaviour of animals involving such signals as grimaces.
Observed animal behaviour can be regarded as a possible important source of inspiration for hypotheses, but these must then be checked through the study of actual human behaviour. As this has not yet been adequately done, the hypotheses advanced have little foundation and are merely interesting ideas to be investigated. Further, human behaviour is not fixed to the extent that animal behaviour is, partly because man rapidly evolves different patterns of behaviour in response to environmental factors, such as geography, climate, and contact with other social groups. The variety of these behaviour patterns is such that they can be used on both sides of an argument concerning, for example, whether or not men have an innate tendency to be aggressive.
Two particularly interesting subjects studied by ethologists are the effects of overcrowding on animals and animal behaviour regarding territory. The study of overcrowding is incomplete, and the findings that normal behaviour patterns tend to break down in such conditions and that aggressive behaviour often becomes prominent are subject to the qualification that animal and human reactions to overcrowding may be different. Ethologists have also advanced plausible hypotheses concerning biological means of population control through reduced fertility that occurs when animal populations increase beyond the capacity of their environment. Whether such biological control mechanisms operate in human society, however, requires further investigation.
One school of theorists has postulated that the major causes of war can be found in man’s psychological nature. Such psychological approaches range from very general, often merely intuitive assertions regarding human nature to complex analyses utilizing the concepts and techniques of modern psychology. The former category includes a wide range of ethical and philosophical teaching and insights, including the works of such figures as St. Augustine and the 17th-century Dutch philosopher Benedict de Spinoza.
Modern writers utilizing psychological approaches emphasize the significance of psychological maladjustments or complexes and of false, stereotyped images held by decision makers of other countries and their leaders. Some psychologists posit an innate aggressiveness in man. Others concentrate upon public opinion and its influence, particularly in times of tension. Others stress the importance of decision makers and the need for their careful selection and training. Most believe that an improved social adjustment of individuals would decrease frustration, insecurity, and fear and would reduce the likelihood of war. All of them believe in the importance of research and education. Still, the limitations of such approaches derive from their very generality. Also, whether the psychological premises are optimistic or pessimistic about the nature of man, one cannot ignore the impact upon human behaviour of social and political institutions that give man the opportunities to exercise his good or evil propensities and to impose restraints upon him.
Whereas psychological explanations of war contain much that seems to be valid, they are insufficient because man behaves differently in different social contexts. Hence, many thinkers have sought their explanations in these contexts, focusing either on the internal organization of states or on the international system within which these operate. The most voluminous and influential theories attributing war to the nature of the state fall into two broad streams, which can be loosely called liberal and socialist.
The early or classical liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries distinguished three basic elements in their analysis—individuals, society, and the state—and regarded the state as the outcome of the interaction of the former two. They assumed that society is self-regulating and that the socioeconomic system is able to run smoothly with little interference from the government. Economy, decentralization, and freedom from governmental control were the classical liberal’s main concerns, as shown particularly clearly in the writings of John Stuart Mill. They accepted the necessity of maintaining defense but postulated the existence of a basic harmony of interests among states, which would minimize the incidence of wars. Economic cooperation based upon an international division of labour and upon free trade would be in the interests of everybody—commerce would be the great panacea, the rational substitute for war.
In explanation of wars that did occur, however, liberals emphasized a variety of factors. First, they focused on autocratic governments, which were presumed to wage war against the wishes of peacefully inclined people. It thus became a major tenet of liberal political philosophy that war could be eliminated by introducing universal suffrage because the people would surely vote out of office any belligerently inclined government. From the early American pamphleteer Thomas Paine onward, a major school of liberals supported republicanism and stressed the peaceful impact of public opinion. Although they could not agree about actual policies, they stressed certain general ideas concerning relations between states, paralleling their laissez-faire ideas of the internal organization of the state with ideas of a minimum amount of international organization, use of force strictly limited to repelling aggression, the importance of public opinion and of democratically elected governments, and rational resolution of conflicts and disputes. Later in the course of the 19th century, however, and especially after World War I, liberals began to accept the conclusion that an unregulated international society did not automatically tend toward peace and advocated international organization as a corrective.
Whereas liberals concentrated on political structures, regarding them as of primary importance in determining the propensity of states to engage in war, socialists turned to the socioeconomic system of states as the primary factor. Early in the 20th century the two streams did to some extent converge, as evidenced by the fact that the English radical liberal John Hobson explained wars in terms later adopted by Vladimir Lenin.
