The World Of The Global Community

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

Although global actors can sometimes have considerable power over states, the extent of this power ultimately depends on the relative power and influence of the state in question. Large developed states, such as the US, are extremely powerful compared to most other global actors and are not often influenced by their actions. However, small and undeveloped states are not always completely powerless. To determine whether states are indeed the most powerful global actors, we must look at the relative powers of trans-national corporations (TNCs), non-government organisations (NGOs) and some of the institutions of global governance.

Analyzing this source, we should fully embrace the perspective it is portrayed because internationalism allows people to work in less developed countries around the globe offering security, economic stability and many other factors with the rest of the world thus making nations more interconnected with one another. The source states that combining global corporations with a strong effort, we can hope to solve many complex issues that threaten a nation-states safety as well as the well-being of all people. International cooperation To address global issues, would require a need of a strong majority of nation-states that are willing to protect civilians, bring economic stability and as well benefiting the countries both ways. This source is showing that though Conflicts and issues, they can be resolved more effectively with the help of nation-states; to accomplish this we would require nation-states to expand the scope of their interests to include the well being of all people. The source is adapting the ideology of internationalism allows us to help less developed countries with crucial issues as well has benefited by having the country providing aid grow and prosper. A factor that plays a role in international cooperations is foreign policy, foreign policy is best defined as a set of political goals that seek to show how a particular country will interact with other countries of the world. These foreign policies are mainly designed to help protect a country's national

role in global politics, comparable to States influence, which does not burden the State but “deepens

“Strong and sustained American leadership is essential to a rules-based international order that promotes global security and prosperity as well as the dignity and human rights of all peoples.” This statement from the most recent U.S. National Security Strategy indicates that the White House administration acknowledges the current international order is shaped constitutionally, or is “rule-based.” Globalization has made states and individuals increasingly interdependent and interconnected. Globalization is an “umbrella term” used to describe the interconnectedness, integration, and transcontinental interdependence of people and states; it occurs on several dimensions: economic, political, security, and social/cultural. Constructivism best explains how globalization spreads cultural norms, values, and interests resulting in constitutional orders between states that “evolve over time through interaction between agents and social structures.” As such, the international order will change through state collaboration in institutions and organizations, economic interdependence between states, and the sharing of cultural norms particularly through the advancing platform of technology.

As breaking news is more easily communicated across the globe, the U.N. and other states led forces are more inclined to intervene more then ever before but sometimes they are faced with the problem of protecting a states sovereignty. There is a growing skepticism that is facing humanitarian intervention when a sovereign state fails to protect it’s own population. The question arises when humanitarian intervention supersedes the sovereignty of a state. Does the state remain sovereign or does it lose authority when an outside party intervenes? Respecting a states sovereignty is a high priority between the United Nations and other state led forces, but when a sovereign state fails the responsibility protect it’s own citizens there is an unclear line that confuses the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention and it’s principles of military action. The United Nation’s humanitarian intervention, and the principles of its military action, has shown time after time of its failures and successes in combating or escalating wide spread violence. In this study I will weigh the pros and cons of several conflicts where humanitarian intervention was deployed and decide if humanitarian intervention was a successful or unsuccessful procedure. By focusing on what is causing these complications in enforcing humanitarian intervention within failed states will prove if this practice is just or not. But before I discuss these issues of

The Commission on Global Governance (2005) defined global governance as “the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs; it is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken”. The perception management which mislead the people from the complexities of reality that the American government adopted in 1980’s, do not conform with the definition of global governance since it includes the individuals as an actor that has to be involved with the process of conflict resolution. Since global governance is synonymous to international organizations, this imply that it is the IOs responsibility to ensure that global governance is being adopted across the globe.

The traditional notion of sovereignty began in 1648 with the signing of the Peace of Westphalia by the major continental European states, which ended the Thirty Years’ War. This established a principle against interference in another state’s domestic affairs, in the hopes of preventing further large scale wars, such as the Thirty Years’ War. In this view, each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs based on the principles of non-interference, and that each state regardless of size is equal in international law. Different conceptions of sovereignty have emerged since this 1648 treaty. The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) argues that states have a responsibility to protect the rights of their citizens. If a government massively fails to protect its citizens, then there is a broader international responsibility to protect those rights through UN sanctioned intervention. Further, Walzer asserts that humanitarian intervention is only allowed when the relationship between a community and its government has radically broken down. This idea is similar to John Locke’s and and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's theory of the social contract that exists between a people and its government. The initial Westphalian sovereignty

The book also refers to the question on the last part of the book if there any existence of a common system between countries and also the author put her own agenda for the democratization of the global governance and proposes to already build the components of democracy and expand the list of players in the public debate in global politics. The book also referred to the reform approach where The book mention that reform is not possible if there is no clear and high voice calling for reforms in the first

The Thirty Years War was an enormous conflict the likes of which Europe had never seen before. It was a war that destroyed millions of lives. It would be almost 300 years before another European war would be so destructive to the populace. The war started much simpler than it ended. Long before the end of the war both sides were exhausted. Despite this, it would take three major treaties to end this international conflict. These were: the Peace of Augsburg, the Peace of Prague, and the Peace of Westphalia. These three treaties addressed pressing issues in the Holy Roman Empire and Europe such as religious tolerance, Catholic Church property, the sovereignty of states, and the loyalties Protestant Princes owed to the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor. The only successful treaty: the Peace of Westphalia had a great deal of influence on European and eventually global politics and peace deals. This great treaty was a nail in the coffin of the Holy Roman Empire. The conditions created a weak Emperor and more autonomous German leaders. The end of the Holy Roman Empire would bring on a new, modern, unified German Empire in the 1800s;

An increase in technology as well as rising globalization has brought the world closer together in a way, and this has created a need for states to become more interdependent of one another. For example, an economic decline in China could have negative impact on the economy of North American countries. In the same way, a communist revolution in one country could result in communist revolutions in neighboring countries as well. The point is that since countries are now so closely connected to one another, international organizations are needed in order to maintain rules and

The Peace of Westphalia (1648) – which ended the Thirty Years’ War by instituting a political era made up of sovereign states having absolute jurisdiction over all physical and political matters in the confines of their territory – established state sovereignty as a central tenet of international relations (Krasner, 1995-1996). The sovereignty of the State was a sacrosanct principle in the Westphalian system – a value enshrined in Chapter 2.7 of the UN Charter, which asserts: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state” (The United Nations, 1945).

Humanitarian intervention represents a revolution in the international law, as it challenges the old Treaty of Westphalia (Treaty of Westphalia, 1648), which certified the domestic sovereignty of state actors. This principle was also endorsed by the UN Charter in 1945 in the article 2(7), where it was stated that "nothing

Although some international organisations, even the UN, may not be recognised as ‘world government’, which eliminates international anarchy, a number of studies suggest the positive dimensions of international organisations in terms of preventing or resolving conflicts between member states effectively. Russett, John, Oneal and Davis (1998) argue that the majority of international organisations carry out functions of “government”

The World as a Global Village The term "Global Village" refers to the widening and deepening of the