Shanza faiq

As promised, here are my tips on how to tackle the CSS english essay!

1. Ask the examiner for a second answer booklet and open its last page. Take a pencil, and
write 'rough work' on top of the last page and do your brainstorming over here. Make a rough
outline here, and it's completely okay to take 2-3 pages for rough work. After you're done, cross
the pages with a line, to let the examiner know that this was simply your rough work. When you
do your rough work, keep asking yourself how each point connects to the topic; one of the
biggest mistakes that kids make is that they mention points that are not connected to the topic.

2. Your outline should not be longer than 2.5 pages, and can ideally be 2 pages long. Please
refrain from long outlines - the whole point of an outline is to make it easy for the examiner to
understand what you've included in your essay. Please do not make long, extremely detailed
outlines that end up being a headache for the examiner to understand.

3. Make sure you include all the main examples that you will be using in your essay in your
outline. So, whatever example you're using to substantiate your points - include them in your
outline. Show the examiner that you aren't just randomly writing points, but that you have the
knowledge and facts to back up your points. Show the examiner that you're well read and well
prepared.

4. Back up each argument of yours with 1-2 examples, not more, otherwise you'll end up with
some arguments that are too heavily substantiated and some that aren't as adequately
substantiated. Maintain a balance.

5. Write each argument in a separate paragraph, but only ONE argument per paragraph. I
would recommend a length of not more than half a page, or three-quarters of a page for one
paragraph.

6. Think of each paragraph as a mini essay; each paragraph MUST have an intro sentence,
which contains the main point that you will be explaining in your essay. Then it should have a
body where you elaborate your main point and back it up with an example or two. And then it
should have a concluding sentence, which should ideally begin with words like 'Thus' or
'Therefore' or 'In conclusion' - in order to quickly let the examiner know that you're wrapping up
your point here and concluding your paragraph. Try to connect your paragraph's main point with
the topic in your conclusion; it would help to include a few words of the topic in your conclusion
to let the examiner know that you haven't gone off topic and that everything you're writing is tied
to the topic.

7. Connect each paragraph with the other by using transition words. So, for instance - if you
have 6-7 arguments to support one side of the topic, you will be writing 6-7 separate paragraphs
(one of each argument). Start each paragraph with 'firstly', 'secondly', 'thirdly' etc. When you
transition to the other side of the argument, or to a separate point, start off the new paragraph
with an intro sentence like 'Having expounded upon the prospects of social media in Pakistan, it
is now imperative to shed a light upon its problems. Firstly..." and then so on and so forth.

8. Your intro paragraph in your essay is EXTREMELY important. Make sure that the intro
paragraph's first sentence contains your understanding of the meaning of the topic, but in your
own words. Then you expand upon the topic by writing about a few of the examples that you will
be using in your essay. And then the last sentence of the intro paragraph should contain your
'thesis statement' or your stance - the main viewpoint that you will be adopting or defending
throughout your essay.

9. Make sure your conclusion ONLY mentions/summarizes the points you have already written
in your essay. Do not add any extra or new points here. A conclusion is a summary of what you
have already mentioned in your essay.

10. Do not use headings or sub-headings in the CSS essay. Those should only be used in
answers for other subjects, NOT in the essay.

11. An extra paragraph before the concluding paragraph is always helpful - my tip would be to
make it the 'recommendations' or 'going forward' paragraph where you give 3-4
recommendations based on the topic, on how the issue can be better resolved/tackled in the
future.

12. There is no need to rote learn quotations or give historical backgrounds of issues in your
essays - please realize that FPSC is no longer looking for people with the best rote learning
abilities.

13. My sample Essay Outline:

Topic: Emergence of Social Media in Pakistan: Problems and Prospects

Thesis Statement: Social media usage has increased manifold in Pakistan; though it comes with
a range of issues, its prospects need to be harnessed so that its benefits can be fully utilized.

Prospects:
1) Ability to crowdsource constitutions; Iceland’s constitution
2) Potential to hold governments accountable

Problems:
1)
2)

Recommendations:
1)
2)
3)

Conclusion:

Hope this helps!

Kashmir, India and option for Pakistan

https://thegeopolitics.com/kashmir-and-afghanistan-pakistans-choices-and-options/#

Quote for multiple purpose

A lecturer in a South African University wrote an expressive message to his students

and placed it at the entrance of the college

He wrote, “Collapsing any Nation does not require use of Atomic bombs or the use of Long
range missiles. But it requires lowering the quality of Education and allowing cheating in the
exams by the students.
The patient dies in the hands of the doctor who passed his exams through cheating.
And the buildings collapse in the hands of an engineer who passed his exams through cheating.
And the money is lost in the hands of an accountant who passed his exams through cheating.
And humanity dies in the hands of a religious scholar who passed his exams through cheating.
And justice is lost in the hands of a judge who passed his exams through cheating.
And ignorance is rampant in the minds of children who are under the care of a teacher who
passed exams through cheating.
The collapse of education is the collapse of the Nation

Education is not preparation for life: Education is life itself." - John Dewey

Feminism

The extent of economic exploitation of women in contemporary society is amply reflected

in a United Nations Report (1980). It reads: "Women constitute half the world's
population, perform nearly two thirds of its work hours, receive one tenth of the world's
income, and own less than one hundredth of the world's property." In other spheres of
life, e.g. cultural and social spheres, similar data to show the extent of exploitation of
women by men might not be available, but a general awareness about this exploitation
led to strong protests manifested in Women Liberation Movement which emerged in the
United States since the early 1970s.

Although feminist aspirations have been expressed in societies dating back to Ancient China,
they were not underpinned by a developed political theory until the publication of Mary
Wollstonecraft’s (see p. 50) A Vindication of the Rights of Women ([1792] 1985). Indeed, it
was not until the emergence of the women’s suffrage movement in the 1840s and 1850s that
feminist ideas reached a wider audience, in the form of so-called ‘first-wave feminism’. The
achievement of female suffrage in most western countries in the early twentieth century
deprived the women’s movement of its central goal and organizing principle. ‘Second-wave
feminism’, however, emerged in the 1960s. This expressed the more radical, and sometimes
revolutionary, demands of the growing Women’s Liberation Movement (WLM). Feminist
theories and doctrines are diverse, but their unifying feature is a common desire to enhance,
through whatever means, the social role of women
n. The underlying themes of femin ism are therefore, first, that society is characterized by
sexual or gender inequality and, second, that this structure of male power can, and should
be, overturned.

