:: wikimiki.org ::

Diplomatic Relations

Diplomatic relations

:This page is about negotiations; for the board game, see Diplomacy (game). Diplomacy (game), is the largest international diplomatic organization.]] Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between accredited persons (the diploma of the diplomat) representing groups or nations. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, culture, economics, trade and war. International treaties are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to endorsement by national politicians. In an informal or social sense, diplomacy is the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage, one set of tools being the phrasing of statements in a non-confrontational, or social manner.

Overview

There are two major forms of diplomacy. The simplest and the oldest is bilateral diplomacy between two states. Bilateral diplomacy is still common with many treaties between two states (e.g. the Canadian-American Free Trade Agreement), and it is the main concern of embassies and state visits. The other form of diploma]] involving many states. Formal multilateral diplomacy is normally dated to the Congress of Vienna in the nineteenth century. Since then, multilateralism has grown in importance. Today most trade treaties, such as the WTO and FTAA, arms control agreements, such as the Partial Test Ban Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and environmental agreements, such as the Kyoto Accord, are multilateral. The United Nations is the most important institution of multilateral diplomacy. There is a third form of diplomacy, a variant of multilateral diplomacy called regional diplomacy; that is, multilateral diplomacy that is practiced within a closed circle of geographic neighbors. We might call it 'multilateral diplomacy among intimates'. Since neighborhood is a fact of life, regional diplomacy involves a close blend of the bilateral and the limited group multilateral methods in pursuit of mutual interests.

Diplomats and diplomatic missions

A diplomat is someone involved in diplomacy; the collective term for a group of diplomats from a single country is a diplomatic mission. An ambassador is the most senior diplomatic rank; a diplomatic mission headed by an ambassador is known as an embassy. The collective body of all diplomats resident in a particular country is called a diplomatic corps. (See also diplomatic rank.) There is also the unrecognised, but often used rank of Diplobrat for the children of Diplomats.

History

The ability to practice diplomacy is one of the defining elements of a state, and diplomacy has been practiced since the first city-states were formed millennia ago. For the majority of human history diplomats were sent only for specific negotiations, and would return immediately after their mission concluded. Diplomats were usually relatives of the ruling family or of very high rank in order to give them legitimacy when they sought to negotiate with the other state. One notable exception involved the relationship between the Pope and the Byzantine Emperor; papal agents, called apocrisiarii, were permanently resident in Constantinople. After the 8th century, however, conflicts between the Pope and Emperor (such as the Iconoclastic controversy) led to the breaking of close ties. Modern diplomacy's origins are often traced to the states of Northern Italy in the early Renaissance, with the first embassies being established in the thirteenth century. Milan played a leading role, especially under Francesco Sforza who established permanent embassies to the other cities states of Northern Italy. It was in Italy that many of the traditions of modern diplomacy began, such as the presentation of an ambassadors credentials to the head of state. From Italy the practice was spread to the other European powers. Milan was the first to send a representative to the court of France in 1455. However, Milan refused to host French representatives fearing espionage and that the French representative would intervene in its internal affairs. As foreign powers such as France and Spain became increasingly involved in Italian politics the need to accept emissaries was recognized. Soon the major European power were exchanging representatives. Spain was the first to send a permanent representative; it appointed an ambassador to the Court of England in 1487. By the late 16th century, permanent missions became customary. The Holy Roman Emperor, however, did not regularly send permanent legates, as they could not represent the interests of all the German princes (who were in theory subordinate to the Emperor, but in practice independent). During that period the rules of modern diplomacy were further developed. The top rank of representatives was an ambassador. At that time an ambassador was a nobleman, the rank of the noble assigned varying with the prestige of the country he was delegated to. Strict standards developed for ambassadors, requiring they have large residences, host lavish parties, and play an important role in the court life of their host nation. In Rome, the most prized posting for a Catholic ambassador, the French and Spanish representatives would have a retinue of up to a hundred. Even in smaller posting ambassadors were very expensive. Smaller states would send and receive envoys, who were a rung below ambassador. Somewhere between the two was the position of minister plenipotentiary. Diplomacy was a complex affair, even more so than now. The ambassadors from each state were ranked by complex levels of precedence that were much disputed. States were normally ranked by the title of the sovereign; for Catholic nations the emissary from the Vatican was paramount, then those from the kingdoms, then those from duchies and principalities. Representatives from republics were considered the lowest of the low. Determining precedence between two kingdoms depended on a number of factors that often fluctuated, leading to near constant squabbling. republic is considered one of the most skilled diplomats of all time]] Ambassadors, nobles with little foreign experience and no expectation of a career in diplomacy, needed to be supported by large embassy staff. These professionals would be sent on longer assignments and would be far more knowledgeable than the higher-ranking officials about the host country. Embassy staff would include a wide range of employees, including some dedicated to espionage. The need for skilled individuals to staff embassies was met by the graduates of universities, and this led to a great increase in the study of international law, modern languages, and history at universities throughout Europe. At the same time, permanent foreign ministries began to be established in almost all European states to coordinate embassies and their staffs. These ministries were still far from their modern form, and many of them had extraneous internal responsibilities. Britain had two departments with frequently overlapping powers until 1782. They were also far smaller; France, which boasted the largest foreign affairs department, had only some 70 full-time employees in the 1780s. The elements of modern diplomacy slowly spread to Eastern Europe and Russia, arriving by the early eighteenth century. The entire edifice would be greatly disrupted by the French Revolution and the subsequent years of warfare. The revolution would see commoners take over the diplomacy of the French state, and of those conquered by revolutionary armies. Ranks of precedence were abolished. Napoleon also refused to acknowledge diplomatic immunity, imprisoning several British diplomats accused of scheming against France. He had no time for the often slow moving process of formal diplomacy. After the fall of Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna of 1815 established an international system of diplomatic rank. Disputes on precedence among nations (and therefore the appropriate diplomatic ranks used) persisted for over a century until after World War II, when the rank of ambassador became the norm. Diplomatic traditions outside of Europe were very different. A feature necessary for diplomacy is the existence of a number of states of somewhat equal power, as existed in Italy during the Renaissance, and in Europe for much of the modern period. By contrast in Asia and the Middle East, China and the Ottoman Empire were reluctant to practice bilateral diplomacy as they viewed themselves to be unquestionably superior to all their neighbours. The Ottomans, for instance, would not send missions to other states, expecting representatives to come to Constantinople. It would not be until the nineteenth century that the Empire established permanent embassies in other capitals. As European power spread around the world in the eighteenth and nineteenth century so too did its diplomatic system.

Diplomatic immunity

The sanctity of diplomats has long been observed. This sanctity has come to be known as diplomatic immunity. While there have been a number of cases where diplomats have been killed, this is normally viewed as a great breach of honour. Genghis Khan and the Mongols were well known for strongly insisting on the rights of diplomats, and they would often wreak horrific vengeance against any state that violated these rights. Diplomatic rights were established in the mid-seventeenth century in Europe and have spread throughout the world. These rights were formalized by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which protects diplomats from being persecuted or prosecuted while on a diplomatic mission. If a diplomat does commit a serious crime while in a host country s/he may be expelled. Such diplomats are then often tried for the crime in their homeland. Diplomatic communications are also viewed as sacrosanct, and diplomats have long been allowed to carry documents across borders without being searched. The mechanism for this is the so-called "diplomatic bag" (or, in some countries, the "diplomatic pouch"). In recent years, however, signals intelligence has led to this use of diplomatic bags being largely discarded. In times of hostility, diplomats are often withdrawn for reasons of personal safety, and in some cases when the host country is friendly but there is a perceived threat from internal dissidents. Ambassadors and other diplomats are also sometimes recalled by their home countries as a way to express displeasure with the host country. In both cases, lower-level employees remain to actually do the business of diplomacy.

