英国Assignment写作范文：Is the UK a Global Military Power?

英国Assignment写作范文-英国是全球军事强国吗？本文是一篇英国留学生Assignment格式范文，主题是关于“英国是全球军事强国吗？”这取决于分析英国军事力量的理论视角。理论视角影响了所使用的“军事力量”的定义，因此也影响了问题的答案。在Assignment的开头，作者将讨论国际关系中的一个重要学派，现实主义。作者认为，通过这种理论方法来考察英国的军事力量，可以得出英国不是一个全球军事力量的结论。这是因为现实主义认为权力是基于物质能力的零和游戏。与其他国家相比，英国的物质能力较弱，因此，如果权力为零和，英国将随着其他国家获得权力而失去权力。然后，当分析除物质能力以外的其他因素时，Assignment范文的作者会认为英国实际上是一个全球军事强国。英国安全机构的成员身份、这些成员身份的影响以及英国军队的全球影响力等因素。作者将使用海德利·布尔对全球力量的定义特征来检验英国的军事实力。这需要英国学校的方法，作者认为这比现实主义方法更合适，因为它考虑到了军队在不断变化的全球环境中的作用，例如国际机构的重要性、人道主义干预的作用以及需要英国在国外施加军事影响的新出现的安全挑战。下面就一起来看一下这篇英国留学生Assignment格式范文的全部内容。

The answer to the question ‘Is the UK a global military power?’ depends on the theoretical lens through which one analyses the UK’s military power. The theoretical perspective affects the definition of ‘military power’ that is used and therefore the answer to the question. At the beginning of this essay I will discuss a prominent school of thought within International Relations, Realism. I will argue that examining the UK’s military power through this theoretical approach provides the conclusion that the UK is not a global military power. This is because realism considers power as a zero-sum game based on material capabilities. The UK’s material capabilities are weaker when compared to that of other states and therefore if power is zero-sum the UK loses power as other states gain it. I will then argue that the UK is in fact a global military power when factors other than material capabilities are analysed. Factors such as the UK’s membership of security institutions, the implications of these memberships and the UK military’s global reach and influence. I will use Hedley Bull’s defining characteristics of a global power to examine the UK’s military strength. This requires an English School approach, which I believe to be more appropriate than the Realist approach as it takes into consideration the role of the military in a changing global environment e.g. The importance of international institutions, the role of humanitarian intervention and emerging security challenges that require British military influence abroad.
Defining what a ‘global military power’ is fundamental to answering this question. The literature often conflates military power with the status of a global power more generally. For example, military capability and thus power, is a country’s ability to defend itself against threats, both foreign and domestic, as well as pursuing interests despite competing interests from other actors (Tellis, 2000).  Military power is considered in this instance as the product of national power, hence the status of global power being synonymous with military power. This can make it difficult to distinctly define if a state is a global military power therefore it is simpler to measure military power rather than to define it. As previously mentioned measuring military power depends on the theoretical approach taken. This is why I will be using two different notions of military power. I will begin by discussing the realist approach.
定义什么是“全球军事力量”是回答这个问题的根本。文学作品通常将军事力量与更普遍的全球力量的地位混为一谈。例如，军事能力以及由此产生的权力是一个国家抵御国内外威胁的能力，以及不顾其他行为者的利益冲突而追求利益的能力。在这种情况下，军事力量被视为国家力量的产物，因此全球力量的地位与军事力量同义。这使得很难明确界定一个国家是否是全球军事力量，因此衡量军事力量比界定军事力量更简单。如前所述，衡量军事力量取决于所采用的理论方法。这就是为什么我将使用两种不同的军事力量概念。我将首先讨论现实主义方法。
Mearsheimer, in his book ‘The tragedy of great power politics’, states that global powers have offensive military capabilities and that military power is measured in relation to the weaponry a state possesses (Mearsheimer, 2001). Immediately, the material military power a state possesses is an indicator of its status as a global military power. Therefore, I will use the assertion by Mearsheimer that ‘a state’s effective power is ultimately a function of its military forces and how they compare with the military forces of rival states’ (Mearsheimer, 2001, 55) as the key indicator of military power from a realist perspective. The international relations scholar Kenneth Waltz also asserts that a great power is one which holds material superiority over others, reasserting that material military capabilities are an important indicator of power status (Morris, 2011).