Feminist thinking has traditionally been analysed in terms of a division between liberal,
socialist and radical schools of thought

Liberal feminism:
Liberal feminists, such as Wollstonecraft and Betty Friedan (see p. 263), have tended to
understand female subordination in terms of the unequal distribution of rights and oppor tun i
ties in society. This ‘equal-rights feminism’ is essentially reformist. It is concerned more with
the reform of the ‘public’ sphere; that is, with enhancing the legal and political status of
women, and improving their educational and career prospects, than with reordering ‘private’
or domestic life. In contrast, socialist feminists typically highlight the links between female

Socialist feminism:
socialist feminists typically highlight the links between female subordination and the capitalist
mode of pro d uction, drawing attention to the economic significance of women being
confined to a family or domestic life where they, for example, relieve male workers of the
burden of domestic labour, rear and help to educate the next generation of capitalist workers,
and act as a reserve army of labour

Radical feminism::
y, radical feminism. Radical feminists believe that gender divisions are the most fundamental
and politically significant cleavages in society. In their view, all societies, historical and
contemporary, are characterized by patriarchy (see p. 65), the institution whereby, as Kate
Millett (1969) put it, ‘that half of the population which is female is controlled by that half which
is male’. Radical feminists therefore proclaim the need for a sexual revolution, a revolution that
will, in particular, restructure personal, domestic and family life. The characteristic slogan of
radical feminism is thus ‘the personal is the political’. Only in its extreme form, however, does
radical feminism portray men as ‘the enemy’, and proclaim the need for women to withdraw
from male society

The term feminism describes political, cultural, and economic movements that aim to establish
equal rights and legal protections for women. Over time, feminist activists have campaigned for
issues such as women’s legal rights, especially in regard to contracts, property, and voting;
body integrity and autonomy; abortion and reproductive rights, including contraception and
prenatal care; protection from domestic violence, sexual harassment, and rape; workplace
rights, including maternity leave and equal pay; and against all forms of discrimination women
encounter.

Feminist history can be divided into three waves. The first wave, occurring in the 19th and early
20th century, was mainly concerned with women’s right to vote. The second wave, at its height
in the 1960s and 1970s, refers to the women’s liberation movement for equal legal and social
rights. The third wave, beginning in the 1990s, refers to a continuation of, and a reaction to,
second-wave feminism.

First-wave feminism promoted equal contract and property rights for women, opposing
ownership of married women by their husbands. By the late 19th century, feminist activism was
primarily focused on the right to vote. American first-wave feminism ended with passage of the
19th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1919, granting women voting rights.

Second-wave feminism of the 1960s-1980s focused on issues of equality and discrimination.

The second-wave slogan, “The Personal is Political,” identified women’s cultural and political
inequalities as inextricably linked and encouraged women to understand how their personal
lives reflected sexist power structures. Betty Friedan was a key player in second-wave
feminism. In 1963, her book The Feminine Mystique criticized the idea that women could find
fulfillment only through childrearing and homemaking. According to Friedan’s New York Times
obituary, her book “ignited the contemporary women’s movement in 1963 and as a result
permanently transformed the social fabric of the United States and countries around the world”
and “is widely regarded as one of the most influential nonfiction books of the 20th century.”
Friedan hypothesizes that women are victims of false beliefs requiring them to find identity in
their lives through husbands and children. This causes women to lose their own identities in that
of their family.

Third-wave feminism began in the early 1990s, responding to perceived failures of the second
wave and to the backlash against second-wave initiatives. This ideology seeks to challenge the
definitions of femininity that grew out of the ideas of the second-wave, arguing that the
second-wave over-emphasized experiences of upper middle-class white women. The third-wave
sees women’s lives as intersectional, demonstrating how race, ethnicity, class, religion, gender,
and nationality are all significant factors when discussing feminism. It examines issues related
to women’s lives on an international basis

LIBERAL FEMINISM This aims at the revival of the conventional feminist movement. It
insists on absolute equality of opportunity for men and women in all walks of life and
complete removal of gender-based discrimination in society. Its programme includes
equal pay for equal work, abortion laws reform, increasing representation of women in
parliaments, bureaucracy and dignified professions, etc. This is the most popular stream
of feminist movement, but it is not considered to be very influential.

Radical feminism::
women's subordination could not be understood as a symptom or aspect of some deeper
or more comprehensive system of domination, such as racism or class-based division of
society. Historically women constituted the first oppressed group; their subordination
could not be eliminated by the changes such as the elimination of prejudice

the basis of women's subordination was ultimately biological. In other words, human
reproductive biology was responsible for considering women the weaker sex. Moreover,
the survival of women and children required that infants should depend on lactating
women and women in turn, should depend on men. Happily the material conditions for
ending this hitherto inevitable dependence had finally been achieved in the twentieth
century with the advent of reliable contraceptives, baby foods and 'test-tube babies'.
These technological developments provided women the means of freeing themselves from
the tyranny of their reproductive biology and diffusing the child-bearing and child-rearing
role to society as a whole, men as well as women
Currently there are two broad views concerning equal rights for women: (a) one view is
that there is no difference between men and women as regards their capabilities; hence
they should be governed by the same laws; and (b) another view is that women are
essentially different from men—biologically, culturally and socially; they should be given
equal opportunities to develop and apply their distinctive capabilities along with equal
rights. Thus, women could be exempted from hazardous tasks, like underground mining
and working in night shifts. Similarly, women should be entitled to maternity leave and
related benefits, arrangements for maintenance and custody of children after divorce

Feminism in Pakistan::

https://tribune.com.pk/story/764036/feminism-in-pakistan-a-brief-history​/

Third and fourth wave of feminism::

https://futurewomen.com/leadership/gender-diversity/fourth-wave-feminism-guide​/

Tania Aidrus, former Pakistani senior Google executive, took charge to lead Pakistan's Digital
Program. Imran Khan has appointed women at several key positions empowering the image of
women in Pakistan!

