The President Is Responsible For Shaping Foreign Policy

The United Nations do multiple things such as following the devastation of the Second World War, with one central mission: the maintenance of international peace and security. The UN does this by working to prevent conflict; helping parties in conflict make peace; peacekeeping; and creating the conditions to allow peace to hold and flourish. These activities often overlap and should reinforce one another, to be effective. The term “human rights” was mentioned seven times in the UN's founding Charter, making the promotion and protection of human rights a key purpose and guiding principle of the Organization. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights brought human rights into the realm of international law. Since then, the Organization has diligently protected human rights through legal instruments and on-the-ground activities. The united nations are a great group of people who are looking out for us ever since Canada has joined this group they have been able to make an impact such as. Today, Canada continues to uphold the UN by actively participating in the organization's activities and providing financial support. Canada consistently brings pragmatic ideas and solutions to the table, from peacekeeping proposals in the 1950s, to creating the International Criminal Court and banning landmines in the 1990s. Today, some of their current goals are to assist war-affected children, or to improve the UN’s management and

We all know the president as the leader of our country, but we never really consider the many things that encompasses. He must be a Chief of State, a Chief Executive, a Commander in Chief, a Chief Diplomat, a Chief Legislator, and other various smaller roles. The President has many roles to take on and must act as all of them possibly in any given week or day. Taking a look at four random weeks in The President’s schedule I am going to identify examples of the president executing these roles, explaining why he was more active in certain roles, and why some roles are absent during these weeks.

George Washington believed the President had a role to play in foreign policy. Washington negotiated, and recognized other nations and also proposed policy for the US to follow. Franklin D. Roosevelt also expanded presidential power due to his use of the largely unconstitutional destroyer deal to help Britain stave off Nazis and a peacetime draft. Further, presidents like Reagan did not follow congress as evident with by funding the Contras even after the Boland Amendment. Likewise, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton actively bombed nations even without congressional approval because they believed they were allowed to under the Constitution. I believe Presidential dominance allows for a clear foreign policy that can be effective. However, I would acknowledge this also can lead to bad policy like the way we fight the war on terror and the war in Iraq. However, Congress can challenge

Our initial question asks why the President is the dominant force in foreign policy making within the U.S. government? A corollary is to ask whether or not the President should be the dominant force in foreign policy. This is an ongoing debate and tension between the Executive and Legislative Branches. First, we should understand that, under our current President, there is strong opinion that he should not be the dominant force for foreign policy. There are at least two opposing points of view regarding the role of the President and foreign policy. If one favors the Executive Branch, one takes the position that the Executive is better able to respond quickly and efficiently to changing conditions in world politics. If one favors the Legislative Branch, one takes the position that the Legislative is better able to consider, review, deliberate, and debate various points of view before deciding what course of action would best serve the interests of the entire nation.

American foreign policy relates to what is done in foreign countries by the United States of America. The foreign policies include controlling of the governments of foreign countries or setting some rules in those countries. The foreign policy of America has always been changing all through the US existence. The changes have stemmed from the dynamics of exogenous and substantial influences of watershed up to the international system and also the effects and changes of endogenous inside the government of the United States. Outstanding assertions like the policies of Monroe, intercontinental encounters such as the Second World War, War of the Spanish and Americans, and the cold war and also conflicts that were termed as local including the Korean War and the Vietnam War considerably shaped the American foreign policy (Kissinger et al., 1969).

This third and most helpful definition focuses not only on outcome, but also, crucially, on norms and process. Values are essential to the study of foreign policy, and explain why the policies of different states can vary so dramatically. Means are equally important: what a country does can be less significant than how it does it, as recent US actions illustrate. Central to pluralism is the notion that the three branches of government should be separate and distinct, with each acting to check and balance the others and thus preventing abuse of power. In the United States, the often-tumultuous relationship between especially the legislative and executive branches has been the subject of much scholarship and debate. The Presidency has seen a slow but constant expansion of power since the days of George Washington, culminating in what Schlesinger has called the "imperial presidencies" of Johnson and Nixon, and continuing today. The official rights and duties of the President as regards foreign policy-making are actually only briefly mentioned in the Constitution, and are rather limited. The President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur". However, presidents have frequently bypassed the need for congressional approval by enacting

Before this even the President, and the United States in general, did not have much interaction with other nations. After the war, however, the United States fulfilled its now known identity as the police of the world and also became to involve itself with politics overseas. Since the Presidents limitations where already soft to start with before this change in foreign policy it made it become even more relaxed and unstable. This can be seen in numerous wars from then till now including Truman’s war in North Korea, in which he did even discuss with congress, Bush’s war in Iraq, and even Obama’s war in Syria. While the explosion of Foreign policy and the relaxed checks and balances system are some of the problem these wars weren’t as controlled by governments checks and balance system as they should have been, there exist many other factors that can explain this broken system. The most common being loopholes in the policies. Truman was able to get away with going to war in Korea by exploiting the policies in place by the United Nations. He stated that the matter was UN police action and was not considered an “American war” therefore did not need the consent of congress. Though by the end of the ordeal, it was anything but an American war Truman still was able to supply and execute his war. Obama also did similar loopholes when attaching Syria. The method he used was successful

“It’s not easy being green,” Kermit the Frog laments. Being ordinary often lends itself to being

The two institutions that have a Constitutionally-mandated responsibility in foreign policy making process are the executive branch and the legislative branch. In 1787, Congress had created a separate committee called the Committee of Foreign Affairs that controlled foreign policy. Congress was unable to keep up with foreign policy. At the Constitutional Convention, the founders had disputed the strength of the executive within foreign powers. The founders wanted to make sure the executive had worked together with the legislative branch to be able to make treaties, appointments, and war and peace. In Article II of the Constitution, the president is granted power that extends to foreign policy. In Article II, Section II, the president is given

As the commander in chief, the president plays a significant role in shaping foreign policy. The president possesses the power to appoint senior cabinet members, commit troops and conduct high level talks with foreign governments. Congress, on the other hand, has the power to ratify treaties, confirm the president’s appointees and approve budgetary measures. And while the president has the ability to commit troops, only Congress has the authority to declare war. Despite criticisms of the American policy making process describing it as inefficient and slow moving, the main purpose and thus benefit of the constitutional separation of power is the framework of checks and balances that safeguard against monopolization of foreign policy decision making.

The Role of the President is multifaceted he is both the head of state and head of The United States government, he is also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The term of office is 8 years and a President may not serve more than 2 terms. Article 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America deems that the President is Head of State, responsible for execution as well as enforcement of laws which are created by Congress. The president has the power to sign legislation into law and human also veto any bill and acted by Congress. Executive orders and appointments of heads of federal agencies, are also issued by the President, who may also issue pardons and grant clemency’s to individuals who have committed federal crimes, except in The case of impeachments.

The President almost always has the primary obligation for affecting foreign policy. Presidents, or their representatives, meet with leaders of other nations to try to resolve international issues peacefully. According to the Constitution, Presidents sign treaties with other nations with the "advice and approval" of the Senate. So the Senate, and to a lesser extent, the House of Representatives, also contribute in shaping foreign policy.

They advocate for human rights throughout the world, such as combating torture, or helping to change unjust laws by intervening in areas as armed conflicts, weapons control, enterprise accountability, death penalty, incarceration, missing people, discrimination, freedom of expression, indigenous people, international justice, dignity of life, migration, sexually-related rights, torture, and United Nations.

Today they collaborate on wide variety of issues, from terrorism to human rights. They also work together on education policy. A complete account of their ongoing dialogues can be found on the following websites:

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.