Introduction
Although military forces play a critical role in a nation-state, the way they should relate with civilian governments remains vague and problematic. There is no clear framework to guide the steps that a nation-state should adopt in nurturing stable relationships with military forces. Indeed, in many cases, differences among countries are defined by the way civil-military relations are crafted. In the context of international relations, the issue of how the military should contribute to the identity of the nation-state has become even more problematic.
The vagueness and ambiguity that surrounds the relationship between military forces and nation-states has created the need for further research in this area. In this undertaking, the objective should be to determine whether civil-military relations are being globalized. Some may argue that in the contemporary international political system, a trend consistent to all states has emerged with regard to the way the military relates with civilian governance institutions. For example, in today’s information age, military forces of different states are increasingly being compelled to deal with challenges that transcend national boundaries. Nevertheless, further research on this debate is required.
The aim of this paper is to contribute to this debate. Its objective is to evaluate the significant of the relationship between the nation-state and its military forces in the context of international relations. Through such an evaluation, it is possible for one to get an indication of whether the vagueness can be resolved and whether a clear pattern consistent with relations between states and military forces has emerged.
Overview of the relationship between the nation-state and military forces
There is a striking similarity in the way different countries engage with military forces in the task of nation-building. For instance, in all countries, the element of professionalism provides important guidelines on how the military should behave. Consequently, most countries use similar training and ranking strategies for the military. However, differences tend to occur with regard to the way different militaries relate to the civil organizations that have an immense influence with the way a country is run. This translates into differences in the way relations between…
References
Baylis, John. Â Smith, Steve, & Owens, Patricia (2010) The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. London: Routledge.
Burk, James. “Theories of Democratic Civil-Military Relations.” Armed Forces & Society, 29 no. 1, (2002): 1 7-29.
Buzan, Barry. (2007). People, states and fear: An agenda for international security studies in the post-cold war era. Toronto: ECPR Press.
Davis, Diane. & Pereira, Anthony. Irregular armed forces and their role in politics and state formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haass, Richard. “The Age of Nonpolarity: What Will Follow U.S. Dominance.” Foreign Affairs, 87.3, (2008): 44-56.
Hirst, Paul. (2001 ). War and power in the 21st century: the State, military conflict, and the international system. New York: Polity Press.
Hirst, Paul. (2002 ). “Another Century of Conflict? War and the International System in the 21st Century.” International Relations, 16 no. 3, (2002): 327-342.
Rotberg, Robert. “The new nature of nationâ€state failure.” The Washington Quarterly, 25 no. 3, (2002): 83-96.
Small, Michelle. “Privatisation of Security and Military Functions and the Demise of the Modern Nation-State in Africa”. Occasional Paper Series, 1 no. 2, (2006): 1-44.