Economic wars: a new world order.

Human rights and humanitarian intervention

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.’ UN Declaration of Human
Rights, 1948, Article 1
Concept of human rights
Many cultures and civilizations have developed ideas about the intrinsic worth and dignity of
individual human beings. However, these theories were traditionally rooted in religious belief,
meaning that the moral worth of the individual was grounded in divine authority, human beings
usually being seen as creatures of God. The prototype for the modern idea of human rights was
developed in early modern Europe in the form of ‘natural rights’. Advanced by political
philosophers such as Hugo Grotius (see p. 334), Thomas Hobbes (see p. 14) and John Locke
(1632–1704), such rights were described as ‘natural’, in that they were thought to be God-given
and therefore to be part of the very core of human nature. Natural rights did not exist simply as
moral claims but were, rather, considered to reflect the most fundamental inner human drives;
they were the basic conditions for leading a truly human existence. By the late eighteenth
century, such ideas were expressed in the notion of the ‘rights of man’ (later extended by
feminists to include the rights of women), which was used as a means of constraining
government power by defining a sphere of autonomy that belongs to the citizen. The US
Declaration of Independence (1776), which declared life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to
be inalienable rights, gave expression to such ideas, as did the French Declaration of the Rights
of Man and of the Citizen

NATURE AND TYPES OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

A right is an entitlement to act or be treated in a particular way. As such, rights entail duties: the
claim to have a right imposes obligations on others to act, or, perhaps, to refrain from acting in a
particular way. Human rights are essentially moral claims or philosophical assertions, but they
have gained, since 1948, a measure of legal substance. Human rights, most basically, are rights
to which people are entitled by virtue of being human. They are therefore ‘universal’ rights, in
the sense that they belong to all human beings rather than to members of any particular nation,
race, religion, gender, social class or whatever. This universalism was clearly expressed in the
words of the American Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson
(1743–1826), which proclaimed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights’. However,
there have been very deep divisions about what rights human beings should enjoy. Indeed,
thinking about the content of human rights has developed significantly over time, enabling three
different types, or ‘generations’ of human rights to be identified (Vasak 1977) (see Table 13.1),
These are: Civil and political rights Economic, social and cultural rights Solidarity rights.

Civil and political rights were the earliest form of natural or human rights. They were advanced
through the English Revolution of the seventeenth century and the French and American
Revolutions of the eighteenth century
The struggle for economic, social and cultural rights gained greater prominence during the
twentieth century, especially in the post-1945 period. By contrast with traditional ‘liberal’ rights,
these so-called ‘second-generation’ rights often drew on socialist assumptions about the
tendencies of capitalist development towards social injustice and unequal class power.
Socio-economic rights – including the right to social security, the right to work, the right to paid
holidays, the right to healthcare, the right to education and so on – were designed to
counter-balance inequalities of market capitalism, protecting the working classes and colonial
peoples from exploitation. These rights are positive rights

In their earliest formulation,natural or human rightswere profoundly anti-democratic.This is

because theirpurpose was to empower individuals,and this impliedlimiting the authority of
government,regardless ofwhether government was democratic or
authoritarian.Democracy,indeed,threatened to transfer sovereigntyfrom the individual to the
people,creating a particularconcern that democratic rule would lead to a ‘tyrannyof the
majority’,which may threaten minority rightsand individual freedoms.So-called liberal
democraciesuphold human rights to the extent that they are‘liberal’(that is,they practise limited
government)rather than to the extent that they are ‘democratic’(that is,they ensure a system of
government by thepeople).This implies that in liberal democracies humanrights,sometimes seen
as civil liberties,are given prior-ity over democracy.

First, second and thrid generation rights:

Since 1945 a further set ofrights have emerged in the form ofsolidarity rights,or so-called
‘third-generation’rights.These encompass a broad spectrum ofrights whose main characteristic
is that they are attached to social groups orwhole societies,as opposed to separate
individuals.They are sometimes,there-fore,seen as collective rights or people’s rights.Whereas
‘first-generation’rightswere shaped by liberalism and ‘second-generation’rights were shaped by
social-ism,‘third-generation’rights have been formed by the concerns ofthe globalSouth.The
right to self-determination was thus linked to the post-1945 processofdecolonization and the rise
ofnational liberation movements.Other suchrights include the right to development,the right to
peace,the right to environ-mental protection and multicultural rights.Solidarity rights have
therefore beenused to give issues such as development,environmental sustainability andcultural
preservation a moral dimension.
1)Civil and political rights were the earliest form of natural or human rights. They were advanced
through the English Revolution of the seventeenth century and the French and American
Revolutions of the eighteenth century. The core civil and political rights are the rights to life,
liberty and property, although they have been expanded to include, for example, freedom from
discrimination, freedom from slavery, freedom from torture or other inhuman forms of
punishment, freedom from arbitrary arrest, and so on. Civil and political rights are often typically
seen as negative rights, or ‘forbearance’ rights: they can be enjoyed only if constraints are
placed on others. Negative rights therefore define a private sphere within which the individual
can enjoy independence from the encroachments of other individuals and, more particularly,
from the interference of the state. Negative human rights thus correspond closely to classic civil
liberties, such as the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and
conscience, freedom of movement, and freedom of association. However, it would be
misleading to suggest that all civil and political rights are ‘negative’ in this respect. The right to
non-discrimination, for instance, can only be upheld through legislation and a framework of
enforcement on the part of government
2)The struggle for economic, social and cultural rights gained greater prominence during the
twentieth century, especially in the post-1945 period. By contrast with traditional ‘liberal’ rights,
these so-called ‘second-generation’ rights often drew on socialist assumptions about the
tendencies of capitalist development towards social injustice and unequal class power.
Socio-economic rights – including the right to social security, the right to work, the right to paid
holidays, the right to healthcare, the right to education and so on – were designed to
counter-balance inequalities of market capitalism, protecting the working classes and colonial
peoples from exploitation. These rights are positive rights, in that they imply a significant level
of state intervention, usually in the form of welfare provision (welfare rights), the regulation of
the labour market (workers’ rights) and economic management generally.
Implications of human rights for global politics
Human rights, by their nature, have profound implications for global politics. Why is this? The
first answer to this question is that, being universal and fundamental, human rights invest
governments with powerful obligations, affecting their foreign as well as domestic policies. The
protection and realization of human rights is thus a key role of government, and perhaps,
according to liberals, its core purpose.
The second way in which human rights have implications for global politics is that they imply
that the boundaries of moral concern extend beyond national borders; indeed, in principle, they
disregard national borders

