Google Pay Now Accepting Google Pay. Check out is even easier with Google Pay. Easy, Fast and Confidential!

Journal Responses

The New Thirty Years' War

According to Klare (2011) the period from 1618 to 1648 was marked by thirty years of war when Europe was engulfed in a sequence of brutal conflict. The war was part of the struggle that existed between the emerging nation state and the imperial system of governing.

More importantly, a number of historians still believe that the current international system of nation states crystallized into the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, consequently resulting into the thirty-year war. However, Klare (2011) believes that the world today has also embarked into a new thirty-year war. According to the author the new thirty tear war shows quite clear similarities with the 1618 to 1648 war.


Despite the fact that the new thirty years of war may not result to as much bloodshed as the previous one, Klare (2011) believes that the new war will be no less memorable to the future of the world. In the next decades there will be casts of people around the world who will contest in a “succeed or perish battle” for possessing the different forms of energy.

This is because the corporations will supply them while the countries run for them with an aim of dominating the world’s energy supply. The winners of the war will hence determine how people live and work in the next three decades and moreover, make enormous profits as well. On the other hand the losers will be put aside despite being dismembered.

The war is likely to take about thirty years in accordance to the time presumed for the experimental energy systems such as hydrogen power and cellulose ethanol. More importantly, the war will actually put the survival of major corporations in the world to be at risk and also cause major economic consequences. In addition, the war will put the fate of the nations at stake, but eventually, after thirty years are over, just like the treaty of Westphalia, the world will probably erect in place foundations of a new system.

Non-Violent Approach

According to Hubers (1991) the non-violent conflict resolution approach suggests that any government will derive power primarily from the approval of its people and by coercion, as a secondary way. Consequently, when human beings consent any given state of affairs along with the operations within the framework of specific norms that it offers, then human beings will certainly empower that order. On the other hand, through recognizing their own specific behavior to act as moral agents irrespective of external pressures or norms, human beings will consequently become agents of change who will eventually awaken others into new possibilities. Non-violent approach calls for justice, human solidarity along with creative ways that eliminate revenge, which consequently make the process to be successful.

According to Hubers (1991) peace prevails under conditions that enhance justice in the society. Consequently, peace cannot be detached from justice and as a result this indicates lack of violence either directly through weapons or indirectly through inequitable structures. This is to say that peace calls for an absence of violence and most importantly, genuine peace will only be obtained through peaceful ways. This are the actions that looks forward to undo conditions that are associated with degradation of human beings and also they break the cycles of retaliation which normally leads to cheapening of the human life value.

In addition, the genuine power is actually derived from willpower as well as from human solidarity, but not from violence. Moreover, when the ones in power refuse to dehumanize their adversaries even after being provoked or during repression, the non-violent activists will be empowered by working in creative ways instead of banking on destructive methods of revenge, thereby inhibiting peace. In conclusion, human solidarity along with creative ways eliminate justice through revenge, achieving peace. These conditions are the successful non-violent approaches to peace.

Political Culture and Decision Making

Russett (1993) believes that democracies are less prone to war than other systems of government. In fact, he claims that democracies do not actually make war with each other or even commit violence. Similarly, autocracies and liberal states are known to be aggressive, as well as war prone as compared to the democratic states. This view run counter to the realist theoretical custom which have been dominating the international politics arena.

Russett (1993) argues that democracy is an inherent force, which leads to achievement of peace. One of the single evidence that Russet shows the fact that there has been absence of wars between the democratic states. In addition, the thinks that a democratic government is actually based not only on the consent of its constituents, but also responds to their wishes, promotes the preposition that the democratic countries do not wage wars. From the research conducted it shows that other regimes, such as authoritarian have a reasonably greater probability of violent crisis, which eventually triggers war, as compared to the democratic system. More important is that transition to democracy is more likely to initiate interstate war. This supports the preposition that democratic systems are less prone to war.

On the other hand, realists tend to believe otherwise. Actually, according to Ray (1993) a classical realist presumes that the states will inevitably wage war with each other for the reason of endless anarchic struggle for power and security. This proposition is irrespective of the type of system that is governing the state. In conclusion, the realists view the proposition that democracies are less prone to war than other systems of government as an old one and do not exist in the modern world.

