Thucydides’ Discussion of Power

    Thucydides, an Athenian historian and general recounts the expedition against the island of Melos. In his narrative, Thucydides includes details regarding the siege of Melos and the power dynamics that are still relevant to international law to this day. Before the battle, Athenian and Melian representatives met to consider the Athenian terms. In short, Athens wanted to rule over the island of Melos with little resistance and wished to do so in a non-conflictive fashion. However, this did not go as planned because there was no guarantee of the Melian people’s safety and instead chose to resist. Attempting to avoid the death of soldiers, and the loss of time and resources, Athens then issued an unconditional surrender decree, threatening the Melian people with death, destruction, and enslavement if they did not comply with the original non-combative terms. Relating this scenario to modern international law in regards to power classification and examples, it is obvious that this story is an example of both compulsory and discursive power. Just to recap the distinction between the two types of power, compulsory power is getting someone to do something that they don’t want to do or prevent them from accomplishing a goal they have in mind. On the other hand, discursive power controls what is and is not politics, sets norms and rules of appropriateness, and is very effective in silencing debate and marginalizing unwanted groups. Compulsory power directly relates to Thucydides' recollection of the battle because the Melian people are coerced into surrendering or facing inevitable deaths. Similarly, both the Athenian army and representatives prevent the Melian people from making their own decisions. The Melian people are unable to make a decision on their own terms thus explaining the presence of compulsory power. Discursive power is relevant because this armed conflict cements in history the origin of unconditional surrender creates historical contextualization in war diplomacy, and both silences and marginalizes the voice of the Melian people and the Melian people themselves. 

    This clash fought during the Peloponnesian War is comparable to more recent warfare, Referring the World War II, the use of the term, unconditional surrender, was revived during World War II at the Casablanca conference in January 1943 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated it to the press as the objective of the war against the Axis Powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan. Again, the expression was repeated following the Potsdam Declaration, which was issued to Japan on July 26, 1945. Near the end of the declaration, it said, "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces" and warned that the alternative was "prompt and utter destruction." Between the Melian siege and the declaration of America against the Axis Powers in World War II, there is a direct correlation in regards to the use of power in prehistoric and modern international law. In both scenarios, the guarantee of absolute destruction is used for both Athens and America to achieve their desired results. As students studying international law and political actions, we should take away from both of these historical events that power can override the established or ambiguous law. In the end, it is a law that depends upon agreement and power, because without either-or, the law can not be upheld and the actor with the most power will prevail. 

Comments

  1. Hayden Groves February 8, 2022 at 11:27 AM

    I thought you had a really insightful connection between the Thucydides reading and more recent history by comparing WWII and the Peloponnesian War. This was a good more modern connection that helped me personally understand the main points and arguments of the original text. I think you made a really good point with your statements about how certain actors who obtain certain amounts of power can easily override law and rule. This is very true and shows how powerful people in society can easily manipulate the law.

    ReplyDelete
  2. James NespoleFebruary 8, 2022 at 6:30 PM

    I liked that you chose to write about the Melian Dialogue, given I also found it to be very interesting and to have a lot of similarities to modern examples of military aggression and international relations. I thought the connection you made between the Athenian and American use of their military power as a way of accomplishing their goals was well thought out. However, one suggestion I might have for future journal entries is to more clearly state your argument in the beginning of your blog entry and perhaps summarize less. I wasn't really sure what your argument was until I had finished reading the entire blog entry.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ICC articles

When it comes to the arguments on the International Crimes Court, I think the article presented by Daniel Abebe is the most convincing to me. After reading the article presented right before it, (the article by Anne Marie Gotez), it seemed that maybe the best way to fix the problems within the ICC would be to give them more funding and allow them to give more financial aid to the victims of these war crimes. Furthermore, she said that the funding for this program had been below a million and it was not enough for the ICC to function effectively. However, after reading the article presented by Abebe it stated that since 2002, the ICC has spent over a billion dollars. If in 20 years they were able to spend this mass amount of money, then there is no way that they are being underfunded. Moreover, Abebe states that the funding for the ICC is over 100 millions dollars a year, which is an incredible quantity of money for people to be asking for more money to be pumped into the system. Abeb...
Read more

Global Justice and Nationalism

  The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy writes in brief the philosophical values and traditions regarding global justice, how it is defined by their standards, and how it is played out within other nation states. I will be focusing mainly on section 2.3, which discusses the duties of compatriots versus non-compatriots, and goes on to further understand the differences between the two, such as how state actors and non-state actors view one another and potentially interact. While most have viewed nationalism in a positive light, nationalism goes beyond respect for national sovereignty, this ideology can perpetuate negative attitudes towards other countries and sometimes even make one states citizens seem morally superior than another citizen who is belonging to another state (Gillian, 2015). There is a debate among egalitarian theorists discussing whether or not concerns with equality should be confined to state members or be granted to every individually globally (Gillian, 2015). ...
Read more

The United States and the World Trade Organization

     Recently there has been large debates regarding the implications regarding the possibility of the United States potentially pulling out of the World Trade Organization. While some politicians and economists supported this idea and have argued that it would be beneficial for the US to leave this organization, the US would have to face some serious consequences that would be hard to bounce back from, not only domestically, but globally since other countries could potentially be positively affected if this deal were to go into effect. The debate is still ongoing, but the consequences and risks of this action, especially during an economic crisis from the covid-19 pandemic, are too great to ignore and continue to be in pursuit of departing from the World Trade Organization.       There are several strong arguments that support my claims that leaving would present more bad than good. First, the US being involved in the world trade organization adds gre...
Read more