Protecting human rights The human rights regime Since 1948, an elaborate international regime
(see p. 67) has developed to promote and protect human rights globally. At the heart of this
regime continues to stand the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Although the 1945
UN Charter urged the promotion of ‘universal respect for, and observation of, human rights and
fundamental freedoms for all’, it failed to specify the human rights that states had to guarantee
and respect. This defect was rectified by the UN Declaration. Although the UN Declaration is not
a legally binding treaty, it is commonly seen as a form of customary international law that is
used as a tool to apply diplomatic and moral pressure to governments that violate any of its
articles. By establishing that states could no longer violate human rights without the risk that
their actions would come onto the agenda of the principal organs of the UN, the Declaration
challenged states’ exclusive jurisdiction over their own citizens and weakened the principle of
non-interference in domestic affairs. The incorporation of the Declaration into a legally-binding
codification of human rights – in effect, human rights law – was achieved through the adoption
in 1966 of the international covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic,Social and
Cultural Rights. Collectively, the 1948 Declaration and the two covenants are commonly
referred to as the ‘International Bill of Human Rights’.

Until the mid-1960s, the UN concentrated almost exclusively on the generation of human rights
norms and standards. Subsequently, it placed greater emphasis on their implementation. A
major step in this direction was taken by the establishment of the Office of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights, which had been one of the key proposals of the 1993 World
Conference on Human Rights in Vienna. The role of the High Commissioner is to promote
worldwide respect for the human rights enshrined in international laws by supporting the bodies
created by human rights treaties. However, the Office of the High Commissioner has proved to
be more effective in highlighting human rights violations than it has been in enforcing human
rights law
. The UN’s 47-member Human Rights Council, which replaced the much criticized UN Human
Rights Commission in 2006, also addresses situations of human rights violations. However, it
has no authority other than to make recommendations to the General Assembly which, in turn,
can only advise the Security Council it has like
its predecessor, been criticized for being biased and inconsistent in the exposure of human
rights abuses. Not only does it include states that have themselves a dubious human rights
record,
One of the main features of the human rights regime is the prominent role played within it by a
wide range of NGOs. For example, over 1,500 NGOs participated in the World Conference on
Human Rights in Vienna, while the number of registered international NGOs reached 37,000 by
2000, most of them claiming to have some kind of human rights or humanitarian purpose.
Human Rights Watch (initially named Helsinki Watch, and set up to respond to the activities of
East European dissidents’ groups) and Amnesty International. They exert pressure by gaining
media coverage, based, in part, on the high moral purpose that people customarily attach to
their activities. In this way, NGOs have made a substantial contribution to the growth worldwide
of a human rights culture, influencing not only governments but also transnational corporations
Human rights in a world of states The key dilemma of human rights protection is that states are
the only actors powerful enough to advance human rights, while also being the greatest human
rights abusers. This reflects the inherent tension between human rights and foreign policy

Type:NGO
Established:1961
Headquarters: London
Theorganization was awarded the UNPrize in the Field ofHuman Rightsin 1978
Amnesty International (commonlycalled Amnesty or AI) is an interna-tional NGO that draws
attention tohuman rights abuses and campaignsfor compliance with
internationalstandards,placing a special empha-sis on the rights ofpolitical prison-ers

@@@@the USA has used human rights as a moral cloak for its hegemonic ambitions and
international intervention.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION::
The state-system has traditionally been based on a rejection of intervention. This is reflected in
the fact that international law has largely been constructed around respect for state sovereignty,
implying that state borders are, or should be, inviolable. Nevertheless, it has long been
recognized that intervention may be justifiable on humanitarian grounds
for example, each acknowledged a right of intervention to prevent the maltreatment by a state of
its own subjects, making them, effectively, early theorists of humanitarian intervention.
Examples of such intervention, though traditionally rare.
two questions must be answered. First, why did so many humanitarian emergencies arise?
Second, why did other states intervene

They can be explained in terms of internal factors, faults and failing within the society itself.
These include dictatorial government, rampant corruption, entrenched economic and social
backwardness and festering tribal or ethnic rivalries. On the other hand, they can be explained
in terms of external factors, structural imbalances and inequalities within the global system.
These include the inheritance of colonialism, strains generated by economic globalization and,
sometimes, the impact of structural adjustment programmes (see p. 371) imposed by the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) (see p. 469), the World Bank (see p. 373) and other bodies.
To the extent to which humanitarian crises arise as a result of internal factors, intervention
appears to be warranted as a way of saving the ‘premodern world’ from itself. However, if
external factors have made a significant contribution to precipitating humanitarian emergencies,
it is less easy to see how further interference, in the form of military intervention, would provide
an appropriate solution.
For Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General (1997–2007), and national politicians such as President
Clinton in the USA, (1993–2001), and UK Prime Minister Blair (1997–2007), the idea of human
rights provided the basis for attempts to establish when and where states had a ‘right to
intervene’ in the affairs of other states

Humanitarian intervention and the ‘war on terror’ The ‘war on terror’ cast the issue of
humanitarian intervention into a very different light. Whereas, before 2001, there was a growing
belief that there had been too few humanitarian interventions – the failure to prevent massacres
and barbarity in Rwanda and Bosnia served as a stain on the conscience of many in the
international community – since then there has been the perception that there have been too
many humanitarian interventions. This is because the controversial wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq were both justified, in part, on humanitarian grounds. Strictly speaking, neither the Afghan
War nor the Iraq War were examples of humanitarian intervention.In both cases, self-defence
was the primary justification for military action

Conditions for humanitarian intervention Considerable attention has focused on the attempt to
establish when, if ever, humanitarian intervention is justifiable. This reflects the fact that the
case for humanitarian intervention requires that just war theory (see p. 257) is extended in bold
and challenging ways. The moral challenges posed by humanitarian intervention include the
following:
Large-scale loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product
either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act, or a failed state situation; or
Large-scale ethnic cleansing, actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forcible
expulsion, acts of terrorism or rape.
It may allow the ‘last resort’ principle, basic to most versions of a just war, to be downgraded.
Faced with the imminent danger of genocide or an ongoing humanitarian emergency, it may be
morally indefensible to waste precious time exhausting all non-violent options before force can
be justified. Instead, force may become a ‘first resort’ response

When these criteria are met, the International Commission on Intervention and State
Sovereignty (ICISS) asserts that there is not merely a right to intervene, but an international
responsibility to protect those who are, or are in imminent danger of becoming, victims of these
acts.