Diplomats as a guarantee

The Middle East and other parts of the world had a very different tradition. In the Ottoman Empire, Persia and other states diplomats were seen as a guarantee of good behaviour. If a nation broke a treaty or if their nationals misbehaved the diplomats would be punished. Diplomats were thus used as an enforcement mechanism on treaties and international law. To ensure that punishing a diplomat mattered rulers insisted on high-ranking figures. This tradition is seen by many as the basis of the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis . In imitation of previous practices supporters of the Iranian Revolution attempted to punish the United States for its misdeeds by holding their diplomats hostage. Diplomats as a guarantee were also employed sometimes in pre-modern Europe and other parts of Asia.

Diplomacy and espionage

Diplomacy is closely linked to espionage. Embassies are bases for both diplomats and spies, and some diplomats are essentially openly-acknowledged spies. For instance, the job of military attachés includes learning as much as possible about the military of the nation to which they are assigned. They do not try to hide this role and, as such, are only invited to events allowed by their hosts, such as military parades or air shows. There are also deep-cover spies operating in many embassies. These individuals are given fake positions at the embassy, but their main task is to illegally gather intelligence, usually by coordinating spy-rings of locals or other spies. For the most part, spies operating out of embassies gather little intelligence themselves and their identities tend to be known by the opposition. If discovered, these diplomats can be expelled from an embassy, but for the most part counter-intelligence agencies prefer to keep these agents in situ and under close monitoring. The information gathered by spies plays an increasingly important role in diplomacy. Arms-control treaties would be impossible without the power of reconnaissance satellites and agents to monitor compliance. Information gleaned from espionage is useful in almost all forms of diplomacy, everything from trade agreements to border disputes.

Diplomatic recognition

Diplomatic recognition is an important factor in determining whether a nation is an independent state. Receiving recognition is often difficult, even for countries which are fully sovereign. For many decades after becoming independent, even many of the closest allies of the Republic of the Netherlands refused to grant it full recognition. Today there are a number of independent entities without widespread diplomatic recognition, most notably the Republic of China on Taiwan. Since the 1970's, most nations have stopped officially recognizing the ROC's existence on Taiwan, at the insistence of the People's Republic of China. Currently, the United States and other nations maintain informal relations through de facto embassies, with names such as the American Institute in Taiwan. Similarly, Taiwan's de facto embassies abroad are known by names such as the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. This was not always the case, with the US maintaining official diplomatic ties with Taiwan until 1979, when these relations were broken off as a condition for establishing official relations with China. Other unrecognized countries include Abkhazia, Transnistria, Somaliland, Nagorno Karabakh, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Lacking the economic and political importance of Taiwan, these nations tend to be much more diplomatically isolated. Though used as a factor in judging sovereignty, Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention states, "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by other states."

Informal diplomacy

Informal diplomacy (sometimes called Track II diplomacy) has been used for centuries to communicate between powers. Most diplomats work to recruit figures in other nations who might be able to give informal access to a county's leadership. In some situations, such as between the United States and the People's Republic of China a large amount of diplomacy is done through semi-formal channels using interlocutors such as academic members of thinktanks. This occurs in situations where governments wish to express intentions or to suggest methods of resolving a diplomatic situation, but do not wish to express a formal position. Track II diplomacy is a specific kind of informal diplomacy, in which non-officials (academic scholars, retired civil and military officials, public figures, social activists) engage in dialogue, with the aim of conflict resolution, or confidence-building. Sometimes governments may fund such Track II exchanges. Sometimes the exchanges may have no connection at all with governments, or may even act in defiance of governments; such exchanges are called Track III.

References

- A Guide to Diplomatic Practice by Sir Ernest Satow, Longmans, Green & Co. London & New York, 1917. A standard reference work used in many embassies across the world (though not British ones). Now in its fifth edition (1998) ISBN 0582501091
- Diplomacy: Theory & Practice, 3rd edition, by GR Berridge, Palgrave, Basingstoke, 2005, ISBN 1-4039-9311-4
- Journey to Become a Diplomat: With a Guide to Careers in World Affairs by George Cunningham, FPA Global Vision Books 2005, ISBN 0871242125
- Inside a U.S. Embassy: How the Foreign Service Works for America by Shawn Dorman (Editor), American Foreign Service Association, Second edition February 2003, ISBN 0964948826

External links

- [http://www.ediplomat.com/ eDiplomat.com - Global Portal for Diplomats]
- [http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/05fah01/CH0610.pdf U.S. Dept. of State Foreign Affairs Handbook: Using Diplomatic Notes]
- [http://www.un.org/english/ The United Nations]
- [http://fletcher.tufts.edu/ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy]
- [http://www.georgetown.edu/sfs/ Georgetown University School of Foreign Service]
- [http://www.gwu.edu/~elliott/ The George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs] category:Diplomacy ja:外交

Diplomacy game

Diplomacy is a board game, war game, and strategy game set in Europe in the era before the beginning of World War I. From two to seven may play, but the game dynamics are best with seven. Each player controls the armed forces of one of the pre-WWI European powers: England, France, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Turkey. Players move armies and fleets across the board, forging and breaking alliances along the way. The game ends by agreement among all surviving players, or when one player wins by gaining control of more than half of the continent. Diplomacy is a registered trademark of Avalon Hill. Avalon Hill

Equipment

Each player begins the game with three units (armies and fleets) of their own color, except Russia, which has four units, two armies and two fleets. The board is a map of Europe showing political boundaries as they existed at the beginning of the 20th century, divided into fifty-six land regions and nineteen sea regions. Only one unit at a time may occupy a region. Thirty-four of the land regions contain supply centers, that is, major centers of industry or commerce. Victory is achieved by controlling eighteen of the thirty-four supply centers. For each supply center a player controls, he or she may build and maintain one unit on the board. (If a player is entitled to build a unit for which there is no available game piece, any marker may substitute.)

The play

The game mechanics are relatively simple. Unlike in similar games, players do not individually take turns. Instead, before each move, there is a negotiation period in which the players entice, wheedle, bluff, cajole, and threaten each other in an attempt to form favorable partnerships. Secret negotiations and secret agreements are explicitly allowed, but no agreements of any kind are enforceable. After the negotiation period is over, players secretly write orders for each unit and these orders are revealed simultaneously. All moves are then simultaneously executed and any conflicts are resolved as described below. On each turn, each unit may hold in place or move to an adjacent region, with the restriction that armies may only occupy land regions, and fleets may only occupy sea regions and land regions which border the sea. A unit which holds in place may additionally support an action in a region to which it could have moved. Finally, a fleet which holds in place may (in lieu of supporting an action) convoy an army across a sea region from one land region to another. When two units attempt to occupy the same region, the one with more support wins. There are no dice involved. The greatest concentration of force is always victorious; if the forces are equal a standoff results and the units remain in their original positions. If a supporting unit is attacked (except by the unit against which the support is directed), the support is nullified, which allows units to affect the outcome of conflicts in regions not directly adjacent. Occasionally these conceptually simple rules result in situations which are difficult to adjudicate, or even paradoxical. Therefore the official rules contain comprehensive details and examples. Also, one person may be designated as Game Master to execute moves and adjudicate disputes, although this is rarely necessary, either in friendly games or in tournaments. The turns are designated alternately as Spring and Fall moves, by convention beginning in the year 1901. (The beginning boundaries of the great powers on the Diplomacy map are from 1914, not 1901, but numbering the years that way makes it easier to count the turns.) Supply centers do not change hands in the Spring. After each Fall move, occupied supply centers become owned by the occupying player. At that point players with fewer supply centers than units on the board must disband units, while players with more supply centers than units on the board are entitled to build units.

