International Relations作业-政治与战争的关系。本文是一篇留学生国际关系课程作业范文，主要内容是讲述战争与政治的关系在人类历史上一直交织在一起，许多政治学家和外交决策者将战争视为一种政治工具。课程作业在内容中提到国家元首所做的每一项决定都会产生政治后果，并带来最终代价。为了实现国家政治目标，我们考察了有组织战争的影响因素，将战争描述为从另一个国家获得权力以获得政治影响力和控制以实现特定国家政治目标的主要因素。下面是这篇International Relations作业的全部内容，供参考。
The relation between war and politics always been entwined in human history and many political scientists and foreign policy makers view war as an instrument of politics. Every decision taken by the head of state have political consequences, which come with an ultimate cost. Examining the influencing factors of organized war with the purpose of achieving the states political goal, we characterize war as a major factor to obtain power from another state to gain political influence and control to accomplish the political goals of the specific state.
By investigating politics and how that relates to war you can see that war is used to force another state to achieve their political goals. Several factors are considered when resources are not infinite for the state. Therefore, by allocating problems by using showing strength between states to pressure a particular society is showing you that war is not just a political act but can be also a real political instrument. Ultimately, states will represent their own interests to maximize their own utility by using strength to change the decision of the opposition. We can say that, war is a vital form of utilization in politics.
通过调查政治及其与战争的关系，你可以看到战争是用来迫使另一个国家实现其政治目标的。当国家的资源不是无限时，考虑了几个因素。因此，通过在国家之间展示实力来向特定社会施压来分配问题，向你展示了战争不仅是一种政治行为，也可以是一种真正的政治工具。最终，国家将代表自己的利益，通过利用力量改变反对派的决定，最大限度地发挥自己的效用。可以说，战争是政治利用的重要形式。
Research Objectives 研究目标
The main objective in this study is to answer the question, “Is every war a political decision”? In order to begin answering this question, one must asses the understanding of the current political world. In a world where mass amounts of international relations exist, and more countries are continually trying to sign treaties, there is an important understanding of international relations within the political world. Since this research question is very much qualitative as it gains to understand the underlying reasons and motivation/opinions of the relation between politics and wars. This exploratory research will provide insights to the relations and help develop thoughts/opinions to potentially uncover facts and dive deeper into the research.
本研究的主要目的是回答这个问题：“每一场战争都是一个政治决定吗？”？为了开始回答这个问题，人们必须评估对当前政治世界的理解。在一个存在大量国际关系、越来越多国家不断试图签署条约的世界里，政治世界对国际关系有着重要的理解。因为这个研究问题在很大程度上是定性的，因为它有助于理解政治与战争之间关系的根本原因和动机/观点。这项探索性研究将提供对这种关系的见解，并帮助发展想法/意见，以潜在地揭示事实并深入研究。
The understanding of the relations between politics and war will help individuals acknowledge the roles in shaping future economic outcomes by being informed of the importance of historical events that shaped our current political world. Ultimately, society itself will understand the degree of involvement between politics and war.
了解政治与战争之间的关系将有助于个人认识到影响当前政治世界的历史事件的重要性，从而在塑造未来经济成果方面发挥作用。最终，社会本身将了解政治与战争之间的介入程度。
I believe that this study will prove a hypothesis of politics having a big influence with wars the happen between states internationally.
我相信这项研究将证明一个假设，即政治对国家间的国际战争有很大影响。
Literature Review 文献综述
The first source deals with respect to conflict between states, and the possibility of diversionary purposes between the states. In the Journal of Interdisciplinary History: The Orgin and Prevention of Major Wars (1988), Jack S. Levy’s[1] major theme in his book is the gap between historians and political scientists in their evaluations of the relative importance of domestic political variables in the processes leading to war. The political science literature on the relationship between the domestic and foreign conflict behavior of states is a particularly striking example of this discrepancy. A main hypothesis in this book is, “The Scapegoat Theory”[2]. This theory allows political elites to use a foreign war to divert popular attention from internal social, economic, and political problems. For instance, a conflict within state A may tempt A’s leaders to resort to the use of force externally for diversionary purposes. Alternatively, conflict within state A may tempt state B to intervene, either to exploit a temporary military advantage created by the impact of A’s disorder on its military strength, or to attempt to influence the outcome of the struggle for the power in A. Conflict within A may generate weaknesses which provide an opportunity for B to attack, thus providing the political leadership of A with a real external threat which can be exploited for its own domestic political purposes. Consequently, showing the political variables in processes which may lead to war.