The National Interest of the United States

The United States have national interests that are categorized as vital, extremely important, important or less important (Allison, 2010). The United States’ national vital interests include conditions that are of utmost necessity in order to safeguard, as well as enhance American’s survival together with well being in a not only secure, but also free nation. In their endeavor to do this the US national interest is to prevent, as well as reduce the threat of biological, nuclear together with chemical weapons that may attack the country. Moreover, the vital national interest is geared towards ensuring that US allies survive and there is active cooperation with the United States that will lead towards making an international system within which the US can thrive. In addition, the US interest is to prevent any emergence of a hostile major power together with failed states on United States borders. United States is also focused at ensuring there is viability along with stability of the main global systems such as financial markets, supplies of energy trade and environment. Also the US vital national interest involves establishing productive relations, which are consistent with the US national interests, with nations that have the likelihood of becoming strategic adversaries.

The extremely important national interests are the ones that are compromised to perform severe prejudice although they will not strictly imperil the capability of the government to safeguard, as well as enhance the well being of American citizens in a free and secure nation. Extremely important US national interests are to ensure conditions, such as reduction of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. In addition, they ensure prevention regional proliferation and promote acceptance of international riles of law (Allison, 2010).

Client's Review

"I've been using this service for two years and these guys never let me down. Customer support is perfect, any time you ask any question, you get an instant response. I do love Exclusive Paper!"

reviewed on Mar 28, 2018, via SiteJabber Click to see the original review on an external website.

The important national interests are the ones that if compromised. a major negative consequence will arise for the capability of the government to safeguard, as well as enhance the well being of American citizens in a free and secure nation. Finally, the less important or secondary US national interests are those, which have direct impact on the capability of the government to safeguard, as well as enhance the well being of American citizens in a free and secure nation (Allison, 2010).


Bommes (2005) defines transnationalism as a social phenomenon together with a scholarly research that has been gone beyond the heightened interconnectivity among the people, as well as the economic and social boundaries between states. Moreover, it can also refer to the shifty in migration patterns as has been evident recently. However, there are various critiques of transnationalism, which actually have different stands.

Assimilationists seem to be the most compelling critiques of transnationalism. Evidently, according to Bommes (2005) assimilation researches tend to prove that the groups or societies are actually not in the frame of reference for empirical research. This is to actually prove that transnationalists have exaggerated the results of political theory as well as distinction. Assimilation suggests that in the process of homogeny there is need to clarify the point of reference with regard to which that process of becoming same takes place. Moreover, according to assimilationists, the individuals migrate for different reasons, where they may be looking for labor, health treatment or even education. Assimilation calls for general existence of all people in the society, whereby there will be long lasting expectation aimed at controlling the behavior of the individuals together with the actions with the regard to structural conditions that is evident in the differentiated social systems.

On the other hand, multiculturalists are the least compelling critique of transnationalist. Inherently, multiculturalism relates to a typical community that has multiple cultures and refers to the cultural diversity (Kinzel, 2008). Multiculturalists, more often seem to argue in the same way as the transnationalist. For instance, they both seem to exaggerate the results of political theory as well as recognize their distinctions. Most of their arguments actually conquer with transnationalists’ view, and hence, they result in being the least compelling.

Class System Theory

Class system theory refers to the advancement of the integration of economies all over the globe especially with the respect to trade together with financial flows. What is more important, as the economies integrate the issues associated to the benefits and cost start emerging and outweigh each other. Essentially, there is a number of critiques of this theory and actually have different stands (Jeffus, 2005).

According to the class system theory the corporate managers are not the only ones with conflicting goals. For instance, some citizens do not want the benefits like public schools or public highways reduced. On the other hand, as taxpayers, they do not want to pay for them. For this reason, in an attempt to gain votes the politicians most of the times will not act in the public’s best interest; therefore they create what is an inevitably self-destructing cycle (Jeffus, 2005). Additionally, as the politicians feel pressure from the industries to implement government subsidies, regulations, trade restrictions, and other forms of shield motivation for effectiveness is the loss. Moreover, the theory argues that statistic do not accurately represent the facts and that the arguments for the protection of natural resources is a separate issue from that of globalization.

Evidently the hyperglobalization is a critique of the theory of globalization. Hyperglobalization introduces the conflicting goals between the corporate and environmental growth. In addition, this theory attributes corporate growth to the rising social problems, for instance the wide gap between the rich and poor citizens, which also continues to grow wider. Moreover, the theory advocates for extended product responsibility that inherently takes into consideration the environmental consequences of production, and most importantly it condemns the subsidies, as well as preferential treatment given to corporations while they are expending abroad (Jeffus, 2005). Therefore, the theory claims that corporate managers do not have accountability for their actions,as well as they do have misaligned incentives that only focus on short term profits only.

Chat with Support
scroll to top call us