Strategy

Because numerical superiority is crucial to success, alliances are vital in Diplomacy. Each country is initially roughly equal in strength, so it is very difficult to gain territory except by attacking with the support of a neighbor. The excitement of the game is less in the tactics than in negotiation, coalition-building, and intrigue. Each player's social and interpersonal skills are at least as important to the game as the player's strategic abilities. Diplomacy commands a respect among aficionados of multiplayer games similar to the respect accorded to chess among two-player games. Most multi-player games can't help but involve coalition-building to some degree, but only in Diplomacy is the negotiation so critical and so multi-faceted. The game can't be won by going it alone, except in a last mad dash of aggression from a strong position. In the mean time one makes compromises and promises to one's allies while spreading fear and misinformation among one's enemies. And the attacking of one's allies (or the "stab") has a central role in the culture of Diplomacy. A stab can be crucial to victory, but may have negative repercussions in interpersonal relations. All of the countries on the map have a real chance for success if played properly. Each power requires a different style of play. Italy and Austria-Hungary are often thought to be the weakest as they have many neighbors and can be eliminated early, but if they survive the starting phase of the game, their central position can be a great advantage. England and Turkey are generally reckoned to be the easiest to defend. Under Calhamer scoring (where an outright victory is worth one point and participants in a draw split the point equally) Russia and France typically score the most points, Italy and Austria-Hungary the fewest. There is a natural buffer of spaces without supply centers between the western and eastern halves of the board. Therefore the first few turns of a game usually break down into fighting amongst the western powers (England, France, Germany) and eastern powers (Russia, Austria-Hungary, Turkey) for dominance in their areas followed by a break out based on the results. Italy is a wild card with a relatively weak position, though if it commits to an alliance in either of the two threesomes, the alliance can be pivotal. One fascinating aspect of Diplomacy is that in many circles cheating is not only allowed, but also actively encouraged. Players are allowed and expected to move pieces between turns, add extra armies, listen in to private conversations, change other players' written move orders and just about anything else they can get away with. In tournament play, however, these forms of cheating are generally prohibited, leaving only the lying and backstabbing which is prevalent wherever Diplomacy is played.

Variants

Fans of the game have created a myriad of variants, using altered rules on the standard map, standard rules on a different map, or both. An index of over a thousand variants is available at the Diplomacy Variant Bank web site (see External links, below).

Where to play

Unfortunately, it is difficult to organize a full face-to-face game. There must be exactly seven players, and with six or fewer the game may become stagnant and predictable. Also, there is no set time for the game to finish. Tournament games among experts have lasted twelve hours, but even typical games will last four hours or more. To overcome the difficulty of assembling enough players for a sufficiently large block of time, a vibrant play-by-mail game community has developed, using either humans to adjudicate the turns e.g. [http://www.redscape.com Redscape] or automatic adjudicators e.g. njudge. A great way to get into a game is via the queues available via the [http://www.diplom.org/Online Diplomacy Online Resources] page or the [http://www.redscape.com/forum/index.php New Game Openings]via the [http://www.redscape.com/forum/index.php Redscape Forum]. A web interface is in development, but there are already many excellent tools to help assist play, such as [http://www.floc.net floc.net] game pages and DipTool. A popular web based game place is the [http://www.diplom.org/dpjudge DpJudge] which hosts several Diplomacy games, and sports a slick web front-end for both players and game masters in play by email games on a number of servers. The easy to use web interface will let you list available games, login as a power in a game, enter move orders, view map status and send more or less diplomatic messages to the other players in a game. njudge and DpJudge game results are used to create JDPR, the Judge Diplomacy Player Ranking system. This is maintained by Doug Massey, one of the true celebrities of the hobby. [http://www.dipbounced.com/ BOUNCED] provides a noticeably slicker, entirely web-based approach, with a similar interface. [http://www.diplomacy.ca Diplomacy.ca] has been running online Diplomacy via a BBS since 1985 and as a web site since 1999. Despite the length of games, there are those that organize ad-hoc games, and there are also various clubs that have annual tournaments, as well as the World Diplomacy Championship (WDC), played once a year in different places in the world, at which the Diplomacy World Champion is crowned. Diplomacy is sometimes played in high school history classes because of its realistic emulation of events and diplomacy between nations. It helps students better understand the politics involved in World War I and World War II.

Comparison with other war games

Diplomacy differs from the majority of war games in several ways:
- Unit movement is simultaneous, not turn-based - all players secretly write down their moves during a negotiation period, and then all moves are revealed and put into effect simultaneously.
- Social interaction and interpersonal skills make up an essential part of the game play.
- The rules that simulate combat are strategic, abstract, and simple, not tactical, realistic, or complex.
- Combat resolution contains no element of randomness -- no dice are rolled and no cards are shuffled. (Individual players may attempt to incorporate randomness into their choice of moves, as a strategy to prevent their opponents from outguessing them, a strategy suggested by game theory.)

History

Diplomacy was created by Allan B. Calhamer in 1954 and first released commercially in 1959. It has been published since then by Games Research, Avalon Hill, and Hasbro. Since the 1960s, Diplomacy has been played by mail through fanzines. The play-by-mail hobby started in 1963 at virtually the same time by John Boardman in New York and Conrad von Metzke in San Diego independently without either one knowing what the other was doing at the time. Because of this it is truly impossible to know for certain which one came up with the idea first although Boardman is often given credit as the founder of the play-by-mail hobby. More recently, it has become popularly played through e-mail, adjudicated by computer. Also many a game is played online with a human game master. Diplomacy was John F. Kennedy's and, supposedly, Henry Kissinger's favorite game.

Adaptation

Hasbro released a computer game version of Diplomacy in 1999, without much critical or commercial success. Paradox Interactive released a new computer version in 2005. 2005

External links

- Allan B. Calhamer's [http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/calhamer/invention.htm essay on inventing Diplomacy]
- [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/prod/diplomacy Diplomacy] - page on the Avalon Hill website
- [http://www.diplom.org/ The Diplomatic Pouch] - site with tournament results, player rankings, archive of resources, and webzine with articles
- [http://www.diplomacy.ca Diplomacy.ca] - games, tournaments, player rankings, forums, Standard & Gunboat, online results, automated processing.
- [http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/phpdiplomacy phpDiplomacy] - Internet based implementation of Diplomacy, written in PHP.
- [http://www.redscape.com Redscape] - games, tournaments, player rankings, extensive player forum for maps, variants, strategies and general discussions.
- [http://diplomaticcorps.org Diplomatic Corps] - connecting groups and hobby services from many nations
- [http://www.diplomacyworld.org/ Diplomacy World] - hobby-wide webzine with articles
- [http://www.variantbank.org/ Diplomacy Variant Bank] - listing more than 1,000 variants, many with rules
- [http://diplomiscellany.tripod.com/ Diplomiscellany] - site containing the Model House Rules, articles on gaming philosophy, homepages of several variants, and more
- [http://www.daide.org.uk/index.xml Diplomacy AI Centre] - for automated play using the Diplomacy AI Development Environment (DAIDE)
- [http://www.dipbounced.com/ BOUNCED] - site featuring automated judging and mapmaking for several variants
- [http://www.njudge.org/ Njudge] - an automatic email Diplomacy adjudicator program
- [http://www.diplomatie-online.net Diplomatie Online] - French site, playable online and accepting alls variants. tournaments, player rankings, archives.
- [http://ludomaniac.de Ludomaniac] - German pbem and Hobby site, one of the largest communities in the world
- [http://diplomacy.ogar.org YuDip Hall of Fame] - Serbian pbem and Hobby site, Hall of Fame for Serbia and Montenegro players
- [http://18centres.com 18 Centres] - French pbem and Hobby site with a FTF result database
- [http://www.floc.net floc.net]- a site devoted to presenting the map layouts of 48 different diplomacy servers.
- [http://www.diplodocus.cjb.net/ Diplodocus] - Brazilian site hosting online games and more
- [http://www.moret.pro.br/diplomacia/ Primavera de 1901] - Brazilian site with help for starters on online playing and helpful links
- [http://www.redscape.com Redscape] - another online game site
- [http://ry4an.org/diptutor/ Diplomacy Tutorial] - a beginner focused game rules tutorial
- [http://diplomacy.no/ Norwegian Diplomacy Association]
- [http://diplomacy-bund.de German Diplomacy Association] with a FTF database
- [http://www.casusfoederis.org Casus Foederis] - site offering multilanguage Diplomacy play
- [http://www.lepanto.de Lepanto] - mostly German Diplomacy Games
- [http://www.diplored.org Diplored] - Spanish language Diplomacy community
- [http://asmunder.net/diplomacy/helsinki.php Finnish Diplomacy community]
- [http://www.trygames.com/game.php?aff=searcham&title=Diplomacy Diplomacy Online Game]
- [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38110-2004Nov9.html "World Domination: the Game"] - article in the Washington Post, Nov. 14, 2004
- [http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/diplomacy.html Conference Map]
- [http://users.ox.ac.uk/~diplo/ Oxford University Diplomacy Society] - site about the organisers of the annual Diplomacy Tournament at OxCon Category:Board games

