State Sovereignty War

Introduction

The notion of war in the modern times has changed in regards to the one that was prevalent in the past. Boundaries merely defined by treaties and agreements protect countries from fighting one another. Besides, the sovereignty of these countries heavily depends on such agreements between states. According to Hobbes, a state is part of the human nature; it is a peacekeeping institution by its monopolization and appropriation of its ability of violence . Very often, a state is criticized as an organization of violence and war. Many critiques argue that the state has separated itself from its role in a peace-making agency or legitimacy of ruling within its territories of control. In particular, it can be proved by several devastating events, such as the Rwandan genocidal atrocities. The violence of states towards individuals can be eliminated through the control of the machinery of war. The state is under scrutiny to identify as an institution of peace but not violence. There are organizations, such as the Hague, that are involved in dealing with such problems. It also acts as a protection of such nations and states in order to protect from war on the countrys civilians.

 
 

Key Concepts

Wild Sovereignties

This concept of free power is important in identifying how benign sovereignties can rise to dominance based on war upon civilians. These organizations defy every element of corporate laws enacted to establish their activities. The war on terror has created a threatening image of some institutions not only to its civilians but also to the entire world. It is an example of states that have failed to embrace law within their territories.

Sovereignty becomes a natural power when a significant dimension of its divinity that defines itself as an unconstrained capacity operates independently from laws in its institutions . The process of declaring sovereignty, especially in situations when sovereignty is on dispute less to wild potency or destruction, is the creation of institutions upon which agents or sovereign powers can exercise their sovereignty .

De-territorialized Wars of Public Safety

There are new strategies aimed at the reproduction of state sovereignty in America. In particular, in the last decade, such strategies majorly aimed at campaigns for public safety. These organizations focused on imputing or destroying territorial transgressions and contamination, biological infiltrations, and demographics. Indicative examples of these initiatives are the post-September campaigns against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. The other notable examples include responses to bioterrorism and quasi-naturally occurring viral scares as SARS send mad cow disease. These civil wars and campaigns on terrorism activities preceded by prior campaigns on economic refugees, asylum seekers, drugs, and undocumented immigrants helped in the insurgency of de-territorialized wars of public safety .

The territorialized war promotes an ideology of paranoid space and is an aggressive response to the depolarization of the post-Cold War period and more recently to the cultural-economic vertigo of globalization . Hence, these wars are a target of dangerous and potentially stigmatized groups of terrorists, drug peddlers, undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers, etc. These sovereignties act basing on protecting the public rather than engaging in civil wars that have no basis.

The Police Concept of History

The modern society promotes a new ideal environment for the police concept of history, which reshapes historical processes and methods of clear visual contrast of safe space and dystopic, duplicitous, and risk-laden space. In this sphere, aspects of the disorder overshadow the visible attributes of order. In considering policing as a concept or ideology of history focused on disordered or ordered, it entails fair distribution and positions in the society. This ideology stands to oppose new emergent subjecthood that resists cultures of circulations or those that engage in illegal ways of classification. However, Racier opposes this concept of police enforcement of continuum of circulation attributing it to politics. It is the manifestation and acknowledgment of the small subjecthood through indulging outside of the specified functions and positions . The police concept of history mainly focuses on the management of common surfaces and its possible clandestine subdivisions together with the public perception of risk intrusions or events associated with this concept.

Visual Culture of War

The notion of collaterally damaged has interfered with the objectivity of political cultures in many states. The concept of collective guilt has contributed much to the insurgency of accepting the results of war attributed to politics. The emerging visual culture of war has further enhanced the aspect of collateral damage in the event of political war. The dis-individualization has greatly affected the society in this kind of visual culture of war. It depicts the media as sensitizers of stigma rather than profilers of individual terror suspects in terrorist attacks.

advantages_banner advantages_banner_m

Our Advantages

advantages_banner_img_s advantages_banner_img_s advantages_banner_img_s advantages_banner_img_s advantages_banner_img_s advantages_banner_img_s advantages_banner_img_s advantages_banner_img_s

The capturing of bombs as it descends on its target population resulting from suffering, grief, and sensation to the victims creates a spectatorship ideology and culture of distraction and inattention for the watching televisual witnesses . Anonymous vats of these collateral damages stand in great visual opposition to the violence of awe and shock. These victims are perceived by the visual witnesses to be a target population. Collateral damages involve innocent people of a particular tribe or community associated with certain terror activities.

