Multilateral Relations : Multilateral Diplomacy

Globalization is the process by which the markets of different countries become integrated due to the exchange of goods, services, technology, and capital. Globalization depends on social, economic, and political factors, and continuously alters the way that the world works. All the vital components of the evolving global, political, economic and social institutions being examined seem to constantly converge and to perpetually intertwine during the day to day administration of global affairs. Diplomacy is employed to keep a measured balance between conflict and cooperation. The global guarantees of international law are placed in sharp contrast to the grim reality of human rights on daily basis and policy is dictated by the scales of political power and the urgent priorities of economic necessity. To understand how the globe functioned in the past and how it wishes to function in the future, we must study each factor separately and observe its inevitable interactivity with the other factors that occur. It is important to note that none of the dynamics can be given greater weight in comparison to the other crucial instrumentalities.

World order are the activities and relationship between the world states, and other significant non-state global actors, that occur within a legal, political and economic frame work. The need for world order has arisen due to the past historical conflicts, colonialism, greater interdependence between nations, and the increased impact of the activities of nation states upon other nation states. Legal measures such as the UN, as well as non-legal measures such as the media and Non-governmental organisations, show a mixed effectiveness in response to resolving conflict and working towards world order.

Well-known professor of American history, William Appleman Williams, crafts The Tragedy of American Diplomacy to illustrate that there is more to history than what meets the eye – more than what most Americans have been taught. He argues that there is a tragic past when the history of American diplomacy is analyzed. Throughout crucial periods of time in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Williams explores and analyzes instances in which American diplomacy was challenged, policy was deficient, actions were hypocritical and the structure of the system proven inconsistent.

In chapter two Stephen McGlinchey explains what is diplomacy and how it helps countries. He defines diplomacy as “the process between actors” which means representatives from each country get together to achieve a common goal in a peaceful way. The authors also explained foreign policy which is when two states come together to see how they can achieve a common goal. This is where diplomacy lets the two countries meet and reach agreements in a peaceful manner. The author goes on to talk about how diplomacy has worked in the past such as with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Diplomacy can help states in various ways such as negotiation, preventing wars, and establishing a relationship with another state. One modern day example is the United States

Being a middle power isn't only reliant on involvement with international organizations. While important, it is essential that the countries use their positions and influence in ways that define middle powers, in order to help solve or avert crises that arise. Canada's diplomacy in situations such as the Suez Canal Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis show the strengths of multilateralism in the decades following World War Two.

Over time the United States has had many different presidents, each serving one or two terms in office and that same tradition still continues today. Once elected the president spends the majority of his time in the White House with his family while serving the people of his country, and when his presidency is over, he goes back to living his normal life. While in office presidents deal with more than their share of problems and conflicts of interest whether they are domestic or international. To alleviate these situations, the president with the help of his administration comes up with solutions for these problems whether they are deals, treaties, or presidential doctrines. Presidents create presidential doctrines because of the conflicts of interest that arise, relationships that exist among each other, and provide the solution to the conflict.

The Bush administration selected multilateral talks instead of bilateral talks with North Korea in order to put pressure and isolate North Korea.

Stop and think for a moment how pivotal conversations are to everyday life. Through this exchanging of information the world has seen wars commence or alliances that have been formed. There is an old adage that says, "conversation rules the nation." As a matter of fact, an annual event known as the G20 Summit showcases the vitality of being able to engage in meaningful communication. At this assembly leaders from across the globe gather to engage in dialogue on topics that can have international effects such as climate change, immigration, or free trade. How best to manage these issues differ from nation to nation. However, the differences in opinions is not unexpected, but what is critical is that these heads of state be able to strategically

IGOs are voluntary associations of sovereign states established to pursue many objectives for which states want to cooperate through sort of formal structure and to which states are unable to realize by themselves (Miller, 1994). There are hundreds of IGOs in today's world which are significant in their respective fields. They are created by treaties and negotiations which mainly reflect preferences of stronger states. Especially stronger states create IGOs because they need them to protect their interests. By and large, decisions made by IGOs are the product of negotiations among the governmental representatives assigned to them. In general, it is not idealism, but the need of states which tend them to cooperate with other states in the context of IGOs. Therefore, they are part of the Westphalia state system in which IGOs are instruments of nation-states (Miller, 1994: 67). Regarding to the function and the purpose of IGOs, the influence of state as an actor in international relation still remains strong but in a different way, IGOs replace the original ideas of individual states but to identify states which have the same normative behavior and same ambitions to form a cooperate with each other so as to achieve the same goal. Even said so, powerful states are less constrained by the principle of IGOs than those who are relatively weak (Ataman, 2000: 152-167). This suggests that state is the key element in