第一个来源涉及国家之间的冲突，以及国家之间转移注意力的可能性。在《跨学科历史杂志：重大战争的起源和预防》中，杰克·S·利维（Jack S.Levy）在其著作中的主要主题是历史学家和政治科学家在评估国内政治变量在导致战争的过程中的相对重要性时存在的差距。关于国家国内外冲突行为之间关系的政治学文献就是这种差异的一个特别突出的例子。本书的一个主要假设是“替罪羊理论”。这一理论允许政治精英利用对外战争转移公众对内部社会、经济和政治问题的注意力。例如，a国内部的冲突可能诱使a国领导人在外部使用武力以转移注意力。或者，A国内部的冲突可能诱使B国进行干预，要么利用A国混乱对其军事力量的影响所产生的临时军事优势，要么试图影响A国权力斗争的结果。A国内部的冲突可能产生弱点，为B提供攻击机会，因此，为一个国家的政治领导层提供了一个真正的外部威胁，这种威胁可以被用于其国内政治目的。因此，显示可能导致战争的过程中的政治变量。
The second source, The Reasons for Wars – A Updated Survey (2009), author Mathew O. Jackson and Massimo Morelli[3] discusses that incentives must exist for conflict and that some barriers exist to reach an enforceable bargain in war. They explain that some revolutions and coups arise from an agency problem, either on the part of the current ruler or the leader of the attack. Some civil wars erupt because of ethnic or religious diversities manifesting themselves in the form of multilateral bargaining failures. Although the theoretical understanding of the various causes of wars is developing well and there are innumerable case studies of war and analyses of conflicts, systematic empirical work[4] that analyzes the origins of wars across many cases is still relatively lacking. A richer understanding of the origins of wars would help further advance this relation and would help in sorting more frequent and important causes from those which are less so, ultimately helping to develop policies aimed at avoiding the costs of conflict. Therefore, the ways in which leaders gain power differ across political regimes and affects the type of leader that emerges and the extent to which they represent the state by politically waging wars and the decisions involved are made by careful and rational individuals.
第二个来源，《战争的原因——最新调查》，作者Mathew O.Jackson和Massimo Morelli讨论了冲突的动机，以及在战争中达成可执行协议的一些障碍。他们解释说，一些革命和政变是由现任统治者或袭击领导人的代理问题引起的。一些内战爆发是因为种族或宗教多样性以多边谈判失败的形式表现出来。虽然对战争的各种原因的理论认识正在发展，并且有无数的战争案例研究和冲突分析，但在许多案例中分析战争起源的系统实证工作仍然相对缺乏。更深入地了解战争的起源将有助于进一步推动这种关系，并有助于将更频繁和重要的原因与不太频繁和重要的原因区分开来，最终有助于制定旨在避免冲突代价的政策。因此，领导人获得权力的方式因政治制度而异，并影响到出现的领导人类型以及他们通过政治发动战争代表国家的程度，所涉及的决策是由谨慎理性的个人作出的。
The third source is a journal by Carl von Clausewitz, On war: On the Nature of War (1984)[5]. Itdescribes war as a mere continuation of policy by other means. Clausewitz states that war as not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument. The author has stated that under all circumstances, war is to be regarded not as an independent thing but as a political instrument and it is only by taking this point of view that we can avoid finding ourselves in opposition to all military history. Clausewitz’s view shows us how wars must differ in character according to the nature of the motives[6] and circumstances from which they proceed. Additionally, he also said that war is a direct outcome of political activity and policies. Battles typically happen due to the rules and norms adopted by one country which are not acceptable by others or are in contradiction to their interests. Wars are fought to satisfy the political benefits of a nation; Clausewitz argued that policies not only help in determining the objective that military or army will look to achieve by engaging in a war and that such combats are political instruments to conquer land, people, or money. Thus, according to Clausewitz, war must not be seen as an act of real physical violence, instead it must be considered as the start of a political fight, in which one state threatens the other and forces it to follow their political concepts and policies.
第三个来源是卡尔·冯·克劳塞维茨（Carl von Clausewitz）的期刊《论战争：战争的性质》。它将战争描述为通过其他手段仅仅是政策的延续。克劳塞维茨指出，战争不仅是一种政治行为，而且是一种真正的政治工具。作者指出，在任何情况下，战争都不应被视为一个独立的事物，而应被视为一种政治工具，只有采取这种观点，我们才能避免发现自己与所有军事历史对立。克劳塞维茨的观点告诉我们，战争的性质必须根据动机的性质和战争发生的环境而有所不同。此外，他还说，战争是政治活动和政策的直接结果。战争通常是由于一个国家采用的规则和规范而发生的，这些规则和规范不被其他国家接受或与他们的利益相矛盾。战争是为了满足一个国家的政治利益而进行的；克劳塞维茨认为，政策不仅有助于确定军队或军队通过战争寻求实现的目标，而且这种战斗是征服土地、人民或金钱的政治工具。因此，克劳塞维茨认为，战争不应被视为真正的人身暴力行为，而应被视为政治斗争的开始，在这场斗争中，一个国家威胁另一个国家，迫使它遵循其政治概念和政策。
The fourth source, Foucault and the Continuation of War (2012)[7], the author, Jason Edwards analyses the relationship of war and politics that Micheal Foucault published, called, Society Must Be Defended. Edwards focuses on reasons why states engage in to advance and protect their interests when diplomacy fails. He further discusses the immediate problems that emerge from use of war as a means of analysing politics and power relations. Also, Edwards notes that war is just the central feature of human history and politics. From the authors point of view, politics is war and politics is certainly what makes war possible. From this standpoint we can see that Edwards is arguing that politics is not a departure of or cessation of war, but rather that politics has the form of war and is the condition for and moment of the constitution of all social life. Ultimately, the writer claims that “understanding how politics and relations of power in modernity are constituted as relations… of the friend-enemy distinction is characteristic of the political discourses and practices of modernity” Thus, his work supports that there is correlation between war and politics.