米尔斯海默（Mearsheimer）在他的《大国政治的悲剧》（The crature of great power politics）一书中指出，全球大国具有进攻性军事能力，军事力量是根据一个国家拥有的武器来衡量的（米尔斯海姆，2001）。立即，一个国家拥有的物质军事力量是其作为全球军事力量地位的标志。因此，我将使用米尔斯海默的主张，即“一个国家的有效权力最终取决于其军事力量，以及如何与敌对国家的军事力量进行比较”，作为现实主义视角下军事权力的关键指标。国际关系学者肯尼斯·沃尔茨（Kenneth Waltz）还断言，大国是指拥有物质优势的大国，并重申物质军事能力是衡量大国地位的重要指标。
The ‘Global Fire Power’ website provides a ‘power index’ whereby countries are given a score as a result of their; air, sea and land forces, strength of infrastructure, resilience of economy and defensible territory. This rating provides an indicator of where the UK ranks in terms of its potential to ‘wage a prolonged campaign against another’ state (Globalfirepower.com, 2017). Much of this score is based upon numerical data relating to physical capabilities such as total aircraft strength, total naval assets, army personnel as well defence spending and natural resources (petroleum). The UK ranks 6 in the world on this index below France, China, Russia, India and the United States (Globalfirepower.com, 2017). Maintaining a realist perspective indicates that the UK is not a global military power in comparison to the five states which supersede its power. This is because power that is acquired relatively is more significant than absolute gain (Waltz, 1959). In other words, analysing the UK’s military power in relation to other states is more indicative of its global position than if it were to be analysed in isolation to other states, according to realist theory. This is the assertion that power is a zero-sum game, which means as one actor gains power other actors immediately lose power. Therefore, as other states rank above the UK using this power index the UK is immediately rendered weaker than the states above it (Powell, 1991).
“全球火力”网站提供了一个“力量指数”，根据该指数，各国将根据其实力得分；海陆空三军、基础设施实力、经济恢复力和防御性领土。这一评级提供了一个指标，表明英国在“与另一个州展开长期斗争”的潜力方面排名何处。大部分分数是基于与物理能力相关的数字数据，如飞机总兵力、海军总资产、陆军人员以及国防开支和自然资源（石油）。英国在该指数上排名世界第6位，低于法国、中国、俄罗斯、印度和美国。保持现实主义的观点表明，与取代其权力的五个国家相比，英国不是一个全球军事大国。这是因为相对获得的权力比绝对收益更重要。换言之，根据现实主义理论，分析英国相对于其他国家的军事力量，比孤立于其他国家进行分析更能表明其全球地位。这就是权力是一个零和游戏的断言，这意味着当一个参与者获得权力时，其他参与者立即失去权力。因此，当其他国家使用该权力指数排名高于英国时，英国立即变得比其上的国家更弱。
Significantly, the power index does not include the UK’s nuclear capabilities which are part of its military power as nuclear weapons spending falls under the defence budget of the UK. The Royal United Services Institute claimed in 2013 that the UK’s submarine and deterrent spending would account for 35% of defence spending by 2020/21 (Chalmers, 2013). The UK’s nuclear capabilities are significant as the UK is one of only nine countries in the world that possess nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, if the UK’s military power is relative then the fact that the UK as of March 2016 only possessed 215 nuclear weapons in comparison to Russia’s 7000 and the US’s 6,800 (Ploughshares Fund, 2017), proves that the UK is powerful due to its nuclear capacity in absolute gain but is not powerful relatively.