Karl Marx attributed war not to the behaviour of states but to the class structure of society. To him wars occurred not as an often voluntary instrument of state policy but as the result of a clash of social forces. To Marx the state was merely a political superstructure; the primary, determining factor lies in the capitalist mode of production, which leads to the development of two antagonistic classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie controls governmental machinery in its own interests. In its international relations, the capitalist state engages in wars because it is driven by the dynamism of its system—the constantly growing need for raw materials, markets, and supplies of cheap labour. The only way to avoid war is to remove its basic cause, by replacing capitalism with socialism, thus abolishing both class struggle and states. The Marxist doctrine, however, gave no clear guidance about the interim period before the millennium is reached; and the international solidarity of the proletariat proved a myth when war broke out in 1914, facing the European Social Democratic parties with the problem of adopting an attitude to the outbreak of the war. The Second International of working-class parties had repeatedly passed resolutions urging the working classes to bring pressure upon their respective governments to prevent war, but, once war had broken out, each individual party chose to regard it as defensive for its own state and to participate in the war effort. This was explained by Lenin as being due to a split in the organization of the proletariat that could be overcome only through the activity of a rigidly organized revolutionary vanguard.
Socialists in the West turned increasingly, although in varying degrees, to revisionist interpretations of Marxism and returned to their attempts to revise socioeconomic structures through evolutionary constitutional processes, seeing this as the only possible means of preventing wars. In the Soviet Union the socialist theory of war changed as the new communist regime responded to changes in circumstances. Soviet theoreticians distinguished three major types of war: between capitalist states, between capitalist and socialist states, and colonial wars of liberation. The internecine wars among capitalist states were supposed to arise from capitalist competition and imperialist rivalries, such as those that led to the two World Wars. They were desirable, for they weakened the capitalist camp. A war between capitalist and socialist states was one that clearly expressed the basic principle of class struggle and was, therefore, one for which the socialist states must prepare. Finally, wars of colonial liberation could be expected between subjugated people and their colonial masters.
The weakness of the theory was that the two major expected types of war, the intracapitalist and the capitalist-socialist, did not materialize as frequently as Soviet theoreticians had predicted. Further, the theory failed to adequately analyze the situation in the Soviet Union and in the socialist camp. Even in communist countries, nationalism seems to have proved more powerful than socialism: “national liberation” movements appeared and had to be forcibly subdued in the Soviet Union, despite its communist regime. Also, war between socialist states was not unthinkable, as the doctrine indicated: only the colossal preponderance of Soviet forces prevented a full-scale war in 1956 against Hungary and in 1968 against Czechoslovakia; war between the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China was a serious possibility for two decades after the Sino-Soviet split in 1962; and armed conflict erupted between China and Vietnam after the latter country became the most powerful in Southeast Asia. Finally, the theory did not provide for wars of liberation against socialist states, such as that conducted by the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet Union from 1979 to 1989.
Many theories claim or imply that wars result ultimately from the allegiance of men to nations and from the intimate connection between the nation and a state. This link between the nation and the state is firmly established by the doctrine of national self-determination, which has become in the eyes of many the major basis of the legitimacy of states and the major factor in their establishment and breakup. It was the principle on which the political boundaries of eastern Europe and the Balkans were arranged after World War I and became the principal slogan of the anticolonial movement of the 20th century, finding expression in Chapter I, article 1, of the Charter of the United Nations in the objective of “self-determination of peoples,” as well as in the more specific provisions of Chapters XI and XII. It is this intimate link between nationalism and statehood that renders them both so dangerous. The rulers of a state are ultimately governed in their behaviour by what is loosely summed up as the “national interest,” which occasionally clashes directly with the national interests of other states.
The ideal of the nation-state is never fully achieved. In no historical case does one find all members of a particular nation gathered within one state’s boundaries. Conversely, many states contain sizable national minorities. This lack of full correlation has frequently given rise to dangerous tensions that can ultimately lead to war. A government inspired by nationalism may conduct a policy aiming at the assimilation of national minorities, as was the general tendency of central and eastern European governments in the interwar period; it may also attempt to reunite the members of the nation living outside its boundaries, as Adolf Hitler did. National groups that are not in control of a state may feel dissatisfied with its regime and claim self-determination in a separate state, as demonstrated in the attempt to carve Biafra out of Nigeria and the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan.
