International Relations Essay范文-预防冲突的战略，本文是一篇留学生国际关系专业课程作业写作写作，主要内容是引用“一盎司预防抵得上一磅干预”。阐述对已经爆发的冲突进行干预的过程代价高昂、耗时，往往会导致失败。另一方面，预防冲突具有更大的吸引力。一旦成功，预防就有能力避免大规模死亡和国内流离失所，并为国家节省大量资源成本。即使冲突成功结束，也有更多的长期危险可以忘记。疾病蔓延、政治不稳定、武器贩运和寻求移民到既定国家的难民潮，在这方面，预防性战略对自由主义和现实政治逻辑都很有吸引力。预防冲突的理念在整个20世纪90年代都有所发展，并在冷战结束后很快成为国际讨论的主要特征。因此，预防已成功地长期纳入全球安全和治理议程。正如前联合国秘书长科菲·安南将军所言，“预防胜于治疗，这是一个近乎普遍的共识”。此外，“预防战略必须解决冲突的根源，而不仅仅是暴力症状”。自20世纪50年代以来，已经开展了大量关于预防冲突的研究，以及一系列国际范围的预防机制。学者们认为，预防冲突在某些方面仍然不发达和无效。许多可以避免的冲突，如卢旺达和南斯拉夫的冲突，都鼓励预防成为阻止人们伤害他人的一种方法。因此，本文旨在通过分析冲突预防在确保避免区域和国际冲突方面的有效性，回答“我们如何才能阻止人们伤害他人”的问题。本文将首先探讨预防冲突是否是维持和平的成功方法。在审查实施这种维持和平方法的主要障碍之前。最后，将仔细审查预防措施，并根据该方法是否能阻止人们伤害他人得出结论。
How can we stop people from harming others? 我们如何阻止人们伤害他人？
‘An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of intervention’ (Menkhaus, 2004). The process of intervening in conflicts that have already broken out is both costly, time consuming and often results in failure. The prevention of conflicts, on the other hand, holds a greater appeal. When successful, prevention has the ability to avoid large scale deaths, displacement within countries and saves countries large costs in terms of resources. Even if conflict is ended successfully, there are further long term dangers that can be forgotten. Such as, the spread of disease, political instability, arms trafficking and surges of refugees seeking to migrate to established countries preventative strategies, in this regard, are appealing to both liberal and realpolitik logic (Menkhaus, 2004). The idea of conflict prevention grew throughout the 1990s and soon became a dominant feature in international discussions after the end of the Cold War. As a result, prevention has been successfully incorporated into global security and governance agendas on a long term basis. As General Kofi Annan, a past United Nations (UN) secretary stated, ‘there is a near-universal agreement that prevention is preferable to cure’. In addition, ‘strategies of prevention must address the root causes of conflicts, not simply their violent symptoms’ (Mack and Furlong cited in Price and Zacher, 2004, pg. 65). Since the 1950s an abundance of research on conflict prevention has been produced (Ramsbotham et al, 2011), alongside an array of preventative mechanisms on an international scale. Scholars suggest that conflict prevention remains underdeveloped and ineffective in some regards. Many avoidable conflicts, such as that of Rwanda and Yugoslavia, have encouraged prevention to be a method used in stopping people from harming others. Therefore, this essay will aim to answer the question of ‘how can we stop people from harming others’ by analysing the effectiveness of conflict prevention in ensuring the avoidance of conflict both regionally and internationally. This essay, will first look at whether conflict prevention has been successful method of peacekeeping. Before examining the key obstacles of implementing this method of peacekeeping. Finally, prevention will be scrutinized and a conclusion will be formed on the basis of whether or not the method can stop people from harming others.
Before proceeding further into the essay, it is important to explain how the term ‘we’ will be defined throughout this discussion. ‘We’ refers to a lawful authority and the international community. ‘Harm’ will be interpreted based on a United Nations (UN) understanding ‘cultural or socio conventional motives which have harmful consequences on the rights’ and security of individuals (UN, 2009). In the context of this essay, conflict prevention, refers to ‘a situation where the conflict parties enter into an agreement that solves their central incompatibilities, accept each other’s continued existence as parties and cease all violent action against each other’ (Wallensteen, 2018).