Negotiation

Negotiation is the process whereby interested parties resolve disputes, agree upon courses of action, bargain for individual or collective advantage, and/or attempt to craft outcomes which serve their mutual interests. It is usually regarded as a form of alternative dispute resolution. Given this definition, one can see negotiation occurring in almost all walks of life, from parenting to the courtroom. In the advocacy approach, a skilled negotiator usually serves as advocate for one party to the negotiation and attempts to obtain the most favorable outcomes possible for that party. In this process the negotiator attempts to determine the minimum outcome(s) the other party is (or parties are) willing to accept, then adjusts her demands accordingly. A "successful" negotiation in the advocacy approach is when the negotiator is able to obtain all or most of the outcomes his party desires, but without driving the other party to permanently break off negotiations. Traditional negotiating is sometimes called win-lose because of the hard-ball style of the negotiators whose motive is to get as much as they can for their side. During the 1960s, Gerard I. Nierenberg, a successful lawyer, was the first to realize the role negotiation plays in resolving disputes in personal, business and international relations. He published a best selling book called "The Art of Negotiation," a classic, which has become the staple and foundation of all future negotiation publications and seminars. He believes that the philosophies of the negotiators determine the direction a negotiation takes. His “Everybody Wins®” philosophy assures that all parties benefit from the negotiation process which also yields more successful outcomes than the adversarial “winner takes all” approach. He also founded [http://www.negotiation.com/ The Negotiation Institute], the world's authority negotiation organization. In the Seventies, practitioners and researchers began to develop win-win approaches to negotiation. Perhaps the best known was articulated in the book Getting to YES by Harvard's Roger Fisher and Bill Ury. This approach, referred to as Principled Negotiation, is also sometimes called mutual gains bargaining. The mutual gains approach has been effectively applied in environmental situations (see Lawrence Susskind) as well as labor relations where the parties (e.g. management and a labor union) frame the negotiation as "problem solving".

3 Phases in Negotiation

A negotiation process can be divided into six steps in three phases:
- Phase 1: Before the Negotiation
- Step 1: Preparing and Planning: In this step, one should gather facts about the other party, learn about the other party’s negotiating style and anticipate other sides position and prioritize issues. To ensure smooth negotiation, one should also prepare alternatives proposals and establish BATNA (the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement). The most ideal case is to come out with a win-win plan to both parties.
- Phase 2: During the Negotiation
- Step 2: Setting the Tone: In this step, one should firmly state his position and explain his interest on need base.
- Step 3: Exploring Underlying Needs: It is also important to actively listen for facts and reasons behind other party’s position and explore underlying needs of the other party. If conflict exists, try to develop creative alternatives without losing the win-win focus. Neutralize tactic if necessary.
- Step 4: Selecting, Refining, and Crafting an Agreement: It is a step in which both parties present the starting proposal. They should listen for new ideas, think creatively to handle conflict and gain power and create cooperative environment.
- Step 5: Reviewing and Recapping the Agreement: This is the step in which both parties formalize agreement in a written contract or letter of intent.
- Phase 3: After the Negotiation
- Step 6: Reviewing the Negotiation: Reviewing the negotiation helps one to learn the lessons on how to achieve a better outcome. Therefore, one should take the time to review each element and ask oneself, "what went well?" and "what could be improved next time?"

Tactics

There are many tactics used by skilled negotiators, including:
- presenting demands
- deadlines
- good guy/bad guy
- limited authority
- caucusing
- walking out
- concession patterns
- high-ball/low-ball
- intimidation
- getting it in your hands
- fait accompli (what's done is done)
- take it or leave it

Negotiation as a Wikipedia technique of dispute resolution

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution contemplates users negotiating with one another on article talk pages and on user talk pages and as a part of mediation, see Wikipedia:Negotiation

References and further reading

- William Ury, Roger Fisher and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in, Revised 2nd edition, Penguin USA, 1991, trade paperback, ISBN 0140157352; Houghton Mifflin, April, 1992, hardcover, 200 pages, ISBN 0395631246. The first edition, unrevised, Houghton Mifflin, 1981, hardcover, ISBN 0395317576
- William Ury, Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation, revised second edition, Bantam, January 1, 1993, trade paperback, ISBN 0553371312; 1st edition under the title, Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People, Bantam, September, 1991, hardcover, 161 pages, ISBN 0553072749
- Gerard I. Nierenberg, The Art of Negotiating: Psychological Strategies for Gaining Advantageous Bargains, Barnes and Noble, (1995), hardcover, 195 pages, ISBN 156619816X
- Leigh L. Thompson, The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, Prentice Hall 0ct.2000, ISBN 0130179647

External links

- Harvard Program on Negotiation (PON): http://www.pon.harvard.edu/main/home/index.php3
- Negotiation Institute : http://www.negotiation.com
- Interneg e-Negotiation Research Group : http://www.interneg.org
- Negotiation Terms : http://www.how-to-negotiate.com Category:Dispute resolution category:Personal selling Category:Marketing

Peace

The concept of peace ranks among the most controversial in our time. Peace undoubtedly carries a positive connotation; almost nobody admits to opposing peace; world peace is widely seen as one of the most noble goals of humanity. Various groups, however, differ sharply about what peace entails, how best to achieve peace, and whether peace is even truly possible.

What is peace?

Peace is many things: the meaning of the word peace changes with context. Peace may refer specifically to an agreement concluded to end a war, or to a lack of external warfare, or to a period when a country's armies are not fighting enemies. It can also refer more generally to quietude, such as that common at night or in remote areas, allowing for sleep or meditation. Peace can be an emotion or internal state. And finally, peace can be any combination of these definitions. A person's conception of "peace" is often the product of culture and upbringing. People of different cultures sometimes disagree about the meaning of the word, and so do people within any given culture. Peace is not a symbol, peace is a mindset.

Absence of war

A simple and narrow definition of peace entails the absence of war. (The ancient Romans defined peace, Pax, as Absentia Belli, the absence of war.) The maintenance of longstanding peace between nations ranks among the few great successes of the United Nations. Peace can be voluntary, where potential agitators choose to abstain from disturbance, or it can be enforced, by suppressing those who might otherwise cause such disturbance. A hard stance on neutrality has given Switzerland fame as a country for its long-lasting peace. Sweden, however, presently has the longest history of continuous peace. Since its 1814 invasion of Norway, the Swedish kingdom has not engaged in military-style external violence.