There is no rational basis for deciding on the extent to which the self-determination principle should be applied in allowing national minorities to break away. As a rule, the majority group violently opposes the breakaway movement. Violent conflicts can ensue and, through foreign involvement, turn into international wars. No suitable method has been found for divorcing nationalism from the state and for meeting national demands through adequate social and cultural provisions within a larger unit. Such an attempt in the Austro-Hungarian Empire before its dissolution in World War I failed. Even the Soviet Union was not permanently successful in containing its large proportion of national minorities.
Nationalism not only induces wars but, through the severity of its influence, makes compromise and acceptance of defeat more difficult. It thus tends to prolong the duration and increase the severity of wars. Possibly, however, this is the characteristic only of new, immature nationalisms, for nationalism has ceased to be a major cause of conflict and war among the nations of western Europe.
Nationalism is but one form of ideology: in all ages people seem to develop beliefs and try to proselytize others. Even within particular ideological groups, schisms result in conflicts as violent as those between totally opposed creeds, and heretics are often regarded as more dangerous and hostile than opponents. As long as individual states can identify themselves with explosive differences in beliefs, the probability of a war between states is increased, and its intensity is likely to be greater.
Whereas some theories of war regard the state as an undifferentiated whole and generalize about its behaviour, other theorists are more sociologically oriented and focus on the roles played within the state by various special-interest groups.
A distinction is made by these theorists between the great mass of people and those groupings directly involved or influential with government. The people, about whose attitudes adequate knowledge is lacking, are generally assumed to be taken up with their daily lives and to be in favour of peace. The influential groups, who are directly involved in external affairs and, hence, in wars, are the main subject of analysis. Warlike governments dragging peace-loving people into international conflict is a recurrent theme of both liberal and socialist analyses of war. Some writers have gone to the length of postulating a continuous conspiracy of the rulers against the ruled that can be traced to prehistoric times, when priests and warriors combined in the first state structures. Most writers, however, narrow the field and seek an answer to the question of why some governments are more prone to engage in war than others, and they generally find the answer in the influence of important interest groups that pursue particular and selfish ends.
The chief and most obvious of such groups is the military. Military prowess was a major qualification for political leadership in primitive societies; the search for military glory as well as for the spoils of victory seems to have been one of the major motivations for war. Once the military function became differentiated and separated from civilian ones, a tension between the two became one of the most important issues of politics. The plausible view has generally been held that the military strive for war, in which they attain greater resources and can satisfy their status seeking and, sometimes, also an aspiration for direct and full political power. In peacetime the military are obviously less important, are denied resources, and are less likely to influence or attain political power directly. At the same time, a second, although usually subsidiary, consideration of the military as a causal agent in war holds that an officer corps is directly responsible for any fighting and is thus more aware of its potential dangers for its members and for the state as well. Although intent on keeping the state in a high state of preparedness, the military may be more cautious than civilians about engaging in war. It is often held, however, that increased military preparedness may result in increased tensions and thus indirectly lead to the outbreak of war.
Finally, some scientists and technologists constitute a new, much smaller, but important group with special interests in war. To some extent one can generalize about them, although the group is heterogeneous, embracing as it does nuclear scientists, space researchers, biologists and geneticists, chemists, and engineers. If they are involved in defense work, they all share the interest of the military in securing more resources for their research: without their military applications, for example, neither nuclear nor space research would have gone ahead nearly as fast as it has. War, however, does not enhance the status and standing of scientists; on the contrary, they come under the close control of the military. They also usually have peaceful alternatives to military research, although these may not be very satisfactory or ample. Consequently, although modern war technology depends heavily upon scientists and although many of them are employed by governments in work directly or indirectly concerned with this technology, scientists as a group are far from being wedded to war. On the contrary, many of them are deeply concerned with the mass destruction made possible by science and participate in international pacifist movements.
The international environment within which states and the people within them operate is regarded by many theorists as the major factor determining the occurrence and nature of wars. War remains possible as long as individual states seek to ensure self-preservation and promote their individual interests and—in the absence of a reliable international agency to control the actions of other states—rely on their own efforts. It is no accident that reforms of the international system figure prominently in many prescriptions for the prevention of war. Whereas the reform of human propensities or of the state is bound to be a long drawn-out affair if it is at all possible, relatively straightforward partial reforms of the international system may produce significant restraints upon resorting to war, and a thorough reform could make war impossible.