在继续深入本文之前，重要的是要解释在整个讨论中如何定义“我们”一词我们“指的是合法的权威机构和国际社会。”“伤害”将根据联合国对“对个人权利和安全产生有害影响的文化或社会传统动机”的理解进行解释。在本文中，冲突预防是指“冲突各方达成协议，解决其核心不相容性，接受彼此作为当事方的继续存在，并停止对彼此的所有暴力行为”。
Conflict prevention is by no means new to international diplomacy. A shift in emphasis towards preventative diplomacy was manifested by the UN in 1992 after the publication of the ‘An Agenda for Peace’ report . Preventative action was then universally accepted as ‘the most desirable and efficient’ option for preventing conflict (Boutros- Ghali, 1992). Since, the UN has successfully reinforced the importance of conflict prevention and its requirements for success, including; early warning, fact finding capabilities and an ability to rapidly deploy preventative peace forces. The idea of hybrid peace, sees the combination of both global rules regarding peace, partnered with local specifies. This bottom up approach to peacekeeping, has ensured countries, such as Liberia, can avoid a relapse into civil war. Two major civil wars in this country between 1989 and 2003, claimed the lives of over 250,000 people and led to the breakdown of law and order in the first independent African state. The UN successfully managed to get the parties involved to sign a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2003. Following this 150,000 UN troops were sent into the country in order to monitor a ceasefire, extend state authority and help to train Liberian law enforcement on how to build and maintain a working democratic state. Since the signing of the CPA, the country has successfully avoided a relapse into civil war and is working towards long term stability (United Nations Conflict Prevention and Preventive Diplomacy In Action, n.d). This proves that conflict prevention, if implemented properly, can be effective.
预防冲突对国际外交来说绝非新鲜事。1992年，在《和平纲领》报告发表后，联合国表现出对预防性外交的重视。当时，预防性行动被普遍认为是预防冲突的“最理想和最有效的”选择。自年以来，联合国成功地加强了预防冲突的重要性及其成功的要求，包括：；预警、实况调查能力和快速部署预防性和平部队的能力。混合和平的理念是将关于和平的全球规则与地方规定相结合。这种自下而上的维和方式确保了利比里亚等国避免再次陷入内战。1989年至2003年间，该国发生了两次重大内战，夺去了超过25万人的生命，并导致第一个独立的非洲国家的法律和秩序崩溃。2003年，联合国成功地促使有关各方签署了《全面和平协议》。此后，15万名联合国部队被派往该国，以监督停火，扩大国家权力，并帮助培训利比里亚执法人员如何建立和维持一个运转良好的民主国家。自签署《全面和平协议》以来，该国成功地避免了内战的重演，并正在努力实现长期稳定。这证明，预防冲突如果执行得当，可以有效。
Institutions, such as the UN, are not always the most appropriate way to prevent conflict. Ackermann (2003), suggests that the way to overcome this is by taking a more decentralised approach to shift the responsibility down to regional level operations. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation (OSCE) in Europe has developed its use of preventative methods for regions; including field missions, monitoring and fact finding tasks (Ackermann, 2003). Similarly, the European Commission (EC) has begun to develop prevention tasks in regards to civilian crisis management. Conflict prevention missions have since been launched in countries such as Fiji and Napal (European Commission cited in Ackermann, 2003). For effective conflict prevention to occur non-governmental organisations must also incorporate preventative policies into their programmes. For example, Oxfam, are listening to this advice and adapting their aid programmes to address peacebuilding as a theme of their relief missions (Menkhaus, 2004). As a result, these agencies have become an integral part of preventing the harm of others as they are placed at a ‘grass root’ level and so, have the ability to monitor the tensions of particular cases. This further reiterates the success of a bottom up approach to peacekeeping.
联合国等机构并不总是预防冲突的最合适方式。Ackermann建议，克服这一问题的方法是采取更加分散的方法，将责任向下转移到区域一级的运营。欧洲安全与合作组织（欧安组织）制定了区域预防方法；包括外地特派团、监测和实况调查任务。同样，欧洲委员会已开始制定有关民事危机管理的预防任务。此后，在斐济和纳帕尔等国启动了冲突预防任务。为了有效预防冲突，非政府组织还必须将预防政策纳入其方案。例如，乐施会正在听取这一建议，并调整其援助方案，将建设和平作为其救济任务的主题。因此，这些机构已成为防止他人伤害的一个组成部分，因为它们处于“基层”层面，因此有能力监测特定案件的紧张局势。这进一步重申了自下而上的维和方法的成功。
Another criticism of conflict prevention is that, for it to be a successful method, accurate prediction of when and where conflict will occur is required. Hence why scholars are pushing for advances to occur in regards to ‘conflict causation’ (Ackermann, 2003). There is ample evidence to suggest that, by identifying the root causes behind conflicts makes prevention easier. The most commonly expressed underlying factors of conflict include; poverty, high levels of income inequality, over population and resource scarcity; political repression and human rights violations (Atmaar H et al., cited in Menkhaus, 2004) If these symptoms of conflict are ignored then conflict is only being prevented on a surface level and the likelihood of a reoccurrence becomes high. Scholars, who take the idea of root causes seriously, state that preventative strategies used must include promotion of human rights and the implementation of political structures. Effective preventative responses should, therefore be proactive and incorporate the conflict factors into their framework. Cockell (cited in Ackermann, 2003), explains that once preventative management has occurred, successful de-escalation can occur and narrowly focused intervention can be avoided. In doing so, root issues can be resolved fully, promoting successful long term stability. However, some critics suggest that, being so deeply involved in the structure of a state implies that some are doing so for their own gains, whether this be for resources or to gain ‘donor funding’ (Menkhaus, 2004). Current predictive capabilities have been shown to be weak with the most dramatic global events, such as the fall of the Berlin War in November 1991, were not effectively predicated.