第四个来源，福柯和战争的延续，作者杰森·爱德华兹分析了迈克尔·福柯出版的《社会必须捍卫》中战争与政治的关系。爱德华兹重点阐述了当外交失败时，各国为什么会参与推进和保护其利益的原因。他进一步讨论了利用战争作为分析政治和权力关系的手段所产生的紧迫问题。此外，爱德华兹指出，战争只是人类历史和政治的中心特征。从作者的角度来看，政治就是战争，政治当然是使战争成为可能的因素。从这个观点我们可以看出，爱德华兹认为政治不是战争的开始或停止，而是政治具有战争的形式，是构成所有社会生活的条件和时刻。最后，作者声称“理解现代性中的政治和权力关系如何构成为朋友-敌人区别的关系……是现代性政治话语和实践的特征”，因此，他的作品支持战争与政治之间存在着关联。
The last source, The Morality, Politics and Irony of War: Recovering Reinhold Niebuhr’s Ethical Realism (2008), the author John D. Carlson[8] solely focuses on the unexamined relationship between elements in war such as “morality and politics.” Carlson says that, many states put forward strategic strategy and political reasons for war. The author begins by discussing the irony of America’s historical experience of war and the relationship between political causes of the morality of war. Consequently, Carlson’s research discovers that by having state’s deploying smart tactics and by showing strength as instruments of self-interest and power, politics plays a major role on warfare when states try to push these forces in a direction of self-benefit and not for international armistice.
最后一个来源是《战争的道德、政治和讽刺：恢复莱因霍尔德·尼布尔的道德现实主义》，作者约翰·D·卡尔森只关注战争要素之间未经检验的关系，如“道德和政治”。卡尔森说，许多国家提出了战争的战略战略和政治原因。本文首先论述了美国战争历史经验的反讽性与战争道德的政治成因之间的关系。因此，卡尔森的研究发现，当国家试图将这些力量推向自利而非国际停战的方向时，通过让国家部署聪明的战术，并将力量作为利己和权力的工具，政治在战争中发挥着重要作用。
The sources previously mentioned will help future research conducted on the relationship between politics and war. All authors provided detailed information on their standpoint of politics influencing war, including demonstrating the type instruments of influence being used and discuses the state of mind of the state’s pursing these horrendous actions of war.
前面提到的资料将有助于今后对政治与战争之间的关系进行研究。所有作者都提供了有关其政治影响战争的立场的详细信息，包括演示所使用的影响工具的类型，并讨论了国家实施这些可怕战争行动的心态。
Variables 变量
Since this research is examining the comprehensive topic of political influence in causing wars, it is imperative to consider the other influencing factors as possible intervening variables. As mentioned already by the authors, the state’s influence can potentially form political violence that is impacted by one state having scarce economics using violence to compel the opponent to their demands, which can be considered the most intervening variable.
由于这项研究正在审查引发战争的政治影响这一综合性主题，因此有必要将其他影响因素视为可能的干预变量。正如作者已经提到的那样，国家的影响可能会形成政治暴力，这种暴力受到一个经济匮乏的国家的影响，该国使用暴力迫使对手满足其要求，这可以被视为最具干预性的变量。
The independent variable in this study would be war because we are trying to research if war is started by politics. The dependant variable will be politics since we are determining that there is an influence of political factors behind the cause of a war.
本研究中的自变量是战争，因为我们试图研究战争是否由政治引发。因变量将是政治，因为我们正在确定战争起因背后有政治因素的影响。
Methodology 方法论
For this qualitative research, the first source, the author, Jack S. Levy’s methods to collect data were done through peer-reviewed articles reviewed by other experts in the field, along with including documents/records of past events, observations and numerous case studies. Research for this article has been supported by the [9]Stanford Center for International Security and Arms Control, by the Carnegie Corporation and by a Social Science Research Council/MacArthur Foundation fellowship in international peace and security. This will help inform the research proposal by allowing you to see potential impact of political and foreign choices made by states and political leaders.