Some theorists, being more optimistic about the nature of states, concentrate upon the removal of the fear and suspicion of other states, which is characteristic of the present as well as of all historical political systems; others, being less optimistic, think mainly of possible controls and restraints upon the behaviour of states. The underlying reasoning of both parties is generally similar. If individual states in competitive situations are governed by a short-term conception of their interests, acute conflicts between them will occur and will show a strong tendency to escalate. Thus, one state erects a tariff barrier to protect its industry against the competition of a trade partner, and the partner retaliates, the retaliatory interaction being repeated until the two countries find themselves in a trade war. Armaments races show a similar tendency to escalate, particularly so in an age of rapid technological change. The economic and scientific efforts necessary to avoid falling behind rivals in the invention and development of rapidly improving weapons of mass destruction have already reached unprecedented heights. And yet, neither trade wars nor arms races necessarily end in violent conflict. There seem to be operating some restraining and inhibiting factors that prevent an automatic escalation. Much of the theory of war concerns itself with the identification, improvement, and development of these restraining factors.
The outcome of starkly competitive behaviour leading to wars is clearly against the interests of states, and it is rational for them to seek more desirable outcomes. If competitive behaviour is dangerous, theorists seek for alternative methods of cooperative behaviour that would not jeopardize the interests of the state through exposing it to the possibly less cooperative behaviour of others. Some theorists concentrate upon improving the rationality of the decision making of individual states through a better understanding of the international environment, through eliminating misperceptions and irrational fears, and through making clear the full possible costs of engaging in war and the full destructiveness of an all-out war, possible in our age.
The relative paucity of wars and their limited nature throughout the century following the Napoleonic Wars (1815–1914) stirred great theoretical interest in the nature of the balance-of-power system of that period—that is, in the process by which the power of competing groups of states tended toward a condition of equilibrium. Contributing to the successful operation of the balance-of-power system of the 19th century were relatively slow technological change, great diversionary opportunities for industrial and colonial expansion, and the ideological and cultural homogeneity of Europe. Pursuit of a balance of power is a way of conducting foreign policy that is perhaps less prone to war than other types of policy because, instead of indiscriminately increasing their power, states increase it only moderately, so as not to provoke others; and instead of joining the strongest, they join the weaker side in order to ensure balance. States in a balance-of-power system must, however, be ready to abide by constraints upon their behaviour in order to ensure stability of the system.
The application to international relations of a branch of mathematics—game theory—that analyzes the strategy of conflict situations has provided a new tool of analysis. In state interaction, as in any game situation, one side’s strategy generally depends upon that side’s expectations of the other side’s strategy. If all sides in a game are to maximize their chances of a satisfactory outcome, it is necessary that some rational rules of behaviour be conceptualized and agreed upon, and this idea of a set of rational rules can be applied to competing states in the international system. Game theorists distinguish antagonistic situations called zero-sum games, in which one state’s gain can be only at the expense of another state because the “payoff” is fixed. Even then a mutually acceptable distribution of gains can be rationally reached on the basis of the “minimax” principle—the party in a position of advantage satisfies itself with the minimum acceptable gain because it realizes that the other party, in a position of disadvantage, would yield on the basis of its possible minimum loss but would violently oppose a distribution even more to its detriment. In other situations, called non-zero-sum games, the payoff is not constant but can be increased by a cooperative approach; the gain of one participant is not at the cost of another. The contestants, however, have to agree about the distribution of the gain, which is the product of their cooperation.
Because wars within states have been eliminated through the establishment of suitable political structures, such as central governments that hold a monopoly of coercive power, many theories concentrate upon the establishment of parallel structures within the international context. Regional integration (cooperation in economic, social, and political affairs, as, for example, within the European Union) and the establishment of security communities (such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) have made much greater advances than attempts at the reform of the entire global international system.
Because conflicts among neighbours tend to be frequent, regional integration is an important advance toward reducing the incidence of war. Even if it were to become generally successful, however, regional integration would simply shift the problem of war to a different level: there would be fewer possibilities of war because intraregional conflicts would be contained, but interregional conflicts could still give rise to wars of much greater scope and severity. The phenomenon of war must, therefore, be analyzed at the universal level.
Some of the most influential thinking about war and the international system has come from specialists in international law. All of them postulate that there exists an international society of states that accepts the binding force of some norms of international behaviour. These norms are referred to as international law, although they differ fundamentally from municipal law because no sovereign exists who can enforce them. Most international lawyers realistically accept that international law is, consequently, among rather than above states. It is, according to legal doctrine, binding on states but unenforceable.