Is world peace possible

War is the continuation of politics by other means.’ KARL VON CLAUSEWITZ,

Military power has been the traditional currency of international politics. States and other actors
have exercised influence over each other largely through the threat or use of force, making war
a ubiquitous feature of human history, found in all ages, all cultures and all societies. However,
even though war appears to be as old as humankind, there are questions about its nature.What
distinguishes war from other forms of violence? What are the main causes of war and peace?
And does the declining incidence of war in some parts of the world mean that war has become
obsolete and military power is a redundant feature of global politics? Nevertheless, the nature of
warfare has changed enormously over time, particularly through advances in the technology of
fighting and military strategy
In the case of so-called ‘postmodern’ warfare, a heavy reliance is placed on ‘high-tech’
weaponry
What is war? What distinguishes war from other forms of violence: murder, crime, gang attacks
or genocide? First of all, war is a conflict between or among political groups. Traditionally, these
groups have been states
However, inter-state war has become less common in recent years, seemingly being displaced
by civil wars and the growing involvement of non-state actors such as guerrilla groups,
resistance movements and terrorist organizations.Conventional warfare, in fact, is a highly
organized and disciplined affair, involving military personnel .
Modern warfare has, nevertheless, become less organized in nature. It involves more irregular
fighters who are loosely organized and may refuse to fight by the rules, developments that tend
to blur the distinction between military and civilian life.

Wars, indeed, reflect the technological and economic levels of developments of their eras
Kenneth Waltz’s Man, the State and War (1959), these theories can be categorized in terms
of three levels of analysis, depending on whether they focus on human nature, the internal
characteristics of states, or structural or systemic pressures. The most common explanation for
war is that it stems from instincts and appetites that are innate to the human individual.
Thucydides (see p. 242) thus argued that war is caused by ‘the lust for power arising from
greed and ambition’. War is therefore endless because human desires and appetites are infinite,
while the resources to satisfy them are always finite; the struggle and competition that this gives
rise to will inevitably express itself in bloodshed and violence. Scientific support for human
self-interestedness has usually been based on the evolutionary theories of the British biologist
Charles Darwin (1809–82) and the idea of a struggle for survival, developed by social
Darwinians such as Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) into the doctrine of the ‘survival of the fittest’.
Evolutionary psychologists, such as the Austrian zoologist Konrad Lorenz (1966), have argued
that aggression is biologically programmed, particularly in men.

When a rising power threatens to displace a ruling one, the most likely outcome is
war(thucydide trap). Twelve of 16 cases in which this occurred in the past 500 years ended
violently
Athens challenged Sparta in ancient Greece, or as Germany did Britain a century ago.

The spread of social Darwinian thinking in late nineteenth-century Europe has thus been linked
to the growing international tensions that led to WWI, while the Cold War was in part sustained
by US fears about the expansionist character of international communism and Soviet fears
about the dangers of capitalist encirclement
Alternative ‘internal’ explanations for aggression include that war may be used to prop up an
unpopular regime by diverting attention away from domestic failure (as in the Argentine attack
on the Falkland Islands in 1992), or that it is a consequence of demographic pressures

The cynicism of realism comes from the assumption that war is unavoidable and a constant
element of our nature
The other assumption is that politics is driven by law of human behavior- the mix of urges like
the drive for powers, will to dominate, self-interest and ambition.[6] How does all of this help us
understand war? Realism offers a rather cynical explanation: we are destined to wage wars, for
all politics is a struggle for power and survival. Wars may be fought either to protect or expand
security of the states
, the true intentions remains the same through ages, and wars remain an extension of politics
Constructivism on war:
In theory, social constructivism offers the more detailed and accurate account for war not only
than realism, but than any other theory. Its focus on social factors and importance of ideas
allows it to address problems that are not even in the scope of realism
For example, realists view anarchy as a condition that leads to state competition for resources,
security, and power. Liberalists/pluralists, on the other hand, view cooperation through
international organizations as possible under an anarchical system; these institutions can help
bring about positive gains for state and non-state actors; they are not constrained by the
“negatives” of an anarchical international system.
While to constructivism, international anarchical system itself does not encourage for war or
peace/cooperation, it's the ideology of players(states) or the the environment created that propel
in either direction (war or peace).

Capitalism on war:
Other structural theories of war place a heavier emphasis on economic factors. Marxists, for
instance, view war as a consequence of the international dynamics of the capitalist system.
Capitalist states will inevitably come into conflict with one another as each is forced to expand in
the hope of maintaining profit levels by gaining control over new markets, raw materials or
supplies of cheap labour.
Both war and peace are characterized by the rational pursuit of self-interest, and therefore by
conflict; the only difference between them is the means selected to achieve one’s goals

Realist view:
Realist view For realists, war is an enduring feature of international relations and world affairs.
The possibility of war stems from the inescapable dynamics of power politics: as states pursue
the national interest
. Second, neorealists argue that, as the international system is anarchic, states are forced to
rely on self-help in order to achieve survival and security, and this can only be ensured through
the acquisition of military power.

