Abstract
This article argues that existing general typologies of the use of force concepts accepted by American political scientists do not correspond with the reality. The survey compares several distinctive approaches which are generally proposed to classify the ideas elaborated in American political circuits and comes to the conclusion that none of the mentioned approaches could be applied directly to the use of force issue due to numerous difficulties occur while drawing on existing classifications. The article proposes a new method for systematizing these American political theories which is based on two main criteria: scholars’ attitude towards actual use of force and their perceptions of threats/challenges to national security. According to the newly introduced typology there are three major trends in American political thought on the issue: the first one consolidates those who support active and aggressive use of force (proponents of intervention or Interventionalists), the second one includes concepts of those authors who are not against the use of American forces abroad but stand on less aggressive positions (Conceptualists), and the third one unites those American political authors who insist that the US should use the force only in case of direct imminent attack on the American soil (Defenders).
Highlights
As we entered the XXI century it did not meet our expectations of peaceful and secure world
This typology is rather vague and requires several additional theoretical implications for proper description of the full range of ideas about the use of force in US political science discourse due to several reasons: 1. This typology does not consider the fact that almost all authors who are proponents of active use of force in the international arena – and even those who do not speak in favor of international organizations – express their support for the international cooperation
This position goes beyond the tradition of realism as it speaks in favor of impact of international organizations and does not reside within the pillars of idealism as well since it states that such cooperation is not the impetus to stop war
Summary
As we entered the XXI century it did not meet our expectations of peaceful and secure world. Informational technologies of the XXI century predetermine the fact that the aftermath of each conflict nowadays would be even more devastating and calamitous. In this regards it is important to reveal the main tendencies in political behavior of the United States of America as currently Washington possesses military and technological domination in the world. American political experts’ point of view on the use of force issue was not decided to become a main criterion of systematization; there are typologies based on a compatible criterion which might be applied for the description of American political scientists’ position on the problem of military enforcement: realism/idealism, conservatism/neo-conservatism and neo-isolationism. The convenience and effectiveness of these typologies would be examined below
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
