Is International Relations Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?

Whether international relations are a solution to the problem or a way to provoke war is worth discussing. The Democratic Peace Theory under Liberalism holds that all democracies (or, more accurately, all liberal democracies) will not or rarely go to war with another. This theory is further explored in depth the link between democracy and peace. This paper analyzes the situation in Afghanistan, North Korea’s nuclear program and the United States intervention in the world. Finally, it is concluded that international relations theory can solve regional problems and lead to conflict and war. In other words, international relations are both parts of the problem and part of the solution to the issues in international affairs.

The Afghan Peace Talks: Transforming Experience and Using Knowledge to Confront Future Crises—What Does the Afghanistan Experience Tell Us About the Future of Countering Violent Extremism?

On September 12, 2020, the Afghan peace talks begin between the Taliban and the Afghan government in Doha-Qatar to end the 19 years of war. This significant diplomatic effort was only possible when in February 29, 2020, the United States and the Taliban reached an “historic agreement” in the presence of the international community in Doha-Qatar committing all U.S. troops to lave Afghanistan in 14 months in return the Taliban will cut ties with al-Qaida and make peace. [1, p. 1.]It was set to pave the way for intra-Afghan dialogues—a much needed move toward peace. Afghanistan has been entrenched in a 40-year civil war that has consequently created the conditions for the country to be considered a base for terrorist operations, ravaged by war and conflict for centuries by empires and militia groups in the name of power, religion and ideologies. It has seen foreign invasions, civil wars and has been turned into a theatre of conflict where the power struggle between hostile foreign countries transpired. It became the heart of the Mujahideen, the Taliban and the al-Qaeda’s operational bases and subsequently the United States intervention after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and has remained engaged in its longest war as part of the ongoing “War on Terror” [2, p. 1]. While the US is pulling troops out and the Afghans are making peace, there is a potential threat, the rise of the Islamic State of Khorasan IS-K in Afghanistan. It is at this point that overall lessons gained from ground and first-hand experience can be applied to addressing the security issues that plague Afghanistan. Overall, there is a strong drive for peace amongst contemporary Afghans. They believe that negotiations and political settlement are in the nation’s best interests.

Responsibility to Protect dalam Kasus Genosida oleh ISIL terhadap Yazidi-Irak melalui Intervensi Militer Amerika Serikat

Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan intervensi militer yang dilakukan oleh Amerika Serikat (AS) dalam menanggapi genosida yang dilakukan oleh Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terhadap komunitas Yazidi di Irak. Peneliti menggunakan konsep Responsibility to Protect (R2P), yang merujuk pada laporan dari the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) u This article aims to explain the military intervention carried out by the United States in response to the genocide carried out by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) against Yazidi community in Iraq. The researchers use the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which refers to a report from the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty to see the procedure for procuring military intervention in the R2P framework in detail. This article found that besides several collateral damages, military intervention carried out by the United States was following the procedures set out by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. The United States’ intervention was done by the Iraqi government's approval, which had previously requested assistance from the United States. This intervention can be seen as Iraqi collective self-defense as stated in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations or intervention based on approval as stipulated in Article 20 of the Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts 2001. This research was conducted qualitatively using sources in the form of a variety of documents and mass media reports. ntuk melihat prosedur intervensi militer dalam kerangka kerja R2P secara terperinci. Artikel ini menemukan bahwa meskipun telah terjadi sejumlah dampak sampingan (collateral damages), intervensi militer yang dilakukan oleh AS mengikuti prosedur yang ditetapkan oleh ICISS, antara lain, dilakukan AS atas persetujuan pemerintah Irak yang sebelumnya meminta bantuan dari AS. Intervensi ini dapat dilihat sebagai pertahanan diri kolektif Irak sebagaimana tercantum dalam Piagam Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Pasal 51 atau intervensi berdasarkan persetujuan sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 20 Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts tahun 2001. Penelitian ini dilakukan secara kualitatif dengan menggunakan sumber-sumber berupa berbagai dokumen dan laporan media massa.