值得注意的是，由于核武器支出属于英国国防预算的范畴，实力指数不包括作为英国军事力量一部分的英国核能力。英国皇家联合服务研究所（Royal United Services Institute）于2013年声称，到2020年至2021年，英国的潜艇和威慑开支将占国防开支的35%。英国的核能力非常重要，因为英国是世界上仅有的九个拥有核武器的国家之一。然而，如果英国的军事力量是相对的，那么截至2016年3月，英国仅拥有215件核武器，而俄罗斯拥有7000件，美国拥有6800件，这一事实证明，英国之所以强大，是因为其核能力绝对增加，但相对而言并不强大。       
My argument is that the English School approach is a superior lens through which this question can be answered. This is because it not only acknowledges the importance of power and how it is distributed but it also brings attention to other factors (Morris, 2011). In this section I will examine the UK’s military power using the definition of a great power put forward by Hedley Bull as well as the concept of ‘legalised hegemony’ and the UK’s global reach and influence.  This definition and other considerations allows for a more holistic approach for examining the UK’s position as a global military power.
我的观点是，英语学校的方法是一个很好的视角，通过它可以回答这个问题。这是因为它不仅承认权力的重要性及其分配方式，而且还引起了对其他因素的关注。在本节中，我将使用Hedley Bull提出的大国定义以及“合法化霸权”的概念和英国的全球影响力来研究英国的军事力量。这一定义和其他考虑因素允许采用更全面的方法来审查英国作为全球军事大国的地位。
Hedley Bull in his 1977 book ‘The Anarchical Society: A study of order in world politics’, describes the role of great powers and thus what makes them ‘great’. It is important to note that the application of the various aspects of this definition to characteristics of the UK’s military power overlap with each other in terms of where they fit into the definition. Firstly, he states that the country must be one of a collection of states of comparable power (Bull, 1977). The UK’s membership of NATO is an indicator of its comparability with other military powers in the world. The UK is one of the 5 of the 28 countries in the alliance that meets its defence spending target. NATO members are required to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defence, the UK spent £60.3 billion on defence in 2016 (Economist.com, 2017). This is similar to the spending of other European states that met their 2% target e.g. Germany, France and Greece (Economist.com, 2017). This indicates that the UK is economically capable of funding its military to similar levels as other states which have a similar size and GDP. NATO states that for a state to become a member it must be in position to ‘further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.’ (Nato.int, 2017). This indicates that the UK has both the political but most importantly the military capability to contribute to NATO’s aim of maintaining the freedom and security of the North Atlantic area. This is a symbol that the UK is of comparable military power to other member states within this powerful alliance. The next two aspects of Bull’s definition, when applied to the UK, reiterate the point that the country is of comparable military power to other global powers through its membership of highly influential institutions and ability to reach and intervene in a majority of conflicts across the globe.
