|
Post by ahaugen on Sept 30, 2010 10:29:21 GMT -5
Throughout the readings, we’ve heard about all the different treaties that were signed in attempt to stop the fighting between the French and English. There were at least four signed, yet none of them worked. There were some that obviously would not have worked, ie. The Treaty of Utrecht, but there should have been one that would have worked. They could have learned from their past treaties mistakes, but it doesn’t really seem like they did. They did however, realize that treaties don’t work, which I guess was them learning from their past mistakes. It’s a good thing they made the Act of Quebec, or else maybe they’d still be trying to stop the fighting with treaties!
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Delainey on Sept 30, 2010 10:46:18 GMT -5
Amy:
You need to understand the time period (16th, 17th, 18th centuries). Treaties were never signed to put a permanent end to war between countries. They were signed when the two sides acknowledged they were exhausted OR if one side one complete victory.
I guess you could look at this way: just because treaties are signed doesn't mean that history ends. There will still be conflicts, competition, problems, confrontations, etc. Consequently, there appears to never be an end to wars because so long as countries stem to benefit from conducting a war these wars will continue.
Here's a good question: in the 21st Century do countries still see benefits of going to war? Do treaties or international agreements mean anything?
I'd answer yes to both questions. Russia has invaded several of its neighbors in the past ten years because of oil, natural gas, etc. resources in these neighboring countries, i.e. Kazakstan, georgia, chechnya.
International treaties still mean something to nations that are comparitively weak. International agreements are not generally meant to protect the strong (they need no protection). They protect vulnerable nations (and unfortunately stronger nations sometimes see it in their own specific interest to attack weaker nations to get what they want thereby breaking agreements). I'd look at the 2003 American invasion of Iraq as an example of a stronger nation (USA) invading a weaker (Iraq) breaking international law as established by the United Nations.
|
|