These structures, in turn, influence the ideas and communications of the agents.” (Rourke 2007, 30).Seeing the height of extremism in political spheres at global scale, supporters of assassinations find nothing wrong morally to indulge in cutting the head of the dragon itself as there is no other option left using military force on the large scale by waging a prolonged war with no end result in sight. War affects the innocent; the actual culprits cannot be nabbed. The “ethical disconnect,” pervades as stated by Ralph Peters by not making a direct attack on dictators like Saddam Hussein committing atrocities on innocent people; it is devoid of ethical logic. Nonetheless, the norm against assassinations of such scale and kind have been there, which, off late, have been broken by the major super power, the U. Actually, this norm has been residing in ethical injunctions of basic moral principles in global politics getting strength from the design of international system (Thomas 2000, 106-7).Discussing the reality aspect of the norm as a concession, Thomas (2000, 123-24) states that states were against the norm to assassinate a foreign leader as it was not worth the effort. Assassination was observed as inefficient tool of foreign policy because of doubt over the success of the assassination, as leaders’ security was unassailable. Another reason of going against the norm of assassinations was not getting the desired outcomes of serving the purpose.Thomas findings on norms and practices related to international assassinations indicate how the assassination norms have shifted greatly over time. According to Thomas, it was a quite common foreign policy tool in old times, but a number of changing material factors and evolving normative principles started strong norm against the killing of foreign leaders because preference was given to fight of the armies on the battle ground and also because war was fought by states, not their leaders, reinforcing the political authenticity of the state, thus, imbibing the culture of not killing the leaders of each other country (Wait 2011, par.With the changing time, the norm not to assassinate the leader is getting eroded for different reasons. One reason has been the huge level of destruction caused by war, compelling states to search other options. Second reason of indulging in assassinations is that
Brincat, Shannon K (2009): Death to Tyrants: Self-Defense, Human Rights and Tyrannicide– Part II, Journal of International Political Theory, Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 75–93
Gross, Michael L (2010): Torture, Assassination, and Blackmail in an Age of Asymmetric Conflict, Moral dilemmas of modern war.
Hrea.org (2011): Crimes of War - Educators Guide: Humanitarian intervention. Retrieved from <http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=132.>
Moore, Mile (1995): Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, Inc.
Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 22-23.
Perry, Dr. David L (May 27, 2006): "Repugnant Philosophy": Ethics, Espionage, and Covert Action(1). Retrieved from <http://home.earthlink.net/~davidlperry/covert.htm.>
Rourke, John T (2007): Chapter 1 Thinking and Caring about World Politics, International Politics on the World Stage, Mc Graw Hill.
Thomas, Ward (2000): "Norms and Security: The Case of International Assassination," , International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 105-133.
Walt, Stephen M (2011): Taking Qaddafi out (and not for dinner). Retrieved from http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/25/taking_qaddafi_out_and_not_for_dinner.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples