Deterrence Theory
1. Executive Summary
This section is a stand-alone part of the paper that contains a summary of all the sections of the paper. This section describes the topic of the discussion, which is deterrence theory; the purpose and scope of investigation, which is to investigate the development of deterrence theory as a practice theory; the analyses made on the subject, which include the manner that deterrence theory evolved as a practical rational or justification; and the conclusions derived, which revolve around generalizations or implications derived from the analyses. This section allows readers to grasp the overall idea of the paper.
2. Introduction
This section provides a background on the investigation of deterrence theory in practice. This emerged as a discursive theory during the onset of the Cold War (Dauber, 1993). As such, the deterrence theory first found application in international relations, especially in the policies adopted by states on issues such as on international interventions. Although deterrence theory emerged as rationale or justification for policies in international relations, this has since found application in other areas such as modern criminal law and corporate or business policies (Schmalleger, 2002). This shows the wide-ranging areas of application of the theory. With the varied application of the deterrence theory, a fitting subject for investigation is the formation of the deterrence theory, manner that deterrence theory developed as a practice in various areas of study, together with the extent that practice has substantiated the underlying philosophies of the deterrence theory.
3. Development of the Deterrence Theory
This section covers a run-down of the historical development of deterrence theory. Although the principles of deterrence find evidence of application as early as the Anglo-Saxon period, deterrence theory emerged as a formal model during the Cold War. Discussion of the development of the deterrence theory comprises two periods. First is the emergence of the deterrence theory and its application during the Cold War. Second is the persistence of the application of the deterrence theory after the Cold War in a number of fields such as international relations, criminal law and corporate affairs. (Sagan, 1991; Ellis, 2003) This section explains how deterrence theory developed and how it has found links in practice.
4. Deterrence Theory as a Practice Theory
This section analyzes the deterrence theory, particularly its core principles, assumptions, scope, applications, and intervention strategies. This section discusses deterrence theory as a practice theory by focusing on these specific aspects. The core principle of deterrence theory in practice is that creating a threat or denying something and making this known to target parties would prevent these parties from committing the actions sought to the deterred (Pontell, 1978; Tittle, 1978; Morgan, 2003). In the context of the Cold War, the communication of the threat or risk of retaliation happened through the nuclear capabilities and collective capabilities of the political blocs involving the main state players. This should prevent aggression from the opposite political bloc. This implies the assumption that the parties have a common understanding of right and wrong and that these parties are able to make judgments on the correct action with the influence of interventions. Deterrence theory involves two strategies. First is deterrence through punishment, which involves a party communicating the threat of imposing punishment, which could constitute various penalties, in case another party commits certain unwelcome actions. Second is deterrence through denial, which involves the strategy where one party implements preventive actions to establish security nets for imminent aggressive action. This section elaborates on these specific areas of investigation.
5. Generation, Validation and Incorporation of Deterrence Theory in International Politics and Criminology
This section delves deeper into deterrence as a theory by evaluating the processes involved in the generation of the deterrence theory, the validation of this theory in practice, and the incorporation of the deterrence theory in the two distinct disciplines of international politics or international relations and criminology. Although there are overlaps between these two areas of study, these comprise distinct disciplines. This happens by considering various bodies of knowledge on the derivation of intervention by theories such as logical positivism, post-positivism, and postmodernism. Positivism finds expressions in the emergence and validation of deterrence theory because this theory propounds analytical and empirical data or scientific knowledge to validate truths or facts. Postmodernism also finds expression in deterrent theory through the integration of new considerations, such as ethical commitment, not previously considered in positivism. (Pontell, 1978; Tittle, 1978) This section also relates the development of deterrence theory interventions through discussions of the linkages of the theory to ontological, axiological, epistemological, and methodological models. Section constitutes the first analytical section of the paper.
6. Comparison of Assumptions of Deterrence Theory and its Underlying Philosophical Paradigm
This section covers the discussion of the extent that the assumptions of the practice of deterrence theory, expressed in terms of practical interventions, reflects the underlying philosophical principles of the theory. This has implications on the applicability or effectiveness of deterrence theory as a practical theory applied in actual scenarios. Criticisms of the deterrence theory constitute the bases for the comparison. As mentioned earlier, the basic assumptions of the deterrence theory is that the strategies of threat or denial prevents unwanted outcomes (Pontell, 1978; Tittle, 1978; Jervis, 1989; Morgan, 2003). Major criticisms of these assumptions include the non-application of the assumptions to the case of psychopathic or suicidal parties since threats or denials have little deterring effect. Another criticism is that diplomatic conflicts and differing ideologies heighten the relative perceptions of threat of each party with the effect of escalating conflict or aggression instead of preventing it. (Klieman & Levite, 1993; Zagare & Kilgour, 1998) These criticisms explain the emergence of the issue of a possible divergence of assumptions with the philosophical paradigms and the need to clarify the links and parallelism between the assumptions and philosophical paradigms of the deterrence theory. This section constitutes the second analytical section of the paper.
7. Conclusions
This section provides a synthesis of the points derived from the discussion together with generalizations on the merits of the deterrence theory as a practice theory together with its implications on theory generation and validation as well as areas requiring further clarification.
Reference List
Dauber, C. E. (1993). Cold War analytical structures and the post post-war world: A critique of deterrence theory. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Ellis, A. (2003). A deterrence theory of punishment. The Philosophical Quarterly, 53(212), 337-351.
Jervis, R. (1989). Rational Deterrence: Theory and Evidence. World Politics, 41(2), 183 207.
Klieman, A. & Levite, A. (Eds.). (1993). Deterrence in the Middle East: Where theory and practice converge. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Morgan, P. M. (2003). Deterrence now. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pontell, H. N. (1978). Deterrence: Theory versus practice. Criminology, 16(1), 3-22.
Sagan, S.D. (1991). Review: History, analogy, and deterrence theory. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 22(1), 79-88.
Schmalleger, F. D. (2002). Criminal justice: A brief introduction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tittle, C. R. (1978). Comment on “deterrence: theory versus practice”. Criminology, 16(1), 31-35.
Zagare, F. C. & Kilgour, D. M. (1998). Deterrence theory and the spiral model revisited. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10(1), 59-87.
0 comments:
Post a Comment