海德利·布尔在1977年出版的《无政府主义社会：世界政治秩序研究》一书中描述了大国的作用，并由此描述了大国之所以“伟大”的原因。值得注意的是，该定义的各个方面对英国军事力量特征的应用在其适用范围方面相互重叠。首先，他指出，该国必须是一个实力相当的国家集合。英国加入北约是其与世界其他军事大国可比性的一个指标。英国是北约28个达到国防支出目标的国家中的5个之一。北约成员国必须将至少2%的国内生产总值用于国防，2016年英国国防支出603亿英镑。这与其他达到2%目标的欧洲国家的支出类似，例如德国、法国和希腊。这表明，英国在经济上有能力为其军事提供与其他规模和GDP相似的国家相似的资金。北约表示，一个国家要成为成员国，就必须能够“推进该条约的原则，并为北大西洋地区的安全作出贡献”。这表明，英国具有政治能力，但最重要的是军事能力，可以为北约维护北大西洋地区自由与安全的目标作出贡献。这标志着英国的军事实力可以与这个强大联盟中的其他成员国相媲美。布尔定义的下两个方面，当应用于英国时，重申了这一点，即该国拥有与其他全球大国相当的军事实力，因为它是具有高度影响力的机构的成员，有能力接触和干预全球大多数冲突。
Secondly, Bull asserts that the state should be in the top classification of states in terms of military strength to be considered a global power (Bull, 1977). This is when the realist perspective, in terms of material capabilities, comes into play within the English School perspective. As previously noted, the UK is number 6 on the power index according to Global Fire Power (Globalfirepower.com, 2017). Most notably, a recent article published by the UK Defence Review stated that a study carried out by European Geostrategy characterised the UK as a ‘Global Power’, only second behind the US which was labelled a ‘Superpower’ (Allison, 2017). The article references military capabilities and operations as the cause of the classification.  Not only does this categorise the UK as a global military power it also places it in the top rank of countries in terms of military strength. The study claimed the UK is a ‘A country lacking the heft or comprehensive attributes of a superpower, but still with a wide international footprint and [military] means to reach most geopolitical theatres, particularly the Middle East, South-East Asia, East Asia, Africa and South America.’(Allison, 2017). The article also referenced the UK’s membership of NATO and the United Nations Security Council, as well as military interventions and operations carried out by the UK such as operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Allison, 2017)
其次，布尔认为，就军事实力而言，该州应该是最高级别的国家，才能被视为全球强国。就物质能力而言，这正是现实主义视角在英国学派视角中发挥作用的时候。如前所述，根据Global Fire power，英国在电力指数上排名第六。最值得注意的是，《英国国防评论》（UK Defense Review）最近发表的一篇文章指出，欧洲地缘战略（European Geostrategy）开展的一项研究将英国描述为“全球大国”，仅次于被称为“超级大国”的美国。文章提到军事能力和军事行动是分类的原因。这不仅将英国归类为全球军事强国，而且还将其列为军事实力最强的国家。该研究称，英国是一个“缺乏超级大国的分量或综合属性的国家，但仍拥有广泛的国际足迹和（军事）手段，可以触及大多数地缘政治领域，尤其是中东、东南亚、东亚、非洲和南美洲。”。文章还提到了英国加入北约和联合国安理会的情况，以及英国进行的军事干预和行动，如在伊拉克和阿富汗的行动。
Thirdly and most significantly, Bull claims that global powers have certain rights and duties that are internationally recognised by other states and actors but also by their own leaders and citizens (Bull, 1977). The most recognisable manifestation of this characteristic, in the case of the UK, is the state’s permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The UNSC primary aim is to deal with threats to peace. The council has various means of doing this including diplomatic and economic solutions, but it also issues directives for peacekeeping operations, accommodating ceasefires, dispatching military observers and initiating collective military action (Un.org, 2017). The UK’s ability to veto and vote on the council is a right, as described by Bull, that is unique to only the permanent five members of the council. This has given the UK influence over key military decisions allowing for the expansion of influence and power. For example, in 2011 the UK voted in favour of conducting airstrikes against the Gaddafi regime in Libya. This was a call for military action within a sovereign state, a crucial indicator of the UK’s military power through intervention.