Liberalism on war:
Liberals believe that peace is a natural, but by no means an inevitable,
From the liberal perspective, war arises from three sets of circumstances
1) state egoism in an environment of anarchy.
However, liberals believe that an international anarchy can and should be replaced by an
international rule of law
2)Second, liberals argue that war is often linked to economic nationalism
quest for economic self-sufficiency tending to bring states into violent conflict with one another.
Peace can nevertheless be achieved through
e trade and other forms of economic interdependence, especially as these may make war so
economically costly that it becomes unthinkable.
. Third, the disposition of a state towards war or peace is crucially determined by its
constitutional character. Authoritarian states tend to be militaristic and expansionist,
accustomed to the use of force to achieve both domestic and foreign goals, while democratic
states are more peaceful, at least in their relations with other democratic states.
Critical view:
Critical theorists in the Marxist tradition have tended to explain war primarily in economic terms.
WWI, for instance, was an imperialist war fought in pursuit of colonial gains in Africa and
elsewhere.
talist economic system, war, in effect, being the pursuit of economic advantage by other means
Critical theorists in the anarchist tradition, such as Chomsky (see p. 228), have shown a
particular interest in the phenomenon of hegemonic war, believing that the world’s most
powerful states use war, directly or indirectly, to defend or expand their global economic and
political interests
War is therefore closely associated with hegemony
Feminist views on war:
By contrast, feminists draw attention to what they see as the close association between women
and peace, based either on the ‘natural’ peacefulness of women or on the fact that women’s
experience of the world encourages an emphasis on human connectedness and cooperation.
And see male dominance or partiarchy as a source of war, due to male offensive and defensive
nature.

Changing face of wars: old to new::

One of the most widely debated features of the post-Cold War era is how it has affected war
and warfare. Modern wars are often considered to be ‘new’, ‘postmodern’, ‘post-Clausewitzian’
or ‘post-Westphalian’ wars
New security challenges.The decline ofinter-state wardoes not mean that the world has become
a safer place.Rather,new and,in some ways,more challenging,secu-rity threats have
emerged.This particularly applies in thecase ofterrorism (see p.284),as demonstrated by
9/11and other attacks.Terrorism,indeed,shows how global-ization has made the world more
dangerous,as terroristsgain easier access to devastating weaponry,and canoperate on a
transnational or even global basis.Suchthreats underline the need for states to develop
moresophisticated military strategies,
Trade not war.One ofthe key reasons for the obsoles-cence ofwar is globalization (see
p.9).Globalization hasreduced the incidence ofwar in at least three ways.First,states no longer
need to make economic gains byconquest because globalization offers a cheaper andeasier
route to national prosperity in the form oftrade.Second,by significantly increasing levels
ofeconomicinterdependence,globalization makes war almostunthinkable because ofthe high
economic costs involved(trade partnerships destroyed,external investment lost,and so on).

Asymmetric war:
https://study.com/academy/lesson/asymmetric-warfare-definition-tactics-examples.html
Asymmetrical wars are characterized by the adoption of military strategies and tactics designed
to create a more level playing field between opponents with very different military and economic
capabilities, meaning that asymmetrical wars do not have assured and inevitable outcomes.
Guerrilla warfare, which places a premium on manoeuvre and surprise, through the use of
small-scale raids, ambushes and attacks, has been effective in defeating much better resourced
enemies with greater fire power
Such tactics aim less to defeat the enemy in strict military terms (something that may be
impossible), but rather to demoralize the enemy and break its political will, as in Vietnam, Israel,
Iraq and Afghanistan.

Justifying war:
Realpolitik – suggesting that war, as a political act, needs no moral justification. Just war theory
– suggesting that war can be justified only if it conforms to moral principles. Pacifism –
suggesting that war, as an unnecessary evil, can never be justified

The decline of traditional inter-state war and the rise of civil war has been a marked feature of
the post-Cold War era.
About 95 per cent of armed conflicts since the mid-1990s have occurred within states, not
between states.

Muslim world in disarray:

Foreign aid: treat or trap

In the US the first law dealing with foreign assistance came quite late, with the adoption of the
Marshall Plan in 1948.[6] In his inaugural speech on 20 January 1949 – the so-called ‘Four
Point Speech’ – President Harry Truman put forward, for the first time, the idea that aid to poor
nations was an important component of US foreign policy. He said that one of the goals of his
administration would be to foster “growth of underdeveloped areas

Islamophobia

. Islamophobia is defined as acts of fear or hostility towards followers of Islamic religion. This
unjustified fear has contributed immensely to the discrimination of Muslims across the globe.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word means "Intense dislike or fear of Islam,
esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims

Phobia according to Oxford advance learner dictionary "a strong unreasonable fear of
something.

An exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by
negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of
Muslims from social, political, and civic life
Islamophobia existed in premise before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but it
increased in frequency and notoriety during the past decade

Research shows that the U.S. identified more than 160 Muslim-American terrorist suspects
and perpetrators in the decade since 9/11, just a percentage of the thousands of acts of
violence that occur in the United States each year. It is from this overall collection of violence
that "an efficient system of government prosecution and media coverage brings
Muslim-American terrorism suspects to national attention, creating the impression - perhaps
unintentionally - that Muslim-American terrorism is more prevalent than it really is." Never mind
that since 9/11, the Muslim-American community has helped security and law enforcement
officials prevent nearly two of every five al Qaeda terrorist plots threatening the United States[2]
and that tips from the Muslim-American community are the largest single source of initial
information to authorities about these few plots.[3]

Islamophobia affects more than a small fringe group of Muslims. Through various research
vehicles and global polling efforts, Gallup has collected a wealth of data detailing public opinion
about various aspects of respect, treatment, and tolerance relative to Muslims worldwide. This
brief serves as a snapshot of opinion and thought displayed by people from multiple countries,
regions, and communities - findings that chronicle perceptions associated with Islamophobia
globally.
Respect and Fair Treatment

Globally, many Muslims report not feeling respected by those in the West. Significant
percentages of several Western countries share this sentiment, saying that the West does not
respect Muslim societies. Specifically, 52% of Americans and 48% of Canadians say the West
does not respect Muslim societies. Smaller percentages of Italian, French, German, and British
respondents agree.

When asked where they think tensions between the Muslim and Western worlds originate,
answers vary. Those in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) nations and in the U.S. and
Canada equally cite religion and political interests as the primary cause of tensions.
Sub-Saharan Africans more often cite religion than politics, while Europeans say political
interests are the driving force behind Muslim-West tensions.