Absence of violence or of evil; presence of justice

Constraining the concept of peace strictly to the absence of international war masks internal genocide, terrorism, and other violence. Few would describe the Congolese genocide of the 1890s as an example of peace, even though it technically occurred within the personal domain of King Léopold of the Belgians. Some, therefore, define "peace" as an absence of violence: not merely the absence of war, but also of evil. Many believe that peace is more than the absence of certain societal maladies. From this perspective, peace requires not only the absence of violence but also the presence of justice, as articulated by Martin Luther King, Jr. In this conception, a society in which one group is oppressed by another lacks peace even in the absence of violence, because the oppression itself constitutes evil.

Plural peaces

Some "peace thinkers" choose to abandon the idea of one definition of peace; rather, they promote the idea of many peaces. They think that no singular, correct definition of peace can exist; peace, therefore, should be seen as a plurality. For example, in the Great Lakes region of Africa, the word for peace is kindoki, which refers to a harmonious balance between human beings, the rest of the natural world, and the cosmos. This is a much more broad vision of peace than a mere "absence of war" or even a "presence of justice" standard. Many of these same thinkers also critique the idea of peace as a hopeful or eventual end. They recognize that peace does not necessarily have to be something the humans might achieve "some day." They contend that peace exists, we can create and expand it in small ways in our everyday lives, and peace changes constantly. This view makes peace permeable and imperfect rather than static and utopian.

Peace and quiet

In some contexts, peace refers more generally to a state of quiet or tranquility--an absence of disturbance or agitation. Those who travel to remote, rural areas often notice the striking difference in the noise level between the cities and the countryside; hence the term "peace and quiet". Conflict that occurs in nature, however, often produces sounds. When animals fight, the surrounding forest can become even more silent, as the non-engaged animals warily await the outcome. After a conflict, the normal sounds and actions of the inhabitants eventually reappear.

Inner peace

One meaning of peace refers to inner peace; a state of mind, body and soul, which is said to take place within ourselves. People that experience inner peace say that the feeling is not dependent on time, people or place, asserting that an individual may experience inner peace even in the midst of war.

Environmental Peace

Many, if not most, environmentalists consider protecting the environment to be a form of peace, if not the main form, as destroying habitats is quite arguably a form of violence and an "evil".

Is violence necessary?

There is a wide spectrum of views about whether, and when, violence and war are necessary. Followers of Jainism, for example, go to great lengths to avoid harming even animals, and pacifists, such as Christian anarchists, see any sort of violence as self-perpetuating. Other groups take a wide variety of stances.

Historical examples and counter examples

Allied propaganda billed the Great War in Europe as the "war to end all wars." Although the Allies won the war, the resulting "peace" Treaty of Versailles only set the stage for the even bloodier World War II. Before the Allied victory, the Bolsheviks promised the Russian people "peace, land, and bread." Although Vladimir Lenin ended the disastrous war against the Central Powers, the ensuing civil war resulted in a loss of over a million people. These failures illustrate the problems of using war in an effort to attain peace. Proponents of the democratic peace theory claim that strong empirical evidence exists that democracies rarely make war against each other. An increasing number of nations have become democratic since the industrial revolution, and thus, they claim world peace may thus become possible if this trend continues. However, it can also be argued that this could equally be explained by a number of other factors related to the wealth, power, and stability of nations that tend to become democracies, ranging from becoming reliant on strong global trade connections to Mutually Assured Destruction.

Peacemakers

Peacemakers are people who have overcome entrenched violence and conflict through their leadership and vision to achieve peace.

Nobel Peace Prize

Main article: Nobel Peace Prize The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded annually to notable persons, generally peacemakers and visionaries who have overcome notorious cycles in violence, conflict or oppression through their moral leadership, but also controversially former warmongers and former terrorists who it was believed had helped bring the world closer to ending such situations through exceptional concessions in the attempt to achieve peace. Here is a partial list of Nobel Peace Prize laureates.
- Theodore Roosevelt (1906 laureate);
- Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1964 laureate);
- Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (joint 1973 laureates);
- Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat (1978 laureate);
- Mother Teresa (1979 laureate);
- Nelson Mandela and Former President Frederik Willem de Klerk (joint 1993 laureates);
- Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin (1994 laureates);
- John Hume and David Trimble (joint 1998 laureates);
- Wangari Maathai (2004 laureate).

Quotes

- From Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail: ::"True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice."
- From Henry Timrod, known as The Poet Laureate of the Confederacy, who wrote passionate poems that caused many young men to enlist in the Confederate Army of the American Civil War. But after seeing for himself the horrors of war, he wrote this poignant prayer for peace: ::"Not all the darkness of the land, can hide the lifted eye and hand; Nor need the clanging conflict cease, to make Thee hear our cries for peace."
- For more peace quotes, please see http://peaceforge.digitalunleashed.com/moin.cgi/PeaceQuotes

References

- [http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html Letter from Birmingham Jail] by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr..

External links

- [http://www.betterworldlinks.org Biggest Link List on Peace] - Better World Links
- [http://www.actfortheearth.org ACT for the Earth]
- [http://www.PeaceForge.org Peace Forge] -Wiki wiki forum and best practice database on peace and conflict resolution
- [http://www.npf.or.jp/npf/index_e.html Official homepage of the Niwano Peace Foundation]
- [http://www.carnegieendowment.org Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]
- [http://www.geocities.com/bawad1 (See Peace) Resource Center for Peace]
- [http://www.peaceinaction.net Peace in Action]- Share and collaborate with peacemakers
- [http://www.nonviolence.org Nonviolence.org]
- [http://www.peace-action.org Peace Action] (a U.S. organization)
- [http://www.activistmagazine.com The ACTivist Magazine]
- [http://www.studentsforpeace.org Students for Peace]
- [http://www.promotingpeace.org/ Foundation for P.E.A.C.E.]
- [http://www.boisepeacequilt.org/ Boise Peace Quilt Project]
- [http://www.ajmuste.org/ A.J. Muste Memorial Institute] - A.J. Muste: legendary peacemaker
- [http://www.10000kites.org/ 10,000 Kites] - A peace project aimed at Israelis and Palestinians.
- [http://www.seedsofpeace.org/ Seeds of Peace International Youth Organization]
- [http://www.cryforpeace.org/ Cry For Peace] - Promotiong peace through art and music
- [http://www.ecologyfund.com/ Save The Rainforest For Free]
- [http://www.tirol.gv.at/peacestudies/ University of Innsbruck: MA Program in Peace, Development, Security and International Conflict Transformation]
- [http://www.peaceworkers.org.uk Peaceworkers.UK]- UK organisation providing training for Peaceworkers
- [http://www.fssca.net/peace/ Mesoamerican Peace Project] Category:Core issues in ethics Category:International relations Category:Personal life ja:平和 simple:Peace

War

A common perception of war is a series of military campaigns between at least two opposing sides involving a dispute over sovereignty, territory, resources, religion or a host of other issues. A war to liberate an occupied country is sometimes characterised as a "war of liberation", while a war between internal elements of the same state may constitute a civil war.

History of war

:Main article: History of warfare War seems as old as human society, and certainly features prominently in the recorded histories of state-cultures. But it is a complex issue. Some hunter-gatherer societies engaged in skirmishes over territory and resources, although many did not. The earliest city states and empire in Mesopotamia became the first to employ standing armies. Organization and structure has since been central to warfare, as illustrated by the success of highly disciplined troops of the Roman Empire. As well as organizational change, technology has played a central role in the evolution of warfare. Inventions created for warfare have also played an important role in other fields. The continued advance of technology has led to an increase in the destructiveness and cost of warfare throughout human history. The study of warfare is known as military history.