对于这项定性研究，第一个来源，即作者Jack S.Levy收集数据的方法是通过该领域其他专家审查的同行审查文章完成的，包括过去事件的文件/记录、观察和众多案例研究。本文的研究得到了[9]斯坦福国际安全与军备控制中心、卡内基公司和社会科学研究理事会/麦克阿瑟基金会国际和平与安全研究金的支持。这将有助于了解国家和政治领导人作出的政治和外国选择的潜在影响，从而为研究提案提供信息。
The second source, the author Mathew O. Jackson and Massimo Morelli collected data through study of observations, documents/records, and case studies. This article will help inform the research proposal by analyzing cases of decision when wars are involved by gaining an essential perspective on the various sources of conflict and importance of different political factors that lead to war.
第二个来源是作者Mathew O.Jackson和Massimo Morelli通过观察、文件/记录和案例研究收集数据。本文将通过分析涉及战争的决策案例，从根本上了解冲突的各种来源以及导致战争的不同政治因素的重要性，为研究提案提供信息。
The third source, the author Carl von Clausewitz similarly uses methods used to collect data were documents/records, case studies, and observations. The various concepts proposed by Clausewitz are still extremely useful in understanding the concept of war in today’s times and will help inform the research proposal by using his connection of war and politics, which constitutes that war is a technique though which a country can impose its policies onto other areas and nations.
第三个来源，作者卡尔·冯·克劳塞维茨同样使用了收集数据的方法，即文件/记录、案例研究和观察。克劳塞维茨提出的各种概念在理解当今时代的战争概念方面仍然极为有用，并将有助于利用他对战争和政治的联系为研究建议提供信息，这就构成了战争是一种技术，一个国家可以通过它将其政策强加给其他地区和国家。
Lastly, the fourth and fifth source similarly uses case studies and observations to collect information on the relationship between war, power relations and politics. The main message the author Jason Edwards and John D. Carlson portray in their text is that all state’s use political strength or they would fall into anarchy.
最后，第四和第五来源同样使用案例研究和观察来收集关于战争、权力关系和政治之间关系的信息。作者杰森·爱德华兹和约翰·D·卡尔森在他们的文本中描述的主要信息是，所有国家都在使用政治力量，否则就会陷入无政府状态。
Ethics 伦理
It will be very difficult to maintain ethical research when it relates to the topic of politics and war. In my opinion each state will try to be unethical by withholding information that is relation to politics causing war since it will not be in their best interest disclosing that information to the public. Wars relation to politics is a bottomless topic that we can research and find relations that are going to include ethical research done by professional and along with unethical research that potentially can be obtained by displaying deception from a particular state or individual trying to protect its self-interests.
当涉及政治和战争主题时，很难维持伦理研究。在我看来，每个州都会试图隐瞒与引发战争的政治有关的信息，这是不道德的，因为向公众披露这些信息不符合他们的最佳利益。战争与政治的关系是一个无底洞的话题，我们可以研究并发现其中的关系，包括专业人士进行的伦理研究，以及通过展示来自试图保护其自身利益的特定国家或个人的欺骗行为而可能获得的不道德研究。
Conclusion 结论
In conclusion, this research is worth studying because it analyses the factors that led up to the actual war. It is important to know about our past and how we evolved as states from the historical events from the past. By analysing former errors through research, we can avoid these errors in the political future because history will teach us the close relation between war and politics.
Bibliography 参考文献
Carlson, John D. 2008. “THE MORALITY, POLITICS, AND IRONY OF WAR: Recovering Reinhold Niebuhr’s Ethical Realism.” Journal of Religious Ethics 36 (4): 619–51. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9795.2008.00365.x.
Clausewitz von, Carl 1984. “On War: On the Nature of War” Dummlers Howard/Paret version No.1: 20
Edwards, Jason. 2012. “Foucault and the Continuation of War.” At the Interface / Probing the Boundaries 80 (June): 21–40.
Levy S, Jack. 1988. “Journal of Interdisciplinary History: The Origin and Prevention of Major Wars.” The MIT Press Vol. 18 No. 4
Jackson O., Matthew & Morelli, Massimo 2009. “The Reasons for Wars – A Updated Survey.” Elgar Publishing. Handbook on the Political Economy of War.
International Relations作业总结这项研究是值得研究的，因为它分析了导致实际战争的因素。了解我们的过去以及我们是如何从过去的历史事件中演变为国家的，这一点很重要。通过研究分析过去的错误，我们可以在政治未来避免这些错误，因为历史将教会我们战争与政治之间的密切关系。本站提供各国各专业留学生作业，课程作业写作指导服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。