​Data reported from 2008[6]

Religion and culture outpace politics across all regions surveyed as the root cause of tension
between Muslim and Western worlds. This is significant in discussions about Islamophobia,
considering political interests can vary and change while cultural and religious differences are
more ingrained within populations.
On 15 March, a gunman walked into the Al Noor mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand and
opened fire. During the course of his killing spree there, and at the Linwood Islamic Centre, 51
people were slaughtered in their place of worship for no other reason than their killer had
decided that their faith meant that they deserved to die.

Hatred against Muslims does not begin with the sound of gunfire breaking through the peaceful
calm of a place of prayer. It begins with simple prejudice in our schools, our workplaces and our
communities

Recent examples of Islamophobia exist within several countries. In late 2009, the largest party
in the Swiss parliament put to referendum a ban on minaret construction. The government
opposed the ban, citing harm to the country's image - and particularly Muslims' views of
Switzerland. Nearly 60% of Swiss voters and 22 out of 26 voting districts voted in favor of the
ban, leading to cries of Islamophobia by leaders in countries such as Pakistan and
organizations such as the United Nations.

.A study conducted by Pew Research found that, even in more supposedly liberal countries
such as France, nearly half of respondents thought that some Muslims supported the Islamic
State and its aims
The media, perhaps as the most vital agent of globalization in the modern world, has played a
key role in spreading Islamophobia in the society
Although the mass media has particularly played its role in the shaping of wars, conflicts and its
resolutions

Despite a very public debate on the banning of a religious symbol of Islam, much of the Swiss
population did not believe that the Swiss Muslim community should feel discriminated against.
.When President Donald Trump first tried to stop citizens from seven predominantly Muslim
countries from entering the United States, he cited the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as his rationale.
Yet none of the men behind those attacks hailed from these countries. In fact, a Cato Institute
analysis shows that between 1975 and 2015 no one from these countries killed a single
American in a U.S. terrorist attack.

​Data reported from 2008

dramatic growth of organized anti-Muslim hate groups, with the number of such groups jumping
from 34 in 2015 to 101 in 2016—a 197 percent increase
In 2015, there were 257 anti-Muslim incidents, up from 154 in 2014(federal bureau of
investigation)

​Data reported from 2008 and 2009

Majorities of representative populations within majority-Muslim countries globally say each of

five actions Western societies could take are very important to showing respect to Muslim
societies. About 8 in 10 say it would be very important to them, personally, if Western societies
were to abstain from desecrating the Qur'an and other Muslim religious symbols. About 6 in 10
say it would be very important to them if those in the West treated Muslims fairly in the policies
that affect them, protect the rights of Muslim minorities in these societies, accurately portray
Muslims in Western media, and work with Muslim societies as equal partners on issues of
mutual interest.

​Data reported from 2011

Prejudice

According to "Fear, Inc.," a report by the Center for American Progress, a network of
misinformation experts actively promotes Islamophobia in America. The promotion of
Islamophobia creates both prejudice and discrimination among the general population.
Prejudice plays a key role in the existence and proliferation of Islamophobia. Prejudice alone, as
a negative judgment, opinion, or attitude, is a detriment to a population's overall well-being.
Prejudice combined with overt actions, rising to the level of discrimination, creates a dangerous
environment for its victims. Gallup analyses offer an examination of prejudice against Muslims
and Islam in a number of countries and regions globally.

In the U.S., about one-half of nationally representative samples of Mormons, Protestants,

Catholics, Muslims, and Jews agree that in general, most Americans are prejudiced toward
Muslim Americans. Specifically, 66% of Jewish Americans and 60% of Muslim Americans say
that Americans in general are prejudiced toward Muslim Americans.

​Data reported from 2010

Muslims (48%) are more likely than Americans of other major religious groups to say they,
personally, have experienced racial or religious discrimination in the past year. Muslim
Americans are more than twice as likely as U.S. Jews, Catholics, and Protestants to say they
experienced such discrimination in the past year.
​Data reported from 2010

The 48% of Muslim Americans who say they experienced racial or religious discrimination is on
par with Hispanic Americans (48%) and African Americans (45%), as calculated from a
combination of these same groups. Arab Americans (52%) are most likely to say they
experienced this type of discrimination.

Self-reported knowledge, whether accurate or not, about the religion of Islam seems to affect
Americans' feelings of prejudice toward Muslims. Of Americans who say they have no personal
prejudice toward Muslims, 29% say they have no knowledge at all about Islam. In fact, those
who say they hold no prejudice toward Muslims are more likely than those who say they hold a
little, some, or a great deal of prejudice to say they have no knowledge about Islam.

​Data reported from 2007 and 2009

Even among Americans who report no personal prejudice toward Muslims, one-third say they
have an unfavorable opinion about Islam (36%). Unsurprisingly, those indicating they have a
great deal of prejudice toward Muslims are the most unfavorable about Islam (91%
unfavorable). That one-third of those with no reported prejudice have an unfavorable opinion of
Islam is alarming because it indicates that those who harbor no reported prejudice for the
people maintain negative views about the religion.

A new wave of Islamophobia is spreading in the West. President Donald Trump vowed during
the election to expel all Muslims from the United States and across the European Union,
conservative currents claim laws against Islam

Familiarity with individual Muslims makes a small difference in reported levels of personal
prejudice toward Muslims. Fifty-three percent of those Americans who say they hold no
prejudice toward Muslims say they know someone who practices Islam. Comparatively, 44% of
those who say they have a great deal of prejudice toward Muslims say the same.

The greater their self-reported prejudice toward Muslims, the more likely Americans are to say
most Muslims around the world do not want peace and are not accepting of other religions and
of people of races other than their own. Regardless of personal prejudice against Muslims, at
least one in five Americans say that most Muslims around the world are not accepting of other
religions and of people of different races other than their own. In fact, about one-third of those
reporting no prejudice toward Muslims say Muslims around the world are not accepting of other
religions.

​Data reported from 2007 and 2009

Gallup finds Muslim Americans, however, are among the most integrated religious groups in the
U.S. Gallup Religious Tolerance Index, which measures people's attitudes toward religious
faiths different from their own and ranks survey respondents by three categories: Isolated,
Tolerant, and Integrated people (see sidebar for definitions).