Morality of war

military history Throughout history war has been the source of serious moral questions. Although many ancient nations and some more modern ones viewed war as noble, over the sweep of history concerns about the morality of war have gradually increased. Today war is almost unanimously seen as undesirable and morally problematic. Many now believe that wars should only be fought as a last resort. Some, known as pacifists, believe that war is inherently immoral and no war should ever be fought. This position was passionately defended by the Indian leader Mohandas K. Gandhi (called "Mahatma" or "Great Soul"). The negative view of war has not always been held as widely as it is today. Many thinkers, such as Heinrich von Treitschke saw war as humanity's highest activity where courage, honour, and ability were more necessary than in any other endeavour. At the outbreak of World War I the writer Thomas Mann wrote, "Is not peace an element of civil corruption and war a purification, a liberation, an enormous hope?" This attitude was embraced by many societies from Sparta in Ancient Greece and the Ancient Romans to the fascist states of the 1930s. The defeat and repudiation of the fascist states and their militarism in the Second World War, combined with the unquestioned horror of nuclear war have contributed to the current negative view of war. Today, some see only Just Wars as legitimate, and it is the goal of organizations such as the United Nations to unite the world against wars of unjust aggression.

Limitations on war

At times throughout history, societies have attempted to limit the cost of war by formalizing it in some way. Limitations on the targeting of civilians, what type of weapons can be used, and when combat is allowed have all fallen under these rules in different conflicts. Total war is the modern term for the targeting of civilians and the mobilization of an entire society. While culture, law, and religion have all been factors in causing wars, they have also acted as restraints at times. In some cultures, for example, conflicts have been highly ritualized to limit actual loss of life. In modern times, increasing international attention has been paid to peacefully resolving conflicts which lead to war. The United Nations is the latest and most comprehensive attempt to, as stated in the preamble of the [http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter U.N. Charter], "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." A number of treaties regulate warfare, collectively referred to as the laws of war. The most pervasive of those are the Geneva Conventions, the earliest of which began to take effect in the mid 1800s. Treaty signing has since been a part of international diplomacy, and too many treaties to mention in this scant article have been signed. A couple of examples are: Resolutions of the Geneva International Conference, Geneva, 26 October-29 October 1863 and Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force 21 October 1950. It must be noted that in war such treaties are generally thrown to one side if they interfere with the vital interests of either side; some have criticised such conventions as simply providing a fig leaf for the inhuman practice of war. By only illegalising "war against the rules", it is alleged, such treaties and conventions, in effect, sanction certain types of war.

Redefining "war" for legal reasons

Sometimes the term "war" is restricted by legal definition to those conflicts where one or both belligerents have formally declared war. This has resulted in wars (in the sense defined in the introduction to this article) without formal declaration and combatants who officially choose terms other than "war," such as:
- "armed conflict";
- "state aggression by armed force";
- "police action";
- "crime against international peace". For example, the United States Government referred to the Korean War as a "police action", and the British Government was very careful to use the term "armed conflict" instead of "war" during the Falklands War in 1982 to comply with the letter of international law. Sometimes the term "war" will not be used in order to circumvent national constitutions which restrict the power of the executive to wage war without the agreement of other branches of government.

Causes of war

There is great debate over why wars happen, even when most people do not want them to. Representatives of many different academic disciplines have attempted to explain war.

Historical theories

Historians tend to be reluctant to look for sweeping explanations for all wars. A. J. P. Taylor famously described wars as being like traffic accidents. There are some conditions and situations that make them more likely but there can be no system for predicting where and when each one will occur. Social scientists criticize this approach arguing that at the beginning of every war some leader makes a conscious decision and that they cannot be seen as purely accidental.

Psychological theories

Psychologists such as E.F.M. Durban and John Bowlby have argued that human beings, especially men, are inherently violent. While this violence is repressed in normal society it needs the occasional outlet provided by war. This combines with other notions, such as displacement where a person transfers their grievances into bias and hatred against other ethnic groups, nations, or ideologies. While these theories can explain why wars occur, they do not explain when or how they occur. In addition, they raise the question why there are sometimes long periods of peace and other eras of unending war. If the innate psychology of the human mind is unchanging, these variations are inconsistent. A solution adopted to this problem by militarists such as Franz Alexander is that peace does not really exist. Periods that are seen as peaceful are actually periods of preparation for a later war or when war is suppressed by a state of great power, such as the Pax Britannica. If war is innate to human nature, as is presupposed by many psychological theories, then there is little hope of ever escaping it. One alternative is to argue that war is only, or almost only, a male activity and if human leadership was in female hands wars would not occur. This theory has played an important role in modern feminism. Critics, of course, point to various examples of female political leaders who had no qualms about using military force, such as Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi. Other psychologists have argued that while human temperament allows wars to occur, they only do so when mentally unbalanced men are in control of a nation. This extreme school of thought argues leaders that seek war such as Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin were mentally abnormal. A distinct branch of the psychological theories of war are the arguments based on evolutionary psychology. This school tends to see war as an extension of animal behaviour, such as territoriality and competition. However, while war has a natural cause, the development of technology has accelerated human destructiveness to a level that is irrational and damaging to the species. We have the same instincts of a chimpanzee but overwhelmingly more power. The earliest advocate of this theory was Konrad Lorenz. These theories have been criticized by scholars such as John G. Kennedy, who argue that the organized, sustained war of humans differs more than just technologically from the territorial fights between animals. In his fictional book Nineteen-Eighty-Four, George Orwell talks about war being used as one of many ways to distract people. War inspires fear and hate among the people of a nation, and gives them a 'legitimate' enemy upon whom they can focus this fear and hate. Thus the people are prevented from seeing that their true enemy is in fact their own repressive government. By this theory, war is another 'opiate of the masses' by which a totalitarian state controls its people and prevents revolution.

Anthropological theories

Several anthropologists take a very different view of war. They see it as fundamentally cultural, learned by nurture rather than nature. Thus if human societies could be reformed, war would disappear. To this school the acceptance of war is inculcated into each of us by the religious, ideological, and nationalistic surroundings in which we live. Many anthropologists also see no links between various forms of violence. They see the fighting of animals, the skirmishes of hunter-gatherer tribes, and the organized warfare of modern societies as distinct phenomena each with their own causes. Theorists such as Ashley Montagu emphasize the top down nature of war, that almost all wars are begun not by popular pressure but by the whims of leaders and that these leaders also work to maintain a system of ideological justifications for war.

Sociological theories

Sociology has long been very concerned with the origins of war, and many thousands of theories have been advanced, many of them contradictory. Some use detailed formulas taking into account hundreds of demographic and economic values to predict when and where wars will break out. The statistical analysis of war was pioneered by Lewis Fry Richardson following World War I. More recent databases of wars and armed conflict have been assembled by the Correlates of War Project, Peter Brecke and the Uppsala Department of Peace and Conflict Research. So far none of these formulas have successfully predicted the outbreak of future conflicts. A detailed study by Michael Haas found that no single variable has a strong correlation to the occurrence of wars. One correlation that has found much support is that states that are democracies do not go to war with each other, an idea known as the democratic peace theory. Many sociologists have attempted to divide wars into types to get better correlations, but this has also produced mixed results. Data looked at by R.J. Rummel has found that civil wars and foreign wars are very different in origin, but Jonathan Wilkenfield using different data found just the opposite. Sociology has thus divided into a number of schools. One based on the works of Eckart Kehr and Hans-Ulrich Wehler sees war as the product of domestic conditions, with only the target of aggression being determined by international realities. Thus World War I was not a product of international disputes, secret treaties, or the balance of power but a product of the economic, social, and political situation within each of the states involved. This differs from the traditional approach of Carl von Clausewitz and Leopold von Ranke that argue it is the decisions of statesmen and the geopolitical situation that leads to war.