International law concerns itself largely with two aspects of war: its legality and its regulation. As far as the legality of war is concerned, there arose in the 20th century a general consensus among states, expressed in several international treaties, including the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, and the Charter of the United Nations, that resort to armed force, except in certain circumstances such as self-defense, is illegal. Such a legalistic approach to the prevention of war, however, remains futile in the absence of a means of enforcement. The enforcement provisions of the United Nations Charter, which entail the application of military and economic sanctions, have never been applied successfully, owing to political disagreement among the major powers. This underlines the fact that legal norms, to be effective, must reflect an underlying political reality.
The United Nations is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. The several approaches to peace outlined in its Charter and developed in its practice are based upon and clearly reflect the cumulative development of the relevant theories of war.
Drawing heavily upon the experience of the League of Nations, the Charter develops three interrelated approaches: first, pacific settlement of disputes, which would leave nations with nothing to fight about; second, collective security, which would confront aggressors with too much to fight against; and third, disarmament, which would deprive them of anything substantial with which to fight.
Pacific settlement of disputes is based upon the assumption that war is primarily a technique for settling disputes, although it can, of course, also serve other purposes, such as allaying fears and seeking status. Further assumptions are that war frequently comes about because of the unawareness of decision makers of the possibility of settling disputes peacefully to the mutual advantage of both sides—an unawareness due to mere ignorance, pride, lack of imagination, or selfish and cynical leadership. It is thus possible that international organizations can contribute to the prevention of wars by devising and institutionalizing alternative, peaceful techniques for the settlement of disputes and by persuading the states to use them.
The scope of this approach is limited, for states are notoriously reluctant to abide by impartial findings on matters they regard as being of vital importance. Hence, what the procedures really offer is a means of slowing down the progression of a dispute toward war, giving reason a chance to prevail.
Collective security is an approach to peace involving an agreement by which states agree to take collective action against any state defined as an aggressor. Leaving aside the problems of settling disputes or enforcing law or satisfying justice, it concentrates upon forestalling violence by bringing to bear an overwhelmingly superior international force against any aggressor. Although collective security, in somewhat different form8s, played a prominent part in the League of Nations Covenant and is embodied in the United Nations Charter, it has completely failed in both cases. Failing an international government capable of ultimately determining the issues, nations have not managed to agree on an unequivocal definition of aggression, have not in practice accepted the principle that aggression must be acted against independently of the identity of the perpetrator, and, therefore, have not established the international collective security force envisaged in the Charter.
As we know problems in society are inevitable and because of these problems there arises the need for social work and social work is that field of knowledge that concerns with solving the problems of individual, community, and organisation, and to make their life happier and for this there are certain legislation or laws that are to be followed for the betterment of society. The role of social legislation is to mediate between the problems and solutions of the society but society is transforming at a rapid pace and social workers must do the same to provide the best support to their clients , but there are certain problems that has become hurdles for the implementation of social legislation in the required field.
Some of these problems that are hindering this process are :
1) health gap –health gap for example could be mental and physical and to bridge it government should take necessary steps in this direction be it (updating the medical facility and development of mental fitness)
2) social isolation– social isolation generally means when a person feels or get isolated from the society and this could be possible through some reasons like failures ( professional) or less socialization in the society.
3)-homelessness- it is one of the biggest problems in the lives of struggles who looks up to make their lives fruitful and start their carrier because of lack of affordability people tend to live without shelters and eventually this leads to homelessness.
4) Extreme economic inequality- it refers to the differences of individual’s income and wealth and it leads to obligations of certain legislation like sleeping and residing on footpaths has become a compulsion for beggars, poor people or migrants which is illegal by law but because of economic disparities and system failure this has become a bitter truth of our society.
5) Prejudice-when a person or society make up it’s mind about something and make generalizations about before fully knowing about it. if we talk about the pandemic vaccination derive most of the people have presumed about the negative consequences of the dose without knowing and studying about the benefits of the same.
The above problems according to me are among the major problems that are faced by the social worker and the society as well, and to cope up with it a social worker needs to deep study in the areas of management and execution of social policy is an important element for the institutionalization of public policy which seeks to guarantee social rights therefore, the confrontation of the social challenges in this field become a fundamental question for the theoretical, ethical and technical legitimacy of the social work.
conclusion
Hence, in the conclusion we can say that sometimes natural practices or compulsions of a being are more vital with comparison to the implementation of social legislation. So in the pace of changing era government should study and figure out solutions regarding these hurdles by which the society would become a better place to live.
Cyclone Yaas cross Odisha, Bengal : It is supposed to intensify into very severe cyclonic storm. It is likely to move towards West Bengal, adjoining Odisha and coasts of Bangladesh. IMD’s Ranchi’s meteorological centre recently warns nearby states for heavy rainfall and also issued an alert in Jharkhand due to the cyclonic storm.
