Actual Power of Networks

Networksdesignate a novel spectrum of conflict emerging in the wake ofglobalization and information innovation. In fact, the networkedlogistic structure of experts and the promptness of the experts andtheir units in coming together provide a new form of conflict.Arquilla asserts that networks ascertained their mounting dominion in1996, as they succeeded in terror, human rights, insurgency andtransitional crime1.In this regards, Arquilla regards networks as structured social ororganizational forms that usually depend on the internet2.In fact, Arquilla offers a profound dynamic-directorial evaluation onnetworks where information development aligns to the rise networkhence, redefines struggle and cooperation. However, the evaluation ofthe power of network reveals that Arquilla perceives the networks aspowerful to contribute to cooperation and conflict, but weak ingeographical authority. In fact, Arquilla asserts that networks havenot yet swept the international state structure as evinced in thevariegated outcomes of their first movement in 19963.In addition, Arquilla contends that the networks have weakened intheir contribution to mitigate or avert despoliations against theweak that plaque numerous parts of Africa. In this regards, Arquillasees networks as powerful, but with weak conduits and inconsistent intheir mitigation-effects, apart from the major contribution they madein 1996.

Opposition to quantum alterations andrepresentative structures realized in the development of networksdemonstrate that networks are not always confrontational. Althoughnetworks have achieved much of their success on a confrontationalapproach, Arquilla maintains that states can cultivate an alliancewith networks to enable the spread of civil society4.However, Arquilla maintains that such an action may not necessarybear fruit, but it demonstrates that networks have not alwaysdeveloped as confrontational. In fact, networks and states have notalways locked in prolonged conflict with each other. Networks arenearly always confrontational, but not confrontational as they cancollaborate and provide solutions in a nonviolent manner. In fact,networks such as terrorist organizations have a confrontationalnature, but human rights and humanitarian movements deliverassistance or cooperation in peaceable manner with full consent ofstates. In addition, some social networking structures demonstrate aconfrontational logical, but only to the extent of a discourse. Infact, social networks can virtually attract the demeaning actions ofsome networks and allow them to develop their agendas easily, butsocial networks also allow some organizations to engage in peacefuldiscourses5.This shows that the confrontational nature of the network depend onthe type and undertaking of a network.

Networks interact differently across states andinternational organizations. Networks and states have usuallydemonstrated a confrontational gesture towards each other, althoughsuch a gesture has not stayed afloat for a prolonged period. However,networks do not always threat nations, but their usuallyconfrontational nature with states force people to view themspeciously as intimidating to states. Networks have always worked ina confrontational manner, although they have intemperate structure toconflict and engagement. On the other hand, networks interactsuggestively with international organizations and in a minimizedconfrontational nature than they do with states. States andinternational organizations interact upon the conferral of power suchas a precondition of principal and agent, consent, and control thus,networks usually cultivate a similar, but somewhat differentstructure to states and international organizations. Irrefutably,networks have conflictive interactions with states, but some of themdo not have a confrontational peculiarity.

Bibliography

Arquilla, John. &quotOf Networks and Nations.&quot&nbspTheBrown Journal of World Affairs.&nbsp14 no.1 (2007):199-209

Weimann, Gabriel. &quotTerror on Facebook, twitter, andYouTube.&quot&nbspThe Brown Journal of World Affairs.&nbsp16no.2 (2010): 45-54.

1 John, Arquilla. &quotOf Networks and Nations.&quot&nbspThe Brown Journal of World Affairs&nbsp14, no. 1(2007): 199.

2 Arquilla. &quotOf Networks and Nations” 200.

3 Ibid

4 Ibid

5 Gabriel, Weimann. &quotTerror on Facebook, twitter, and YouTube.&quot&nbspThe Brown Journal of World Affairs.&nbsp16 no.2 (2010): 51 (More on networks and information revolution on the Gabriel Weimann article)