Information theories

A popular new approach is to look at the role of information in the outbreak of wars. This theory, advanced by scholars of international relations such as Geoffrey Blainey, argues that all wars are based on a lack of information. If both sides at the outset knew the result neither would fight, the loser would merely surrender and avoid the cost in lives and infrastructure that a war would cause. This is based on the notion that wars are reciprocal, that all wars require both a decision to attack and also a decision to resist attack. This notion is generally agreed to by almost all scholars of war since Clausewitz. This notion is made harder to accept because it is far more common to study the cause of wars rather than events that failed to cause wars, and wars are far more memorable. However, throughout history there are as many invasions and annexations that did not lead to a war, such as the U.S.-led invasion of Haiti in 1994, the Nazi invasions of Austria and Czechoslovakia preceding the Second World War, and the annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union in 1940. On the other hand, Finland's decision to resist a similar Soviet aggression in 1939 led to the Winter War. The leaders of these nations chose not to resist as they saw the potential benefits being not worth the loss of life and destruction such resistance would cause. Lack of information may not only be to who wins in the immediate future. The Norwegian decision to resist the Nazi invasion was taken with the certain knowledge that Norway would fall. The Norwegians did not know whether the German domination would be permanent and also felt that noble resistance would win them favour with the Allies and a position at the peace settlement in the event of an Allied victory. If in 1940 it had been known with certainty the Germans would dominate central Europe for many decades, it is unlikely the Norwegians would have resisted. If it had been known for certainty that the Third Reich would collapse after only a few years of war, the Nazis would not have launched the invasion at all. This theory is predicated on the notion that the outcome of wars is not randomly determined, but fully determined on factors such as doctrine, economies, and power. While purely random events, such as storms or the right person dying at the right time, might have had some effect on history, these only influence a single battle or slightly alter the outcome of a war, but would not mean the difference between victory and defeat. There are two main objectives in the gathering of intelligence. The first is to find out the ability of an enemy, the second their intent. In theory to have enough information to prevent all wars both need to be fully known. The Argentinean dictatorship knew that the United Kingdom had the ability to defeat them, but their intelligence failed them on the question of whether the British would use their power to resist the annexation of the Falklands. The American decision to enter the Vietnam War was made with the full knowledge that the communist forces would resist them, but did not believe that the guerrillas had the capability to long oppose American forces. One major difficulty is that in a conflict of interests, some deception or at least not telling everything, is a standard tactical component on both sides. If you think that you can convince the opponent that you will fight, the opponent might desist. For example, Sweden made efforts to deceive Nazi Germany that it would resist an attack fiercely partly by playing on the myth of Aryan superiority, and by making sure that Hermann Göring only saw Elite troops in action, often dressed up as regular soldiers, when he came to visit.

Economic theories

Another school of thought argues that war can be seen as an outgrowth of economic competition in a chaotic and competitive international system. That wars begin as a pursuit of new markets, of natural resources, and of wealth. Unquestionably a cause of some wars, from the empire building of Britain to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in pursuit of oil this theory has been applied to many other conflicts including the Iraq invasion of the United States. It is most often advocated by those to the left of the political spectrum who argue that such wars serve only the interests of the wealthy but are fought by the poor.

Marxist theories

The economic theories also form a part of the Marxist theory of war, which argues that all war grows out of the class war. It sees wars as imperial ventures to enhance the power of the ruling class and divide the proletariat of the world by pitting them against each other for contrived ideals such as nationalism or religion. Wars are a natural outgrowth of the free market and class system, and will not disappear until a world revolution occurs.

Types of war and warfare

Smaller armed conflicts are often called riots, rebellions, coups, etc. When one country sends armed forces to another, allegedly to restore order or prevent genocide or other crimes against humanity, or to support a legally recognized government against insurgency, that country sometimes refers to it as a police action. This usage is not always recognized as valid, however, particularly by those who do not accept the connotations of the term. "Conventional warfare" descibes either:
- A war between nation-states
- War where nuclear or biological weapons are not used. (Compare with unconventional warfare and nuclear warfare.) A war where the forces in conflict belong to the same country or empire or other political entity is known as a civil war. Asymmetrical warfare is a conflict between two populations of drastically different levels of military mechanization. This type of war often results in guerrilla tactics. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a common example of asymmetrical warfare.

Geographic warfare

The terrain over which a war is fought has a big impact on the type of combat which takes place. This in turn means that soldiers have to be trained to fight in a specific type of terrain. These include:
- Arctic warfare
- Ski warfare
- Desert warfare
- Jungle warfare
- Naval warfare or Aquatic warfare
- Sub-aquatic warfare
- Mountain warfare (sometimes called alpine warfare)
- Urban warfare
- Air warfare
- Space warfare

References

-
-

External links

- [http://www.warcrimes.info/ Documents and Resources on War, War Crimes and Genocide]
- [http://www.umich.edu/~cowproj/ Correlates of War Project]
- [http://cow2.la.psu.edu/ Correlates of War 2]
- [http://www.inta.gatech.edu/peter/PSS99_paper.html Article by Peter Brecke]
- [http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation]
- [http://www.pcr.uu.se/ Uppsala Department of Peace and Conflict Research]
- [http://www.unesco.org/shs/human_rights/hrfv.htm 1986 Seville Statement on Violence]
- [http://www.culture-of-peace.info/ssov/title-page.html The Seville Statement on Violence: A Progress Report]
- [http://www.culture-of-peace.info/myth/title-page.html The Myth That War Is Intrinsic to Human Nature Discourages Action for Peace by Young People]
- [http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Rough estimates of the number of deaths in various wars and conflicts]
- [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry] War Violence ms:Peperangan ja:戦争 simple:War

Treaty

A treaty is a binding agreement under international law concluded by subjects of international law, namely states and international organizations. Treaties can be called by many names: treaties, international agreements, protocols, covenants, conventions, exchanges of letters, exchanges of notes, etc.; however all of these are equally treaties, and the rules are the same regardless of what the treaty is called. Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held legally liable for that breach. The central principle of treaty law is expressed in the maxim pacta sunt servanda--"pacts must be respected."

Vienna Convention

The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is the authoritative treaty on the international law of treaties, establishing the procedures by which treaties are adopted, interpreted, and invalidated. It is considered mostly a codification of already existing and binding customary law on treaties, and so aside from some necessary gap-filling and clarification, it is not viewed as a change in existing international law. This means that unlike most treaties, the Vienna Convention could arguably be binding to even non-parties. There is a Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States, and on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations. Most states have ratified these treaties. The Vienna Convention on Succession of States with Respect to Treaties has comparatively few parties. Many states reject its provisions as not adequately reflecting the customary international law on the subject.

Consequences of terminology

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding. Conversely, perhaps the most significant thing about the Anglo-Irish Treaty was that it was explicitly a treaty and hence implied British recognition of Irish sovereignty. Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. Such as the case with the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China in 1984. The wording for the document was very carefully designed to make it possible to interpret it either as a treaty or as a communique. Similar factors have been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation. The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

Bilateral and multilateral treaties

A multilateral treaty has several parties, and establishes rights and obligations between each party and every other party. Multilateral treaties are often, but not always, open to any state; others are regional. Bilateral treaties by contrast are negotiated between a limited number of states, most commonly only two, establishing legal rights and obligations between those two states only. It is possible however for a bilateral treaty to have more than two parties; consider for instance the bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) following the Swiss rejection of the European Economic Area agreement. Each of these treaties has seventeen parties. These however are still bilateral, not multilateral, treaties. The parties are divided into two groups, the Swiss ("on the one part") and the EU and its member states ("on the other part"). The treaty establishes rights and obligations between the Swiss and the EU and the member states severally; it does not establish any rights and obligations amongst the EU and its member states.

