International Chaos Of The United Nations

In retrospect, the world wars influenced the formation of many international organizations mainly to act as mitigation measures to the aftermath and to prevent the occurrence of related experiences in the future. Most notably, the economies were significantly affected and lives lost unnecessarily while at the extremes the powerful nations took control of the weak hence the need for a control. To be specific, the countries under the umbrella of United Nations have continued to enjoy much prestige as compared to others since almost of the challenges they face are responded to on a wider dimension. Support is given in times of need and the international organizations have been at the forefront

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

The end of superpower contention had liberated the UN and other territorial security establishments from their past Cold War mind-set, and made new open doors for them to play a more dynamic, aggregate part. Regardless of global standards of state power and non-mediation, the thought that the universal group ought to intercede in a nation for the benefit of its own kin increased more prominent authenticity. Universal associations, for example, the UN and provincial security, for example, NATO, the OAS, and the OAU would assume a part in offering authenticity on the operations and in sorting out an aggregate reaction. Locally be that as it may, these new advancements at the global

To achieve world order, certain legal and non-­ legal measures need to exist in accordance with societal values and expectations. Legal and non-­ legal measures including the United Nations, international instruments, courts and tribunals, the media and non-­ government organisations. Although these measures have these intentions, these issues surrounding world order such as state sovereignty may prevent world order from being accomplished completely and effectively. The need for world order has been sourced from conflict occurring in the international community. The effectiveness of legal and non-­ legal measures in dealing with this conflict can vary depending on the nation’s compliance with international law and other nation states. In

The United Nations executed its first official peacekeeping mission in 1956, in response to the international controversy sparked by the Suez Crisis. In an effort to alleviate the tension and bring peace to the region, the Canadian Foreign Minister, Lester Pearson, conceived of a plan whereby the United Nations could raise a multinational body of troops and utilize them to impose and keep peace.

War has been one of the major features of the twentieth century. An extensive percentage of people have been participants or victims of the interstate or civil wars. Nowadays wars still exist and large populations suffer from it. The book Why Nations Fight by Richard Ned Lebow analyzes war in the past and the motives for war in the future. This book is extremely interesting to me, because of the current civil war in Ukraine that has been going on for almost 2 years. Lebow uses different scholarly references and shows that civil wars have been in a sharp decline after the Cold War, however some of the most violent civil wars were sparked after the collapse of the USSR (like in case of Ukraine). In this paper I am going to discuss the critical analysis of the book and the constructivist argument of the factors that influence the international behavior.

Art and Jarvis bring up the idea that there is a state of anarchy when it comes to international affairs. I will argue that there actually is quite a lot of government in international organization that prevents it from being this anarchic. I will start by giving the reasons why Art and Jarvis believe that international politics features of state of anarchy. The following paragraphs will start to explain why I believe they are wrong in their interpretation of international politics, using Jackson and Rosenberg’s “Concept of Statehood”. I will conclude by summarizing previous thoughts and prove my thesis.

Schlesinger utilizes this portion of his work to identify the ideological origins of the United Nations and to detail the intricacies of the organization’s foundation. He begins his discussion of the UN by outlining the political movements that led to its establishment. Schlesinger includes this analysis in order to illustrate the extent of humanity’s experimentation with international governance and law. The discussion attempts to determine key differences between the United Nations and its predecessors (Schlesinger 2003). Schlesinger then examines the negotiations which took place between the Allied Powers as World War II drew to a close (Schlesinger 2003). These negotiations resulted in the formation of the international organizations which structure global society today.

International order, though it may be fleeting in the grand scheme of history, seems to be at least on a continuous track of lingering longer and longer each time before chaos takes over. The Persians, Greeks, and Romans all seemed to enjoy ever-increasing periods of relative peace at the top of their systems of international order before it unraveled. Most of Europe was in good order on the tail of the Industrial Revolution until some arch duke decided to vacation in Sarajevo. After each major conflict, the world re-shuffles itself and order is established again in some form or fashion. The players are bigger and more numerous with greater consequences for conflict but order is still unseated from time to time and the rules of the existing orders seem to change daily. Realism can explain this violent cycle of order and disorder. States and even non-state actors continuously seek to balance regional power in order to secure their survival in a world dominated by fear and uncertainty; if unable to balance that power through violent means, players will seek to form alliances and organizations to at least prevent domination; once a status quo has been created and survival is temporarily assured, players will seek to maintain life within that order; new members thrust the order back into violence and potentially chaos if unable or unwilling to play by those rules. This cycle of power balancing can be illustrated in three phases. International orders are created as

Realists argue IOs are only forums in which states pursue their interests. I believe that this is wrong to begin with, as IOs are more than forums to realise states’ self-interest. They are also largely important for other means, essentially, in maintaining world peace and order. This paper will mainly explore on two most controversial IOs that are the UN and the EU using Rationalist approach. To support the argument, this research will use two relatable in-depth cases that are the 2011 Military Intervention in Libya and the European Union (EU) on the Syrian refugee crisis to demonstrate if IOs are only forums for states to pursue their interest or not. The research is important to inform the readers that IOs are not simply a medium for states’ personal gain, but also to cover the betterment of the world.

The authors go on to explain the concept of international organizations, and their importance in terms of international relations, from a historical perspective. As Yi-chong and Weller

The United Nations, with its rigid moral and political limitations against force, has become a benchmark of peace and a social achievement of modern times. From war torn Europe, the United Nations developed from five major powers with an initial goal to prevent the spread of warfare through peaceful means and to establish and maintain fundamental human rights. Through the past fifty years, this organization has broadened its horizons with auxiliary organizations from peace keeping missions to humanitarian aid, to economic development. However, in a modern example of ethnic cleansing, the UN faces new a new role as a bystander as its power is bypassed by NATO forces. The UN, however, promises to be an

Intergovernmental organizations are an important facet of public international law. According to Margaret P. Karns, “intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) are organizations that include at least three states as members, that have activities in several different states and that are created through a formal intergovernmental agreement such as a treaty, stature or statute. Most intergovernmental organizations also consist of headquarters, executive heads, bureaucracies and budgets.” Karns also states that between the years 2013-2016 the “Yearbook of International Organizations,” identified about around 265 different intergovernmental organizations that varied from consisting of 3 member countries, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), to more than 190 member countries, such as the Universal Postal Union (UPU). In intergovernmental organizations, Karns explains, the members that compose these IGO’s can come from specifically one geographic area, the Organization of American States (OAS), for example. This is not the case for every IGO, though. Members of IGO’s can also come from all geographic regions, using the World Bank as an example. Karns also describes how some intergovernmental organizations are designed to achieve a single purpose, and others are developed in order to complete multiple tasks. When discussing intergovernmental organizations, it is safe to say that most of them are regional or sub regional, with a similarity of interests motivating

The legitimacy and importance of institutions in global governance is a highly contested topic, among which many question the existence of international institutions. To suggest that institutions in global governance do not matter, is to suggest that the majority of countries have the willingness to co-operate, the ability to solve disputes and to organise themselves to ensure problems are dealt with effectively without the pressure of an outside body – which has been proven to be ineffective . This essay will examine how institutions matter and are important in global governance, through examining a realist views, using Waltz concepts of insecurity and global governance. It will examine how global institutions can promote peace and

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.