第三，也是最重要的一点，布尔声称，全球大国拥有某些国际公认的权利和义务，这些权利和义务不仅得到其他国家和行动者的承认，而且也得到其领导人和公民的承认（。就英国而言，这一特点最明显的表现就是该国在联合国安全理事会（UNSC）中的常任理事国席位。联合国安理会的主要目标是处理对和平的威胁。安理会有各种各样的手段来做到这一点，包括外交和经济解决办法，但它也发布维持和平行动指令，调节停火，派遣军事观察员和发起集体军事行动。正如布尔所描述的那样，英国对安理会的否决权和投票权是一项权利，只有五个常任理事国才享有这项权利。这赋予了英国对关键军事决策的影响力，从而扩大了影响力和权力。例如，2011年，英国投票赞成对利比亚的卡扎菲政权进行空袭。这是对主权国家内部采取军事行动的呼吁，是英国通过干预获得军事力量的重要指标。
Special duties are another aspect of Bull’s definition. Special duties carried out by the UK include humanitarian intervention. Broadly defined, humanitarian intervention requires the use of a country’s military power in the form of armed force to end a humanitarian crisis in another state (Opil.ouplaw.com, 2011). The modern concept has encompassed other justifications for humanitarian intervention such as the need to bring about peace, stabilise a region and end human rights abuses (Opil.ouplaw.com, 2011). In 2011 the UK was a key supporter of UNSC resolution 1973 which authorized intervention in Libya on humanitarian grounds (United Nations Security Council, 2011). In 2015 the UK began carrying out airstrikes in Iraq and Syria with the goal of defeating ISIS along with a coalition of other states led by the US. A country must have the military capability to intervene in another state on humanitarian grounds as it requires use of material military. This indicates that the UK has the significant material military power to do this.
特殊职责是公牛定义的另一个方面。英国履行的特殊职责包括人道主义干预。广义的人道主义干预要求以武装力量的形式使用一个国家的军事力量来结束另一个州的人道主义危机。现代概念包含了人道主义干预的其他理由，例如需要实现和平、稳定地区和结束侵犯人权行为。2011年，英国是联合国安理会第1973号决议的主要支持者，该决议授权基于人道主义理由对利比亚进行干预。2015年，英国开始在伊拉克和叙利亚进行空袭，目标是与美国领导的其他国家联盟一起击败ISIS。一个国家必须有军事能力，以人道主义为由干预另一个国家，因为它需要使用物质军事。这表明英国拥有重要的物质军事力量来做到这一点。
Gerry Simpson’s conception of ‘legalised hegemony’ reinforces the argument that the UK is a global military power (Simpson, 2004).  Simpson defines legalised hegemony as the existence of ‘an elite group of states’ within international society that have specific rights, duties and privileges distinct from other states which are considered to have less power (Simpson, 2004, pg. 68). The UK’s seat on the UNSC, membership of NATO and involvement in humanitarian intervention are all evidence of the UK having the military power to be considered a part of this elite group of states. Moreover, the UK’s position within Simpson’s legalised hierarchy compliments Bull’s definition of a great power having special rights and duties.
杰里·辛普森（Gerry Simpson）的“合法化霸权”概念进一步证明了英国是一个全球军事强国的论点。辛普森将合法化霸权定义为国际社会中存在的“精英国家集团”，这些国家拥有不同于其他被认为权力较小的国家的特定权利、义务和特权。英国在联合国安理会中的席位、北约成员国身份以及参与人道主义干预，都证明英国拥有被视为这一精英国家集团一部分的军事力量。此外，英国在辛普森合法化的等级制度中的地位，与布尔对拥有特殊权利和义务的大国的定义相得益彰。       
The global reach of a country’s military is a critical variable in assessing military power. The ability for a country to maintain and build a presence in all four corners of the globe is a accurate indicator of its power. The UK has overseas defence facilities in 10 countries across the globe (Allison, 2017) allowing the UK to have a presence in areas of strategic and diplomatic significance e.g. the Falklands, Canada, Brunei, Kenya and Bahrain. This enables the UK to pursue its defence and political interests as well as carry out expeditionary warfare if needed. Moreover, the UK’s overseas territory of the Falkland Islands provides strategic advantage by providing the UK with a military presence in the South Atlantic region. Relatively, the US has defence facilities in 70 countries across the globe but is the only state to have a greater number of overseas defence facilities than the UK (Grunwald, 2015).  The UK’s war in Afghanistan which lasted from 2001 to 2014 is another example of the UK’s ability to maintain a military presence abroad. The UK’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and subsequent presence lasted until 2011 which is significant evidence of global reach. As the threat of terrorism increases the UK is now a member of the Global Coalition, a group of countries pledged to defeat Daesh. The British Army presently has a non-combat role in Iraq, where it trains and provides equipment to the Iraqi Security Forces of whom it has trained 25,000 in various combat roles (Army.mod.uk, 2017), further indicating the country’s global reach and military power. An analysis of the UK’s military power would not be complete without reference to the Commonwealth. The British Empire formally ended with the transferring of Hong Kong to China in 1997. This signified a new era for the UK as a global power. However, the UK’s military presence in commonwealth countries signifies a level of maintenance of the UK’s once powerful empire.  With deployments of British soldiers in Kenya, Canada, Cyprus and Sierra Leone, the UK’s colonial past may have paved the way for a militarily powerful UK in the present allowing for British influence across the globe.