A low pressure area formed over the east central Bay of Bengal and adjoining sea today and this is supposed to turn into very severe cyclonic storm which will affect West Bengal and nearby areas on 26 May.
As per the pictures taken from satellite and information by meteorological centre, it would move further towards north west. The Ranchi meteorological centre also issued an alert related to a moderate to high thunderstorm and stormy winds blowing around with speed of 50km/h which is likely to appear on 25 or 26 may. In the areas most prone to cyclone, it is estimated by IMD officials that wind speed around Odisha, West Bengal and coasts of Bengal would reach upto 100km/h and will even increase thereafter.
It has been only one week since the tauktae storm hit the coasts of Gujarat. It caused a huge destruction there and in neighbouring areas and also a minor effect in northern states.
The NDRF (National Disaster Response Force) teams and Indian Navy are already keeping eyes on this. They are ready to assist the people of areas which are expected to be affected majorly. Light or moderate rainfall on other areas and heavy rainfall on areas near West Bengal, Odisha is expected. Heavy rainfall is also expected on 27 may on some areas.
Fisherman are already informed before and were advised to stay away from sea areas since 23 May. Apart from that, the railways around this region i.e. south western railways are also cancelled. As per sources around a dozen of trains are cancelled for 24 May to 26 May keeping the yaas cyclone in concern. And it is estimated that if cyclone won’t stop after 26, then cancellation of these train will step ahead further.
The effect of this cyclone will start appearing since 24 May with rise in wind speeds in nearby areas. The wind’s speed will gradually increase from 40 km/hr to 50 km/hr and at the time of arrival of cyclone it will end up reaching 100km/hr.
Today there was also a meeting held related to this by our prime minister Mr. Narendra Modi. He held a meeting with several officials of government to review the preparations done in advance for this upcoming disaster. Many ministers were included in this meeting including our home minister Amit Shah and some representatives from National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) and some other ministers to review the preparations.
Sergio Aguero heads to Camp Nou, agrees to join Barcelona on a two-year deal
Aguero’s farewell will come at the club’s last home fixture against Everton on Sunday before playing the Champions League final on May 30.
Manchester City striker Sergio Aguero has agreed to sign a two-year contract with Spanish giants FC Barcelona. With Aguero’s contract expiring in June, the move will come as a free transfer. The striker has settled for lower wages than available elsewhere for playing in Barcelona. Barcelona, who were looking for a number nine after Luis Suarez left in 2020, aim to achieve European success with Aguero. The Argentine striker is said to receive a bonus if he helps the club win the Champions League.
The 33-year-old career has been plagued by injuries, restricting him to just 18 appearances for City this season in which he could score only four goals. His farewell will come at the club’s last home fixture against Everton on Sunday before playing the Champions League final on May 30
Will give him a tribute he deserves: Pep Guardiola
” Aguero is an incredibly nice and funny person, humble being the legend he is. He was incredibly loved by the backroom staff. Sunday’s the last game, I’m sure the fans will give him a tribute to what he has done so far; titles, numbers, performances, incredible,” said Pep Guardiola.
As Aguero bids ‘citizens’ a goodbye, Pep Guardiola heaped praise at the striker. Guardiola spoke about his contributions to the club, attitude and abilities to eat up any defence while backing him to play till 40.
“He is like a lion in the jungle, he kills the opponent. The last goal versus Palace defined him. He controlled two or three steps then wow. So much speed and then the quality to make the goal, he has this quality. He could play until 40 and score
The Uttar Pradesh government has extended the Corona curfew in the state till 31st of this month. The existing restrictions were supposed to end tomorrow morning.
Covid curfew is also helping in State Governments efforts to curb the spread of coronavirus. first time after a gap of more than 45 days, the total number of covid patients in the state has come down to below 1 lakh mark. State currently has 94480 active covid cases which is around 3 lakh less than the number during peak time of Corona. Recovery rate in the state has also jumped to 93%. In the last 24 hours around 6000 new covid patients have been found in the state while the number of recovered patients in the same period is around 17000.
State has also made a new record of highest covid tests in the country. Yesterday more than 300000 tests were conducted. Vaccination for people aged between 18 to 44 years will continue in each and every district of state from 1st of June. Presently it is going on in 18 cities and initially it started in 7 cities only.
