Overlapping Sovereignty Essay

In the last decades, narco trafficking and organized crime had emerged as the main security threats in Latin America. Deviant globalization increase their power by establishing connections with similar organizations in other parts of the world, like cocaine distribution networks, for example. This perceived danger increases the pressure on the governments for effective solutions, and some of them consider that these problems had overwhelmed the capabilities of the local police. Consequently, the intervention of military forces would be necessary to secure the stability of the countries. However, the use of force as the only solution is the outcome of a misunderstanding of the root causes that generates them. This paper presents the research for a general pattern in the region that is helpful to understand how the civil society perceives the failures of governance and how the networks of illegal activities exploit this perception.

In the 1860s, the United States of America went through a tough time. It was the year that our 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, was elected into office. The election was extremely close, but Lincoln won by approximately one percent. The majority of his votes came from the north. The south didn’t like Abraham Lincoln or his ideas because their economy benefited off of slavery, and Lincoln said he may abolish it in the future.

ecession means “the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state.” The south seceded from the union. Many important events lead to the South seceding from the Union. All those events build up a tension,like the union balancing on a tightrope and these events eventually knock the walker off.

In the year 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected to the office of the President of the United States. Many of the southerners believed that the government was gaining too much power so, many of the southern states decided to secede. These secessionists believed that according to the Constitution, the states had the right to separate themselves from the Union. Lincoln knew that they did not have that right. Lincoln made a wise decision when denying the peaceful secession of the South because physically the states cannot be separated, secession is unlawful, and a government that allows secession will become weak. Secession would have destroyed the government that America tried so desperately hard to build.

During the Early Modern Period (around 1500-1800), the many peasants of Europe rebelled more and more against those in power. Though, by modern standards, rebellion seeks to change and reform a system, peasant rebellions sought to revert to a former status quo or keep the existing system of governance. As the documents show, rebellions’ goals were focused on a fairness towards the mistreated lower class in alignment with their Christian beliefs. The Early Modern Period is a notably violent moment in history, with many wars and bloody uprisings.

factors. The biggest contributor of these factors was the lack of seats in congress of the

During the 1850s, the political climate in America was one of tension, turmoil, and division. Although there was great opposition for the scandalous Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854, the bill passed and resulted in the creation of the Republican party. The creation of a new political party portrayed a division among specific regional states within America. Ultimately, disagreement with the Union brought forth the topic of secession. In 1861, Texas Governor Sam Houston faced a difficult decision: to favor or oppose the secession of Texas.

Mexico has a long history of cartels the deaths, drugs and weapon trafficking is in all time high increasing year by year. “Mexico's gangs have flourished since the late 19th century, mostly in the north due to their proximity to towns along the U.S.-Mexico border. But it was the American appetite for cocaine in the 1970s that gave Mexican drug cartels immense power to manufacture and transport drugs across the border. Early Mexican gangs were primarily situated in border towns where prostitution, drug use, bootlegging and extortion flourished” (Wagner). They keep themselves armed and ready with gun supplies shipped from the U.S, taking control of the drug trades. The violence is spilling so out of control that

At first, Mexican drug cartels were structured just like family owned businesses. There would be a family member who was the main drug lord and cousins and uncles of the family would be the body guards and drug dealers. After the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) lost their power within the Mexican government the structure of drug cartels became much more complex. A hierarchical diffusion is seen within the drug cartel system because the drugs spread from one important drug lord to another, and we generally see this happening in the urban part of Mexico, more than in the rural areas. A corporate structure began forming as hierarchies began developing under drug lords and more people got involved. Professor Guillermo Trejo of Notre Dame 's Kellogg Institute claims that once the PRI lost their power there was a rapid increase in violence. This is because of Mexico’s former President, Felipe Calderón, who politically associates with the National Action Party (PAN). In 2006 President Calderón declared war on the drug cartels. This milestone triggered a huge change within Mexico’s international relations, government, and culture.

The asymmetrical theory by Naim says that the differences between the government and that of transnational crime creates asymmetry (Naim,2005). Different government agencies are organized in a hierarchical relationship that functions consistently from the top to the bottom (Naim,2005). Governments must often follow legal processes that take up time and cost money. These governments are forced to follow budget constraints, as well as legal and political reservation (Naim,2005). These governments must operate within the control of their constitution. In comparison, these transnational crime groups operate in less harsh structures, and are able to have more flexibility in their decision-making, as well as have unlimited funds available to them. The government’s

Charles Tilly’s article “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime” creates an analogy between the creation of European states and acting out an organized crime. Earlier in our course, we learned about Max Weber, who defined a state as “a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Tilly argues that the word “protection” in relation to physical force has positive and negative connotations, leading to illegitimate use of power during the period time that Tilly is discussing. Tilly’s analysis eventually tells the reader that war is always a major part of state politics; specifically that war making and state making are interdependent.

Disputed territory is often described as a land that has been disagreed over power and ownership typically between a new state and the previously owning country. Disputed territory was also the main reason for the battle between Mexico and the United States to brew. United States was the first to act and begin this war, but did the country really have good reasoning to get even with Mexico? Indeed, the United was justified in going to war with Mexico because 16 of our American soldiers were killed, Mexico was just beginning to be a their own country and did not exert enough government control, and Texas wanted to be part of the United States in the first place.

Sovereignty Sovereignty refers to ultimate and absolute authority designated to either an individual or an institutional body. The term sovereignty could be contested due to the fact that there is no universally agreed definition. Thomas Hobbes defined what he considered the basis of a political body as 'the most high and perpetual.' (Hobbes, quoted in Heywood, 1997, p26.)

“Nationalism cannot only aggravate ethnic relations within the state, but it can also spill over borders and increase the likelihood of international conflict”

The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power