一国军队的全球影响力是评估军事力量的关键变量。一个国家在全球所有四个角落保持和建立存在的能力是其实力的准确指标。英国在全球10个国家拥有海外防御设施，使英国能够在具有战略和外交意义的地区驻扎，例如福克兰群岛、加拿大、文莱、肯尼亚和巴林。这使得英国能够追求其国防和政治利益，并在必要时进行远征战。此外，英国福克兰群岛的海外领土为英国在南大西洋地区提供了军事存在，从而提供了战略优势。相对而言，美国在全球70个国家拥有国防设施，但它是唯一一个拥有比英国更多海外国防设施的国家。2001年至2014年英国在阿富汗的战争是英国在海外维持军事存在能力的另一个例子。英国于2003年入侵伊拉克，随后一直持续到2011年，这是全球影响力的重要证据。随着恐怖主义威胁的加剧，英国现在成为全球联盟的成员，一组国家承诺要击败Daesh。英国陆军目前在伊拉克担任非战斗角色，在伊拉克，英国陆军为伊拉克安全部队提供训练和装备，英国陆军已训练了25000名伊拉克安全部队的各种战斗角色，这进一步表明了英国的全球影响力和军事实力。如果不参考英联邦，对英国军事力量的分析是不完整的。1997年，香港回归中国，大英帝国正式结束。这标志着英国作为一个全球大国进入了一个新时代。然而，英国在英联邦国家的军事存在意味着英国曾经强大的帝国得到了一定程度的维护。随着英国士兵在肯尼亚、加拿大、塞浦路斯和塞拉利昂的部署，英国的殖民历史可能已经为目前军事强大的英国铺平了道路，允许英国在全球范围内发挥影响力。
In conclusion, the UK is a global military power when analysed from an English School perspective. When Hedley Bull’s three main characteristics of a global power are applied to the UK the answer is such. Various sources including the power index created by Global Fire Power and the European Geostrategy study claim that the UK is amongst the most powerful states in the world in terms of material capabilities. The UK’s membership of NATO and its seat on the UNSC reiterate its influential position as a military power capable of intervening and being present in conflicts and locations around the globe. The UK’s global reach through its overseas military presence and overseas territories adds further strength to its military. It is evident that when military power is considered from a realist perspective the full range of indicators of military strength are not considered. Focusing on material capabilities exclusively negates the affect intervention, presence, reach and influence have on a country’s military power.
Assignment范文总结，从英国学派的角度分析，英国是一个全球军事大国。当海德利·布尔关于全球力量的三个主要特征应用于英国时，答案就是这样。包括全球火力（Global Fire power）和欧洲地缘战略研究（European Geostrategy study）创建的电力指数在内的各种消息来源都声称，就物质能力而言，英国是世界上最强大的国家之一。英国作为北约成员国及其在联合国安理会中的席位重申了英国作为一个军事大国的影响力，它能够干预和参与全球各地的冲突和地点。英国通过海外军事存在和海外领土的全球影响力进一步增强了其军事实力。显然，当从现实主义的角度考虑军事力量时，不考虑军事力量的所有指标。专注于物质能力完全否定了干预、存在、范围和影响对国家军事力量的影响。本站提供各国各专业Assignment写作指导服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。