对预防冲突的另一种批评是，要想成为一种成功的方法，需要准确预测冲突何时何地发生。因此，学者们为什么要推动在“冲突因果关系”方面取得进展。有充分的证据表明，通过查明冲突背后的根本原因，预防工作更加容易。冲突最常见的潜在因素包括：；贫困、收入高度不平等、人口过剩和资源匮乏；政治镇压和侵犯人权行为如果这些冲突症状被忽视，那么冲突只能在表面上得到预防，再次发生的可能性很高。认真对待根本原因的学者指出，所使用的预防性战略必须包括促进人权和实施政治结构。因此，有效的预防性应对措施应该是积极主动的，并将冲突因素纳入其框架。Cockell解释说，一旦发生了预防性管理，就可以成功地降低风险，并且可以避免狭隘的干预。通过这样做，根本问题可以得到充分解决，促进成功的长期稳定。然而，一些批评者认为，如此深入地参与国家结构意味着有些人这样做是为了自己的利益，无论是为了资源还是为了获得“捐助者资助”。目前的预测能力已被证明是薄弱的，最戏剧性的全球事件，如1991年11月柏林战争的失败，都没有得到有效的预测。
Therefore, the ability to predict must include the use of an early warning system. Although, this idea is not new, as Kenneth Boulding called for a global network of monitoring systems decades ago (Weiss et al, 2001). The accumulation of past events and the recent rise in terrorism, more specifically the attacks on September 11, have made it imperative that such system exists. This has lead to the ‘warning response dilemma’. According, to Nyheim (cited in Meyer et al., 2010), if opportunities for prevention are missed as a result of lack of response then this provides a major obstacle to responding successfully. International agencies have since sort to build an early warning system, in order to effectively prevent conflicts. Proposals were first laid down within the UNs ‘Centre of Early Warning’. Created in 1992, the Department of Peace Operations (DPKO) has a 24 hour situation centre which ensures that links between the UN headquarters and those out on peace keeping missions are maintained. It contains the operations room (OR) which monitors news sources and covers geographic areas of concern. In theory, this idea increases the early warning opportunities, preventing the unnecessary harm to people. Though, staffing for this is inadequate, as only three individuals work at one time meaning if a member of staff is off sick the whole operation is affected. There is also the research and liaison unit (RLU) which collects data and produces daily, weekly and monthly reports of political, military and security trends that could potentially affect the effectiveness of preventative missions (Zenko, 2011).
因此，预测能力必须包括使用预警系统。尽管如此，这一想法并不新鲜，正如肯尼斯·博尔丁几十年前呼吁建立一个全球监测系统网络。过去事件的累积和最近恐怖主义的抬头，更具体地说是9月11日的袭击，使得这种制度的存在势在必行。这导致了“预警-应对困境”。根据Nyheim的说法，如果由于缺乏应对措施而错过了预防机会，那么这是成功应对的主要障碍。此后，国际机构开始着手建立预警系统，以有效预防冲突。建议首先在联合国“预警中心”内提出。和平行动部（维和部）成立于1992年，设有一个24小时情况中心，确保联合国总部与执行维持和平任务的人员之间保持联系。它拥有作战指挥室，用于监控新闻来源并覆盖关注的地理区域。理论上，这种想法增加了预警机会，防止了对人的不必要伤害。不过，这方面的人员配备不足，因为一次只有三个人工作，这意味着如果一名员工生病，整个运营都会受到影响。还有一个研究和联络单位，负责收集数据，并编制可能影响预防性任务效力的政治、军事和安全趋势的每日、每周和每月报告。本站提供各国各专业essay代写或指导服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。