Visualized violence place terror activities in a certain perception of the world and provides a system of un-naming and naming specific zones of objective guilt. It tends to polarize the entire community to fight against suspected people in particular zones. It dis-individualizes the whole concept of victimization in this destruction of spaces .

Questions

How do the World Super Powers Ensure that States do not Exercise Indigenous Sovereignties?

Wild sovereignty is controlled by international law, since state parties agree to abide by certain requirements and follow them. The world state parties have also established an organization that deals with crimes against humanity. Such crimes include persecution of propagators of war in their respective countries. The beginning of the wild power rises as a benign, protective, and superficial appearance of the sovereign power. One of the examples of such wild emergent sovereignties is the ISIS. The war on terrorism today has led to the emergence of indigenous sovereignties. The war has depicted Islam not only as a domain of threat but also a region that plays a vital role in showing how emergent sovereignties exercise their unbridled power.

Does the Police Concept of History and Insurgency of Terrorist Efforts to Disrupt the Circulation of Structures Affect the Structural Transformation?

The police concept of history does not affect structural transformation. It is just a modality of ultimately retrospective and formulaic memorialization. The concept lays the foundation for the police enforcement of strict normative profiling. The terrorist plan and image event has more impact on historical transformation than the police method of normative profiling. Most of historical memories are stored in the form of monumentalizing of historical events that lost a significant part of life resulting to fragment or bereavement in privatized grief. The seizure or interruption of the moral economy of circulation is then characterized as a dystopic risk-event, a disruption of the imputed smooth functioning of the circulation apparatus in which nothing is meant to happen.

Should the State Allow Such Sovereignties to Exist?

The state itself is a sovereignty, and these groups are useful for the protection of the public without engaging in any war with them. The activities of these sovereignties target only the stigmatized, dangerous, and illegal groups in the society. Activities of these groups greatly contribute to securing a peaceful sovereign state. However, the monitoring of their activities aims at ensuring that they exist within certain stipulated requirements of the state. These sovereignties boost the ideologies shared by the government. Their presence triggers fear in terror suspects. Besides, they also enlighten the society on activities of these terror groups. The society benefits much from such organizations, hence the government should completely offer support. Many forms of democracies and distribution of wealth among the states have been achieved through war. War and the state tend to complement one other. There cannot be a war without the states, and the states cannot be established without a war.

How it works

visit website
Step 1
Visit our website and go to the order form
fill details about order in order description section
Step 2
Fill in specific essay details in your order description section
pay and verify your order
Step 3
Pay for your custom essay and get your order verified
process of writing
Step 4
Process of writing your academic assignment
editing and anti-plagiarism check
Step 5
Editing and anti-plagiarism check
get a ready-made order on email address
Step 6
On-time delivery of an already written essay

Should the States Embrace Better Techniques that Influence the Structural Transformations Within the Society on Fighting Terror?

The governments should not encourage the practice of stigmatizing certain areas. It poses a violent image to innocent individuals in those communities. This aspect of collateral damage should not be promoted in the modern world. Individual terror suspects should be held responsible for their terror activities as opposed to the victimization of the entire communities.

Follow-up Questions

1. Should the media highlight individual suspects in terror activities rather than victimization of the entire community?

2. Should the government and the media at large zone areas perceived to be associated with terror attack as opposed to individualization of such terror?

3. What role do the civil societies play in de-terrorization in the states? Does the government support such organizations and institutions?

4. Has the media embraced change in its coverage techniques of terror events?

Conclusion

The ideologies of state sovereignty entail many war-structured strategies, which lead to defining political boundaries within which certain states can freely operate. The political sovereignty of the people is bestowed on the public by the state. However, the state regulates this ability through stringent measures that ensure that civilians abide by state laws. However, the state and war are not two different things but a function of each other though sovereignty envisages the two to promote peace and cohesion. Sovereignty can be abused, thus giving rise to indigenous sovereignties that ignore regulations curbing their illegal activities. Such sovereignties deal with through international policies protecting human rights. The insurgent de-terrorized war of public safety protects the best interest of the society. It campaigns against illegal activities such as terror. The police concept revolutionizes the society in line with the state requirements. It enforces a normative way of profiling suspected terror propagators to protect the interest of the community. The visual culture of war promotes stigmatization of certain zones in the society. It is important to use such methods appropriately on profiling rather than stigmatization.

 

Related essays