Among U.S. religious groups, 44% of Muslim Americans are integrated, on par with Mormons
(46%) and greater than Jewish Americans (36%), Protestants (35%), and Catholics (34%).

When examining religious tolerance globally, the U.S. and Canada and sub-Saharan Africa rate
as the most integrated regions Gallup studied. Respondents from sub-Saharan Africa are also
most likely to explain the root causes of tensions between Muslim and Western societies as
religious. MENA and Asia are the most isolated regions, along with Europe and the former
Soviet Union.

Muslim respondents globally are no different from Western societies in their level of integration
and openness to people of other faiths.

​Data reported from 2008 through 2010[7]

Gallup's Global Practice Leader for Faith Communities, Dr. Albert L. Winseman, developed the
Religious Tolerance Index in 2002 with Gallup scientists Dr. Jim Harter and Julie Hawkins to
measure Americans' attitudes toward religious faiths that are different from their own. The Index
is based on respondents' level of agreement with the following five statements on a scale of "1"
(strongly disagree) to "5" (strongly agree):

· I always treat people of other religious faiths with respect.

· Most religious faiths make a positive contribution to society.

· I would not object to a person of a different religious faith moving next door.

· People of other religions always treat me with respect.

· In the past year, I have learned something from someone of another religious faith.

From the combination of their answers, Gallup classifies populations as:

Isolated: Isolated individuals tend not to be members of any particular faith group, but if they
are, they tend to believe in the truth of their perspective above all others. They do not want to
know about other religions. They also neither respect nor feel respected by those of other faiths.

Tolerant: Tolerant individuals have a "live-and-let-live" attitude toward people of other faiths, and
they generally feel that they treat others of different faiths with respect. However, they are not
likely to learn from or about other religions.

Integrated: Integrated individuals go beyond a "live-and-let-live" attitude and actively seek to

know more about and learn from others of different religious traditions. They believe that most
faiths make a positive contribution to society. Furthermore, integrated people not only feel they
respect people from other faith traditions, but they also feel respected by them.

In America, prejudice toward Muslim Americans exists among both men and women, young and
old, uneducated and learned. Still, there are some differences in prejudice levels within different
demographic groups. Men are more likely than women, for example, to say they have some or a
great deal of prejudice toward Muslims. Those who report a great deal of prejudice toward
Muslims are more likely than those who report none or smaller levels of prejudice to have
completed only a high school-level education. And those who report a great deal of prejudice
toward Muslims are more likely than those with lesser or no such prejudice to be married.
Higher levels of prejudice toward Muslims do not correlate with age and urbanicity, though.

​Data reported from 2007 and 2009

As Americans' self-proclaimed prejudice toward Muslims increases, so too does the likelihood of
claiming the Republican party as their political affiliation. Fifty percent of those who report a
great deal of prejudice toward Muslims say they are Republicans, compared with 17% of those
who identify as Democrats and 7% as independents. Those who report no prejudice toward
Muslims are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans, 39% to 23%, respectively.

​Data reported from 2007 and 2009

Loyalty to the United States

Gallup asked Americans whether they think Muslim Americans are loyal or not loyal to the U.S.
Perceptions of disloyalty tend to fuel the flames of Islamophobia. If one believes that Muslims
are not loyal, one may also believe that Muslims should be feared, not trusted, and not treated
fairly. A feeling that Muslim Americans are disloyal to the U.S. is examined as a crucial
component of Islamophobia. Women are more likely than men to think that Muslims in American
are not loyal to the U.S. Those who think Muslim Americans are loyal to the country are younger
than those who say Muslim Americans aren't loyal to the U.S. And while most Americans (87%)
strongly agree that they would not object to a person of a different religion living next door to
them, those who say Muslim Americans are loyal to the U.S. are more likely than those who
don't to strongly agree that they would not object to neighbors of a different faith.

Americans who think their Muslim peers are loyal to the U.S. are more likely than those who
question this loyalty to have confidence in a number of major U.S. institutions. Specifically,
those who say Muslim Americans are loyal to the country are more likely to say they themselves
have confidence in the U.S. judicial system (63% vs. 41%), in honesty of elections (49% vs.
27%), in the media (29% vs. 14%), in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (73% vs. 61%), and in
local police (82% vs. 75%). The exception to this is Americans' confidence in the military, which
is slightly greater among those who say Muslim Americans are not loyal to the U.S. However,
most Americans say they have confidence in the military, regardless of their opinion about
Muslim Americans' loyalty.

​Data reported from 2010

Overall, one-third of Americans say they think Muslim countries have a very unfavorable opinion
of the U.S. People who say Muslim Americans are not loyal to the U.S. are much more likely
than those who say Muslim Americans are loyal to think people in Muslim countries harbor very
unfavorable views of the U.S. Overall, though, majorities of Americans who say Muslim
Americans are loyal or not loyal to the U.S. think people in Muslim countries have at least
somewhat unfavorable views of America.
​Data reported from 2010

Of those who say Muslim countries have unfavorable views of America, more than one-half
(57%) say it is based mostly on misinformation provided by the media and government in those
countries about what the U.S. has done, while about one-third (32%) say it is mostly because of
what the U.S. has done. Those who say Muslim Americans are not loyal to the U.S. are much
more likely to say these unfavorable views in Muslim countries are because of misinformation by
these countries' media and government (70%), and not based on past U.S. actions (17%).
Those who say Muslim Americans are loyal to the U.S. are still more likely to say unfavorable
views in Muslim countries are due to misinformation (54%) than to U.S. actions (35%).

Two-thirds of Americans surveyed in this particular study say that religion is an important part of
their daily lives. Those who say Muslim Americans are not loyal to the U.S. are more likely than
those who say Muslims are loyal to claim religion is an important part of their daily life (74% vs.
65%).

European Muslims Feeling the Pressure

Gallup collected data in 2008 from representative samples in Germany, France, and the U.K.,
focusing on several issues related to the social and cultural integration of Muslim communities
in these three countries. And while majorities of the adults in these countries agree that people
from minority groups enrich the cultural life of their nations, sizable minorities of these
respondents express fear about certain aspects of Muslim culture.

​Data reported from 2008

https://news.gallup.com/poll/157082/islamophobia-understanding-anti-muslim-sentiment-west.a
spx