The Issue Of International Politics

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

The UN Charter was created after the Second World War to prevent future wars and to promote international peace and security. It states that a nation may only use force if it is an act of self defense to protect its own country or if it gets approval from the UNSC (United Nations Security Council). If a country is a part of the UN, a violation of the UN charter is a violation

Sovereignty is the absolute power over a certain area or region. This power in the past has been given to monarchs, royal sovereignty, or even to a group of people that decide the fate for the masses, parliamentary sovereignty. The amazing thing about our government however is Popular Sovereignty, which is the absolute power given to the people that the powers are meant to govern. The beauty of this is that the government follows the Locke-Hobbes idea that a government needs to be a social contract between its people and its ruling body.

Sovereignty is defined as a nation or state's supreme power within its borders. A government might respond, for example, to criticism from foreign governments of its treatment of its own citizens by citing its rights of sovereignty. (Dictionary.com)

The U.S. military response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 signifies the most extensive use of force by any state since the Persian Gulf War more than two decades ago. Following these operations, many commentators have suggested that there has been a notable transformation in international law regarding state responsibility for terrorist acts. This essay aims to argue that such change has been significant and it has satisfactorily countenanced states’ response to terrorism by presenting evidence of new state practice plus opinio juris in this area. To do so, this essay will first discuss the controversial concept of terrorism and its relevance to the legal framework for the use of armed force in international law. From here, it will move to explicate the principles of and grounds for state responsibility as well as to debate that the act of providing a safe haven for terrorist non-state actors should be considered as a revolutionary factor to the concept of attribution. Lastly, this essay will examine the recent changes occurred in customary law on state responsibility in the light of the application and interpretation of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter after the events of September 11. All these aspects will demonstrate that not only has the law on state responsibility had noticeably developed and consequently provided states with adequate legality to react to the challenges posed by contemporary terrorism, but it has also begun to inaugurate binding

The standard of the popular sovereignty implies, that the authority of a state is to govern itself or another state. When thinking upon our current international political system we can see that it has currently seen better days. According to Stephen Krasner and Moises Naim we can safely presume that many actions need to be taken and a sense of Shared Sovereignty needs to be installed. This would not only allow for the greater protection of certain states, but would also account for the interaction of states on an allied level in order to crack down on the Five Wars of Globalization. With the influx of a shared sovereignty according to Krasner and Naim it would create stronger borders and allow for alliances with unlikely states.

| Learning Objective: 06-01 - What the sovereignty of nations means and how it can affect the stability of government policies

Sovereignty- The supreme authoritative rule over a country that is usually self-governing and reserves the right to be independent instead of interfering in other countries affairs.    Contrariwise, no other power, individual, government, or entity may have the  jurisdiction to supercede said sovereign power.

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

The ´Responsibility to Protect´ (R2P) concept first came about in a 2001 report from the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), which was set up after, then Secretary General, Kofi Annan, said there needed to be some a change in the United Nations charter regarding military forces in humanitarian interventions. This came following the criticism of the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999. The report further evolved into the concept that was approved in the UN’s General Assembly in 2005 (Evans 2014; Zyberi and Mason n.d. 2013: 7, 513). In 2009 the UN confirmed a continued endorsement of R2P under the formula of ‘three pillars and four crimes’ (Zyberi and Mason n.d. 2013: 10). The main issue with R2P has

Decision-making is a complex process that is influenced by many different factors. Three major factors that affect global politics today include free-ridership, groupthink, and shadow of the past. These are problems that are central to scholars of I.R., and serve as obstacles to achieving cooperation among countries. To better understand the impact of these issues, it will be necessary to assess why each is important, and the theories that offer the best explanations of their presence. By analyzing these aspects, reaching possible solutions will be much more attainable and the more clear it will become as to how these problems are interconnected with each other.

Considered to be the second poorest countries internationally, Nicaragua is a country faced with the need to rely on economic assistance groups in order to meet both external and internal economic obligations. The idea of aiding other poor countries is one that organizations such as the IMF , the World Bank , the Inter-American Development Bank etc. have in order to aids countries such as Nicaragua in their economic growth. Receiving loans and having to repay them has increasingly become a problem with which poor small countries have had to deal, since in many cases these countries are not able to repay these loans and the money is lost. By further analyzing why Nicaragua has not been able to become an industrialized country even after the economic interference of different organizations I hope to understand and identify why international interference has failed in Nicaragua and ultimately to see if anything further can be done for the country or if it is unlikely that the country will ever grow stably economically.

Nevertheless, we notice the first paradox of international diplomacy: who has the authority to extinguish conflict and by what means, as described in international law? Some would argue the United Nations has authority, however, after close examination, one would find that there is a hint of ambiguity as to what power the UN Security Council has over domestic conflicts (Donelly, 1984).

In this paper I will argue that the current state of international politics is characterized more by cooperation then conflict, and the international politics today is more cooperative then it was in previous eras of international relations. The change in behavior is a result of increased participation in formal international institutions, and the growing interconnectedness of societies as a result of globalization. The shift in international relations from conflictual to cooperative behavior can be seen in international security, monetary relations, and the environment, as states, combined with new non-state actors have begun to utilize formal institutions to generate solutions to international tribulations.

The use and threat of the use of force is prohibited by article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter . The only exception in which States may use force unilaterally (without authorisation of the United Nations Security Council), is when they invoke the right of self-defence . The right of self-defence can only arise in situations where the state’s security is threatened, and its vital interests are at stake . While it has been argued that the right to self-defence is inherent, the limitations of the right ‘are inherent in very concept of self-defence’.