Centre has said that the vaccination drive at workplaces could be extended to all employees as well as their family members and dependents. The Union Health and Family Welfare Ministry has written a letter to all States and Union Territories in this regard. It said, for vaccinating beneficiaries in industrial and private workplace Covid Vaccination Centres, the vaccine doses will have to be procured by the private hospitals with which the employers tie up for Vaccination.
In case of government workplace vaccination centres, beneficiaries who are 45 years old or more are eligible to get the Vaccine for free from the doses supplied by the Centre to the states and UTs. However, the beneficiaries in the age group of 18 to 44 should be vaccinated from the doses directly procured by the respective state and UT governments directly from the vaccine manufacturers.
Centre has convened a high level meeting today to discuss CBSE Class 12 Board exams and other upcoming entrance tests. The meeting, which will be chaired by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, will be attended by Union Ministers Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank, Smriti Irani and Prakash Javadekar, among others. Education Minister Nishank said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi desires that any decision affecting the career of students has to be taken in consultation with all state governments and stakeholders. Mr Nishank recently held a meeting with the State Education Secretaries in this regard. He said the consultative process will be further strengthened through today’s high level meeting.
All State Government Education Ministers and Secretaries have been requested to attend this virtual meeting and to share their views regarding upcoming examinations. Mr Nishank also sought suggestions from people through Twitter.
A low pressure area has formed over the East Central Bay of Bengal. According to the Indian Meteorological Department, it will intensify into a cyclonic storm by today and further into a Very Severe Cyclonic Storm thereafter. It is likely to cross West Bengal-North Odisha and Bangladesh coast by the 26th evening. Accordingly, all the coastal districts of Odisha are prepared with identification and cleaning up of cyclone shelters and evacuation plans.
Meanwhile, the National Crisis Management Committee (NCMC) under the chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary Rajiv Gauba met yesterday to review the preparedness of Central and State Governments and agencies to deal with Cyclonic Storm ‘Yaas’ in the Bay of Bengal. Reviewing the preparedness of the Central and State agencies, he stressed that all measures should be taken in a timely manner so that loss of lives and destruction of property is minimized.
Mr. Gauba also stressed that safety of COVID patients be ensured and disruption of functioning of COVID Hospitals and Centres avoided. Director General of the India Meteorological Department , briefed the committee about the latest status of the cyclone, which is expected to reach West Bengal and adjoining northern Odisha coasts by Wednesday evening with wind speeds ranging from 155 to 165 kilometres per hour.
The meeting was attended by Chief Secretaries and officers of West Bengal, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Andaman & Nicobar and Puducherry. Secretaries of Ministries of Home, Power, Shipping, Telecom, Petroleum & Natural Gas, Civil Aviation, Fisheries, Chairman of Railway Board, Member-Secretary NDMA, IDS Chief and DGs of Coast Guard, NDRF and IMD also participated in the meeting.
Cyclone Yaas is likely to intensify into a “very severe cyclonic storm” and cross the Odisha and the West Bengal coasts on Wednesday. India Meteorological Department (IMD) said, a low pressure area has formed over the east-central Bay of Bengal and the adjoining north Andaman Sea yesterday. It is likely to cross West Bengal and adjoining north Odisha and Bangladesh coasts around the evening of 26th May, the IMD said.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi will hold a meeting at 11 AM today with Home Minister Amit Shah & top government officials to review preparedness for Cyclone Yaas. The high level meeting will be attended by representatives from the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), Secretaries from Telecom, Power, Civil aviation and Earth Sciences apart from officials from other Ministries and Central Agencies.
Content writing is a step wise process of planning, writing and editing. It usually includes content for blogs, articles, speeches, video and podcast script etc. Content writing helps construct a great relationship with the audience and intrigue them in coming back for more. The power of good content should never be underestimated keeping in intellect the sum of difference it can make with just the help of words.
Let’s take a look at some reasons to learn content writing:
>Improves vocabulary
Content writing is one of the good ways to improve vocabulary. It’s not usually about using high level language tending readers to look into the dictionary every minute but using the most appropriate language and words to convey one’s thoughts to the readers in the simplest of the ways.
>Tickles creativity
Content writing covers a range of writing styles from imagination to originality. The purpose is to express thoughts and ideas through literary devices. While learning to create good content, one also learns how to be creative and original at the same time. Content writing gives opportunities to explore various topics and themes with no restrictions giving rise to new ideas paving way to creativity.
>Helps acquire research skills
Learning content writing also includes researching over a wide variety of topics which helps in creating meaningful content. To provide a genuine and verified content one goes through multiple web searches in order to acquire the most accurate information regarding the respective content.
