Path to Peace – Negotiation or Force
Negotiation and the use of force are two opposed ways that have been used throughout history to achieve peace, among others.
An agreement can be reached by negotiation, which is a kind of diplomacy in which the disputing parties debate their positions and attempt to find a compromise. As it encourages both parties to express their points of view, it is widely seen as a calm and polite approach to settling disputes. Every type of disagreement, from personal arguments to international crises, may be resolved via negotiation.
Restoring peace through diplomatic discussion raises the possibility of long-term, sustainable solutions. By sitting down to talk things out, warring parties can get to the bottom of their differences and move closer to a compromise. The result may be the creation of treaties and other agreements that help keep the peace.
Relationships between disputing parties can be preserved through negotiation. Negotiation promotes open communication and mutual understanding in lieu of coercion or force. In the long run, this can contribute to peace by increasing trust and collaboration. Averting more conflict and the risk of violence can be a major benefit of resolving issues through discussion.
To the contrary, relying on military might to settle disputes is an alternative strategy. Forcing someone to comply or preventing them from becoming aggressive is an example of this tactic. It’s counterintuitive to link violence with establishing calm, yet there have been times when it was essential to do so.
The use of force is often viewed as a last resort, yet it may have far-reaching consequences, including the possibility for quick conflict resolution, especially when peaceful means have failed or when there is an immediate need to protect innocent lives. Interventions by the military have been used to stop genocide and other major crimes and restore peace.
While the use of force can be effective in some situations, it is not without risk. It may cause permanent harm to individuals engaged, as well as the loss of life and property. The use of force is also likely to incite anger and increase the likelihood of future conflict, making long-term peace even more elusive.
In conclusion, both peaceful discussion and the use of force are viable options for bringing about a peaceful resolution. As much as I believe in the power of negotiation to bring about long-term, sustainable solutions, there are times when only the use of force will do. The decision between negotiation and force is situationally and contextually dependent, each with its own implications and obstacles. In the end, it’s everyone’s responsibility to work together peacefully to ensure everyone’s safety and wellbeing.
You can also check other Research here:
- Accounting Research Project
- Adult Education
- Agricultural Science
- Banking & Finance
- Biblical Theology & CRS
- Biblical Theology and CRS
- Biology Education
- Business Administration
- Computer Engineering Project
- Computer Science 2
- Criminology Research Project
- Early Childhood Education
- Economic Education
- Education Research Project
- Educational Administration and Planning Research Project
- English
- English Education
- Entrepreneurship
- Environmental Sciences Research Project
- Guidance and Counselling Research Project
- History Education
- Human Kinetics and Health Education
- Management
- Maritime and Transportation
- Marketing
- Marketing Research Project 2
- Mass Communication
- Mathematics Education
- Medical Biochemistry Project
- Organizational Behaviour
- Political Science
- Psychology
- Public Administration
- Public Health Research Project
- More Research Project
- Transportation Management
- Nursing
Path to Peace – Negotiation or Force