Global Politics The study of international or rather global politics, seeks to provide an account of politics in the broadest domain. The domain of international politics in the twenty-first century is characterised by the increasing number of actors pursuing common and personal interests. It is largely due to the globalised, interdependent nature of the current international political environment that the concepts of sovereignty and power deserve further evaluation.

Kegley and Raymond stated: “The shape of the world’s future will be determined not only by changes in the objective conditions of world politics, but also by the meanings people ascribe to these conditions.” Terrorism is presently a major factor in international relations and has impacted the world to change in many significant ways. Terrorism is a political ideology that has been problematic in defining definitely because of its various interpretations around the world, as well as the fact that it is constantly evolving. Since the terrorist events of 9/11, the lives of many have been changed forever. A small group of individuals, which are a mere fraction of the population of the world, have managed to impact and shape the way international and domestic relations are looked at and handled. People question how secure and safe they feel due to uncertainty of public safety because of events such as 9/11. The war on terrorism in the 21st century has certainly and inevitably changed the landscape for global politics. However, the relationship between terrorism and global politics is troublesome and in ways problematic to describe accurately. Both terrorism and global politics individually are complicated phenomenon. It is erroneous to propose that one is responsible for the other or vice versa, but they are inextricably and inevitably linked. In the study of international relations, there are multiple theories and theoretical perspectives. In this essay, realism and liberalism

“ Here is a task truly of, by and for the world, one that should rally nations. The nature of this task however, must be clearly understood; only then can suitable means for accomplishing it be formulated, only then can the role that the United Nations could and should play be appreciated” ( Wilcox/Haviland, 29). There are many international organizations that have been talked about throughout this semester. One of the most important ones is The United Nations. The United Nations was established October 24, 1945, and has since then been impacting the country. The United Nations main purpose according to the lecture notes is “ to provide a global additional structure through which states can sometimes settle conflicts with less reliance on the use of force , for whole purpose of the United Nations is to provide the globe a forum by which countries may settle disputes through this forum peacefully as opposed to relying on a force which has been the case historically” ( Kopalyan, Module 8). Thus meaning The United Nations was set up to handle problems peacefully rather than going to war to try and solve problems. “Powerful economic as well as political forces are at work to bring about a growing integration of the world community, and the United Nations and its related agencies are uniquely fitted to assist in the task” (Wilcox/Haviland,45). This was some of the reason that the United Nations was created.

While nation-states are not the only actors, they are the primary ones and form the structure of the international system.

The economic crisis has brought about a transformation in international organization, signaling a break with the established system of foundation for managing world liaison. While at the first of the crisis, measures taken appeared ad hoc or temporary, the decision at the Pittsburgh Elevation in September 20 09 to institutionalize the Chemical group of 20 leaders ’ summit reflects a marked shift in the locus of leadership. New players, new meeting place and new issues have moved to the center of global decision-making. Over the course of its first class, the G20 has delivered in response to global economic challenges, at least in a declaratory fashion. However, as we move towards a billet crisis environment, the G20’s follow-on year will bring new challenges. In the lead-up to the two 2010 top Toronto in June and Seoul in November the G20 will need to rise its role beyond the immediacy of crisis response, and propel the common sense of collective enterprisingness into solidified venture moving forward. This paper provides a framework of analysis from a liberal theory perspective and sets out proposals regarding the G20’s place in the evolving international governance design. Through its dual world — first as a forum of ministers and then as a leaders’ summit the G20 has shown itself capable of robust natural action. Rather than sticking to a set convention, when the global financial impact hit, the G20 effectively re-invented itself. This process has effectively realigned

The conference is similar to all UN processes and is expected that the identified themes are going to be extensively debated so as to capture a measure which that will satisfy a range of often contradictory and