>Exposure to global knowledge
Content writing is also a good way of learning. It tends one to know about the world and its whereabouts. Exposure to vast knowledge of different fields is one of the many benefits of content writing.
>Boosts confidence
Enrolling oneself in content writing boosts confidence. One gets to learn so many new things which automatically lift up self confidence.
>Path to freelance content writing
Freelance writers are always much in demand and enjoy flexibility and independence. Moreover, freelancing can be done part time as well making it easier to juggle with everyday work. Even in this time of pandemic where almost everyone is losing jobs, content writing still finds a place in the market. Otherwise as well, content writing as career is growing at a fast rate.
‘I will be there for you’ friends theme song plays on my head ever since I have watched the show. I can never get tired from listening to the masterpiece the song it gives a a whole vibe of positivity,and can you guys imagine the fact that if just the song makes me feel that way then what about the show? The show is simply the best comforting show ever period. The name friends has been kept to indicate the friendship between the character of the show and it shows it brilliantly with an addition laughter,fun,love,romance and suspense.
But the name friends is not only about the characters relationship for me ,for me it’s a show I can rely upon when I really need a funny friend who would make me feel happy and make me forget ally tensions and problems,its a show which never bores me and the fact that its last episode aired seventeen years back that is even before I was born the show aired , I can only imagine what changes it brought in the world. A show that has been running its old episodes successfully for these many years has surely got a lot of laughter and fun excitement, romance nad most importantly comforting vibes in it. As an audience what more can we ask for?
Me being a kid of the twenty first century can not ask for a better gift than the fact that I can witness the friends reunion. They are not recording any episodes it just an interview which shows us how the show has impacted their lives and how their lives have changed after the show ended. There is a huge time lap and saying so I mean the jokes my mum laughed at when she was my age is very different from the jokes I laugh at but this show certainly proves it wrong that you cant laugh along with your parents at some joke. The originality of each and every dialogue and the spark and passion of friendship between the characters makes us all want to have friends like that in real life as well.
The fact that those characters are real life friends makes me and the fans love the show so much more than ever.
Friends is simply a masterpiece not only the main characters the supporting characters have a weird , messy ,and creative charm in the way they speak ,dress and behave . The show is very well scripted undoubtedly.
And I cant be more excited to see Jennifer Aniston as. Rachel Green ,Courteney Cox as. Monica Geller. Lisa Kudrow as. Phoebe Buffay. Matt LeBlanc as. Joey Tribbiani. Matthew Perry as. Chandler Bing. David Schwimmer as. Ross Geller, Back on the show even though it wont telecast in india we indian fans are more excited than ever and will certainly watch it later, the excitement that I have while writing about this piece is next level and I hope you guys are as excited as me for witnessing the reunion of a lifetime.
The subject of online education is contentious in the present scenario when the world is fighting with a disastrous pandemic. Education is always seen as a necessity for everyone as it forms the basis for human capital formation which aids in development process of the nations. India being a country of 1.35 million people with more than 50 percent of population below 25 years of age represents a huge potential for education sector. The disastrous situation currently being faced by the world has made everyone to rethink the modes in which education can be imparted to the students. In the long run the practice of online learning will increase.
No civilised society can live without the press. Taking into account its utility in modern life one can understand very well why it has become so important. Let us consider its influence on masses. A good press educates and helps in forming sound and healthy public opinion. It has direct communication with masses and so can influence them both for destructive and constructive work. Through newspaper, the press gives us information about our day to day political, social and commercial activities.
The press serves the great task of bringing about social reforms. Many social evils like untouchability, dowry system, smuggling activities, etc. are ruthlessly attacked and criticised by the press. Government servants as well as public high-speed are now more careful because of the fear of being exposed by the press.
In democratic system the press has many important roles to play. It can harass any stable government by poisoning public opinion. It can also bring them a big success favouring government action and taking public opinion with them The press gives information about the proceedings of the parliament and Assemblies and all the important political events in the country.
But because its potential power is in the hands of vested interest, the press is sometimes employed for harmful propaganda. In a democratic country, where the press is mostly run by private agencies and big industrial houses, the press safeguards their own interest first.
In fact, the press is a two way weapon. If used carefully, it can help in building up the nation forming the right public opinion. If misused, it can erode the very foundation of democracy.
The press should, therefore, abide by the principal of truthfulness. The primary duty of the press is to establish the truth and work in the interest of the public.
Eduindex 
You must be logged in to post a comment.