Sovereign States must Take and Active Role in Global Governance

In summary, the author, James Rosenau, suggests that the world has changed from the previous Cold War era. There is no longer a threat of nuclear holocaust that was so prevalent in previous years. Rosenau suggests, “the global economy may have replaced the battlefield as the site of competition among international actors…the emergent global order will be relatively free of strategic underpinnings.” Governance for Rosenau is supposed to be more informal, varied, and elaborate than that of the Cold War period. People have become smarter, technology has spread, and there is a greater involvement of citizens. As shown through the absence of a hegemon, and centralizing- decentralizing tensions, power is shifting in international affairs. Issues

A middle power is a country that uses its influence on issues which are perceived as “minor” in the scale of international politics – often because the great powers are too busy with

The Great Power involvement in the Middle East politics often creates and contributes to more conflicts and wars. The Middle East, a region described by Victor Israelyan as ‘one of sharp confrontation between the two superpowers unavoidably fell victim to such pressures.

Ikenberry argues that there are many dilemmas within the organization of the international world order. The liberal order is defined by its openness and its rule based order. Order is maintained in these institutions when states agree to follow the rules set by these institutions. The liberal order has sought to establish its rules in a non-biased system that will not discriminate other states, so that the entire institution can agree on these regulations. However, this has raised many serious dilemmas’. There seems to be concern of how the balance of power operates. Ikenberry argues that the international order has been put into place

In conclusion, the strategic importance of Middle East benefits most if not all nations in the World. However, the parameters to measure this have to be in a globally extended framework. This means that any conflict, especially that which may between the West and the East, May ultimately spell the Middle East doom by defeating its strategic importance, Anderson & William (2000). However, the Middle East is to maintain its geostrategic importance if foreign relations between the West and the East and

In the article, author John J. Mearsheimer highlights that a state’s main objective in their actions were meant to survive and take any measure to ensure their safety. The state will focus on surviving and will plan around that objective. However, the safest possible position is to be the hegemon of their region. States aim to achieve this whilst still maintaining a secured surviving status. A state that has potential and holds a respected status may be safe now but is still exposed to downfall corresponds to the idea that states will search for opportunities to gain power over rivals. The author supports the notion of creating alliances and absolute power. In reality, states are not seeking equilibrium, rather they seek hegemony. With a regional hegemony

The world order, in general, refers to the economic, political or social state of affairs prevailing in the world at a given time and the corresponding effect this has on the different relationships countries have among each other. In this essay, I will argue that the world order is not in fact changing and that we are not witnessing a power shift from the West to the rest of the world. To prove this, I will analyse in terms of hard and soft power how the West is still the more dominant party. Firstly, I will compare the military and economic power of the US and China and come to the conclusion that the US is the more dominant power. Next, I will demonstrate how in terms of foreign policy and political power the US commands more soft power

The balance of power theory is viewed as critical policy in the handling of international relations. To fully comprehend how the balance

Pursuing a middle-power option on conflicts like the South China Sea and Syria would mean allowing friendly countries to take the lead in diplomatic work, because they are less threatening to other great powers. While this may entail some compromises, it is more likely to generate solutions that a regional power will heed . This rising diplomatic dependency on middle powers is precisely what will enables these countries to emerge as

Moreover, this paper recognizes that polarity does not mean the same as hegemony. To elaborate, hegemon states are the actors and polarity is the structure of the international

Evelyn Goh’s paper on Hierarchical order in South East Asia aims to explain the surprising peace and mutual co-operation which grew out of South East Asia following the post-Cold-War period. Her main argument is that it is the South East Asian states themselves which created this peace and co-operation through two broad ‘pathways’: Omni-enmeshment on a regional and inter-state level and the creation of a ‘complex balance of influence.’ My main criticism with her argument is that the current order in South East Asia has yet to be challenged by a substantial security crisis, leaving us questioning just how robust these pathways are. I also reference to John Mearsheimer’s paper on the ‘false promise of international institutions’ to provide further criticisms. Regardless, I found her analysis on how smaller states can create the regional framework for peace compelling – it runs counter to the two major streams of IR thought (realism and liberalism) while explaining what they could not predict: peace in South East Asia.

A middle power in international relations is a sovereign state that is neither a superpower nor a great power but nevertheless enjoys international recognition and has influence on international issues. The concept of middle powers arises from the division of the world into classes according to their military and economic capabilities. This division provides a state’s relative power in international relations and includes division into great power, major power, middle power and minor power

Morganthau (Cited in Haas,1953, pp.445) argues that the Balance of power can be viewed as either a description of any state of international politics in relation to power distribution or a policy or action intending to distribute power. From this framework we can use the balance of power to both understand static moments in history to observe where power lies at that moment in time and to look at how states themselves actively implement foreign policy for their own power related interests whether that be looking to balance the set of scales or to tip them

This paper aims to discuss the rather amorphous concepts of ‘state sovereignty’ and ‘Globalization’ and how the notion of sovereignty has been diluted over the years by this phenomenon of globalization. To narrow down the analysis this paper will consider the dilution of sovereignty under the light of a primary force of globalization; Transnational Corporations. With the birth of the state, the concept of sovereignty originated. This included both internal and external sovereignty; however, the latter was recognized much later after the end of the ‘Thirty Years War’ and the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia. Internal Sovereignty was defined as the ability to exercise control and authority within the territorial boundaries of the state.

“The process of globalization and the increasing role of non-state actors in global governance are undermining the role of the state as the principal actor in global policymaking.”