Relevance Of Sovereignty And The Threat Of Terrorism Essay

In the international community, a country’s domestic policies may often interfere with that of the community’s wishes. Throughout the Cold War, there was often tension between a country’s autonomy and the wishes of a particular sphere of influence or international body. Despite the great assistance in the attainment of human rights and attempts at peace, often greater conflict occurred due to this interference in each country’s domestic policies rather than serving their original purpose. Although international influence and control promotes singular agreements and policies, countries should be allowed to remain completely autonomous within their domestic policies in order to maintain peace, encourage diverse policy, and allow for independence internationally.

The first interpretation of sovereignty that is examined by Flanagan views sovereignty in an international sense. Sovereignty for these leaders means gaining more international power and acceptance. Flanagan argues that major international bodies such as the United Nations will be accepting such an attempt at sovereignty (71). As the second

National terrorism has been the focus of attention since September 11. But now domestic terrorism is becoming increasingly common among hate groups across the nation. Domestic terrorism can be defined as visible crime, or “street crime.” These acts would consist of violent crimes, (acts against people in which injury or death results) property crimes (acts that threaten property held by individuals or the state) and public order crimes. (acts that threaten the general well-being of society and challenger accepted moral principles) It can also however be described as political crime, (criminal acts by or against the government for ideological purposes) which would include the 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing.

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)

On a European level, and to a degree on an international level it is argued that national states have experience a decrease of sovereignty. This is due to some political powers giving been

The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Year’s War, is considered a monumental event in International Relations because many theorize that the peace of 1648 marked the creation of a sovereignty-based international system. Astonishingly, in Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth, Andreas Osiander disagrees with the premises that the Thirty Year’s War was the Habsburgs failed attempt at establishing a hegemony, and that the Peace of Westphalia recognized that states right to sovereignty (252, 261). Instead, Orsiander claims that the Peace of Westphalia perfected “A system of mutual relations among autonomous political units…not based on sovereignty (270). In examining Osiander’s argument, I will particularly focus on the propaganda he claims perpetuates the Westphalian myth, and the settlement of the peace that Osiander touches on as evidence for his argument.

Terrorism and the United States A cloud of anthrax spores looming in the sky of San Diego California

However, it can be argued that the motives behind intervention are not as important as the interventions themselves – the moral function of humanitarian intervention is to save lives and this can be achieved with or without altruistic motives. To this a possible reply is that seemingly unjust intervention may aggravate the receiving state, more so perhaps in military interventions than economic, political or social. A threatened state is arguably more likely to initiate a backlash. However, such an argument cannot be made against a UN-sanctioned intervention, where it can be agreed that the intervention is legitimate and in the interests of the global community. The issue of marginalising state sovereignty completely ignores the fact that sovereignty is granted by the international community , . The arguments that states such as China may put forward, that state sovereignty is absolute and deserving of unadulterated respect, rests on the idea that states grant themselves sovereignty, which upon reflection, one finds to be untrue. State sovereignty can only be realised if it is acknowledged by the global society of states. To this a realist might argue that theoretical sovereignty is separate from actual sovereignty, and that states will defend their sovereignty regardless of its

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

The significance of the Peace of Westphalia has long been lauded as beginning of international relations as it is recognized today. Many have attributed the popularity of this belief to the article, Peace of Westphalia, 1648-1948 by Leo Gross which was published in 1948. It discusses the merits of the agreement in sparking the establishing the modern state system. A more recent piece, Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth by Andreas Osiander takes an entirely different approach by attempting to debunk what Peace of Westphalia stands for in the current world. Both articles have strongly argued for their respective views on the issue, however it is clear that when it comes to whether or not the two treaties that make up the Peace of Westphalia actually contribute as much as ???? However it is clear that Osiander is more convincing??? While both articles make strong arguments to convince the reader of their respective views, Osiander employs By

The government can implement many new methods to increase security, or better yet give off the image of better security which is what they have predominantly done, yet ultimately there will always be a way to bypass or come up with a new way to infiltrate that measure. The government so far has done a variety of things ranging from the closing of the Dulles airport (permanently), working with the FAA on new security measures, having pilots carry handguns, and a not so specific, profiling.

Sovereignty is a norm of the International system upon which the ‘society of states’ rests. Territorial sovereignty refers specifically to the power of the state ‘the territorial limits within which state authority may be exercised on an exclusive basis.’ This essay will explore the concept and development of sovereignty within the system of states. Firstly, it will identify the state system before the ‘Peace of Westphalia’ in 1648, then it will compare the ever changing forms of sovereignty since, and the reasons for change, which have established the modern form of sovereignty which exists today.

Think of the word terrorism. What is the first thing that comes to mind? One might think of kidnapping, assassination, bombing, or even genocide and guerrilla warfare. Because it is such a broad and complex issue, an all-encompassing definition is hard to formulate. The United States Department of Defence defines terrorism as…

Genocide is defined by the United Nations as "...acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..." (UN, 1) While there are many sovereign nations engaged in international politics, only a few engaged (or disengaged) in African politics during the Cold War era. Through realism and liberalism the actions of global leaders and members of the United Nations will be explained and their actions defined that led to the crisis of Central Africa from 1960 through 1994 and ending in Rwanda. These global state actors have an obligation to protect human rights throughout the world, but in 1994 allowed 800,000 ethnic Tutsi to be brutally murdered in their homes and in the streets of a place that once used to be safe. This all occurred because a global power struggle was top priority.

War Against Terror and Human Rights The Human Rights Act 1998 took full legal effect across the English and Welsh legal systems on October 2nd 1998. The Act, allows people to claim a number of the rights and freedoms that are set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government had high hopes that when the act was passed it would create a 'Culture of Human Rights within the United Kingdom.'