Reservations

Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. These can be qualifications or denials of specific obligations, or the insistence upon particular interpretations of treaty language. These must be included at the time of signing or ratification--a party cannot add a reservation after it has already joined a treaty. Some treaties expressly forbid all reservations or just specific ones. Treaties may also expressly authorize certain reservations. Otherwise, reservations may be permitted to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the goal and purpose of the treaty. Though the allowance of reservations means that not all parties to a treaty will be bound under the same precise obligations, states will often nevertheless consent to reservations to gain as many parties to the treaty as possible for the sake of a general goal. If a reservation is considered unacceptable, the reserving party may be excluded from the treaty, or the reservation may be considered severable from the party's ratification, meaning that the reservation is ignored but the party is still bound under the treaty.

Execution and implementation

Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action. Other treaties may be non-self-executing and require 'implementing legislation'--a change in the domestic law of a state party that will direct or enable it to fulfill treaty obligations. An example of a treaty requiring such legislation would be one mandating local prosecution by a party for particular crimes. The division between the two is often not clear and is often politicized in disagreements within a government over a treaty, as a non-self-executing treaty cannot be acted upon without the proper change in domestic law. If a treaty requires implementing legislation, a state may be in default of its obligations by the failure of its legislature to pass the necessary domestic laws.

Interpretation

The language of treaties, like that of any law or contract, must be interpreted when the wording does not seem clear or it is not immediately apparent how it should be applied in a perhaps unforeseen circumstance. The Vienna Convention states that treaties are to be interpreted “in good faith” according to the “ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” International legal experts also often invoke the 'principle of maximum effectiveness,' which interprets treaty language as having the fullest force and effect possible to establish obligations between the parties. No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties. Consent may be implied, however, if the other parties fail to explicitly disavow that initially unilateral interpretation, particularly if that state has acted upon its view of the treaty without complaint. Consent by all parties to the treaty to a particular interpretation has the legal effect of adding an additional clause to the treaty--this is commonly called an 'authentic interpretation.' International tribunals and arbitors are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.

Invalidation

Articles 46-53 of the Vienna Convention set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated--considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed below), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

Ultra vires treaties

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it was given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a “manifest” violation is required such that it would be “objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision. Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.

Misunderstanding, fraud, corruption, coercion

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident. Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.

Peremptory norms

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against genocide, slavery, torture, and piracy, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.

Ending treaty obligations

Withdrawal

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Other treaties are silent on the issue, and so if a state attempts withdrawal through its own unilateral denunciation of the treaty, a determination must be made regarding whether permitting withdrawal is contrary to the original intent of the parties or to the nature of the treaty. Human rights treaties, for example, are generally interpreted to exclude the possibility of withdrawal, because of the importance and permanence of the obligations. Withdrawal by a party may also be permitted if all other parties under the treaty consent. If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force between the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.

Suspension and termination

If a party has materially violated, or breached, its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself. A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. The issue must be presented to an international tribunal or arbitror (usually specified in the treaty itself) to legally establish that a sufficiently serious breach has in fact occurred. Otherwise, a party that prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspends or terminates its own obligations due to an alleged breach itself runs the risk of being held liable for breach. Additionally, parties may choose to overlook treaty breaches while still maintaining their own obligations towards the party in breach. Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may terminate if a defined event occurs if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions or in the absence thereof. A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if it was unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.

Treaties and indigenous peoples

Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing. In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other. In other cases, such as New Zealand and Canada, treaties allowed native peoples to maintain a minimum amount of autonomy. Such treaties between colonizers and indigenous peoples are an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century, but the treaties being discussed are internationally considered to be part of the nation's domestic law, and to have little international standing.

Role of the United Nations

The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. The Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties. In function and effectiveness the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some, giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.

United States law

In US law, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted sense than in international law. US law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole executive agreements. All three classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal US law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification (by the 2/3rds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone) and their relationship to US domestic law. Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties with the "advice and consent" of two thirds of the Senate. This is different from normal legislation which requires approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. However, throughout U.S. history, the President has also made "international agreements" through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole executive agreements made by the President alone. Though the constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative procedure and although some noted constitutional scholars, such as Laurence Tribe, believe that CEAs are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has considered these agreements to be valid, and that any disagreements are a political question for the executive and legislative branches to work out amongst themselves. In addition, U.S. law distinguishes between self-executing treaties, which do not require additional legislative action, and non-self-executing treaties which do require the enactment of new laws. These distinctions of procedure and terminology do not affect the binding status of such agreements under international law. Nevertheless, they do have major implications under U.S. domestic law. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive competence of the states. By contrast, a congressional-executive agreement can only cover matters which the Constitution explicitly places within the powers of Congress and the President, while an executive agreement can only cover matters within the President's authority or matters in which Congress has delegated authority to the President. While the ratification process for treaties is different from the process for CEA's, which venue is more advantageous for passage depends on the relevant circumstances. In general, arms control agreements are ratified by the treaty mechanism because it is simpler to go through one house of congress than two. At the same time, trade agreements are generally voted on as a CEA because the two-thirds requirement makes it possible for agricultural interests to veto any tariff reduction in the Senate. The United States takes a different view concerning the relationship between international and domestic law than many other nations, particularly in Europe. Unlike nations which view international agreements as always superseding national law, the American view is that international agreements become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independently of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S. Additionally, an international agreement that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court could rule a treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has never done so. The constitutional constraints are stronger in the case of CEA and executive agreements, which cannot override the laws of state governments. The Supreme Court has also ruled in Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979) that the President has the power to unilaterally abrogate a treaty without the consent of Congress or the Senate. The case in question involved President Jimmy Carter's termination of a defense treaty with the Republic of China on Taiwan. The U.S. is not a party to the Vienna Convention. However, the State Department has nonetheless taken the position that it is still binding, in that the Convention represents established customary law. The U.S. habitually includes in treaty negotiations the reservation that it will assume no obligations that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, the Vienna Convention provides that states are not excused from their treaty obligations on the grounds that they violate the state's constitution, unless the violation is manifestly obvious at the time of contracting the treaty. So for instance, if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law; but it would still be binding on the US under international law, unless its unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other states at the time the treaty was contracted. It has also been argued by the foreign governments (especially European) and by international human rights advocates that many of these US reservations are both so vague and broad as to be invalid (what is in violation of the US constitution? anything that the US judiciary claims is), and also are invalid as being in violation of the Vienna Convention provisions referenced earlier.

Strategy

A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal, as differentiated from tactics or immediate actions with resources at hand. Originally confined to military matters, the word has become commonly used in many disparate fields, such as:
- Business strategy
- Chess strategy
- Economic strategy
- American football strategy
- Military strategy
- Marketing strategies
- Game theoretical strategy
- Strategic management
- Technology strategy
- Tennis strategy
- Trading strategy

Origins of the word

The word finds its roots in the French stratégie, which is ultimately derived from the Greek stratēgos, which referred to a 'military commander' during the age of Athenian Democracy.

Casual and Formal Interpretations of the concept

A strategy is typically an idea that distinguishes a course of action by its hypothesis that a certain future position offers an advantage for acquiring some designated gain. The description of the idea is generally prepared in prescriptive documentation.

Historic Texts On Strategy

The nature of historic texts differs greatly from area to area, and, while there are some potential parallels between various forms of strategy (noting, for example, the popularity o