There is no doubt of the importance of international organizations, and the cooperative effects that they have on states around the world. International organizations, through their unique prospects of centralization and independence, have a mainly neutral, but leading place in international politics (Abbott and Sindal 1998). This ability to act independently, with the power to do so, and often decisively, distinguishes IOs as a vital and unique position. They handle everything from money, to disease, to human rights. Regulations and standardized norms end up playing a large role in the formation of international laws, actions, and the way that states conduct themselves domestically as well. I agree with the general notion that the world will …show more content…
Many states, even with ideas of democracy or liberalism, do not have the same governments or policies, and might find themselves forced into an agreement that they cannot or will not want to consent to, but need to do anyway because of collective agreement. What happens if a state is a dictatorship? A monarchy? How difficult would it be to unite those states underneath a common government, which would most likely be democratic in nature? Every state in the world doing so is a very slim chance to begin with. It also become a problem of authority how much power IOs or a singular government can exercise. While generally, IOs often do an impressive job in formulating the laws or obligations, there has always and will be problems with enforcement. Treaties and agreements have been violated when the domestic needs of leadership or power outweigh the desire to work well with other nations. The Iranian Hostage Crisis, or the United States going into Iraq without gaining the approval of the UN shows this. When international laws can’t effectively stop or punish infringements, the results can often damage the way the IO is seen, or how it operates. International law is reliant on states’ ability to respect and obey those laws. It can be argued that, “…effectiveness of a legal system, whether municipal or international in character, may consist not so much in how many members of the society have an obligation to obey the law as how many actually do obey the law” (Rochester 43). I believe this would be an issue in one global government; obeying the singular law would be difficult to enforce, manage, and impede the whole points of IOs: easier and more flexible cooperation. There are too many conflicting interests of different states, and I do not think a singular, unified, body could control the world
These people live in distinct environments and for that reason develop distinct opinions and interests. The factions will have different number of people that support it, meaning that one faction will be the majority and the other will be the minority and could potentially lead to the Tyranny of Majority. If all the power is left at the hands of the majority, it is very likely that the majority will trample on the rights of the minority. Since people will never have the same opinion as long as they are free to think, then a solution to the Paradox of Classical Liberalism: the Tyranny of Majority is to form a republic with elected representatives.
International organizations such as NATO and the UN are essential not only for global peace, but also as a place where middle powers can exert their influence. It is understandable that since the inception of such organizations that many crises have been averted, resolved, or dealt with in some way thro...
Intergovernmental Organizations do many different things for the international world. They make collective goods, mediate, provide information and even authorize retaliation. One of the fundamental ideas behind IGO’s is that states will value their membership, and want to comply and contribute to ensure their membership and alliance to the IGO as well as the other members. Thus, in a perfect world if all states complied with IGO guidelines, there would be very little to no conflict. Naturally this doesn’t always happen and unfortunately conflict can arise from a lack of compliance. A recent example of this is Russia and their invasion and attempt to annex Crimea.
The League of Nations sounds like a superhero team and in a sense, the goal that The League was trying to achieve could have been something straight out of a comic book. Originally proposed by President Woodrow Wilson during World War I, The League was born after some alterations. The League of Nations’ main intention was to bring an end to the war and prevent another one of the same atrocious proportions from happening in the future. Forty zealous countries joined this fight, but the most powerful country of all was not among them: The United States of America. While many Americans agreed with the goal of The League, many did not and those that did not were ones in power. The portion of the “mission statement” for The League that caused
A key issue found in Huxley’s Brave New World is the threat of one-world government. In 1920, the League of Nations was formed in an attempt to ease tensions between nations and encourage cooperation (United Nations Office of Geneva, “The League of Nations (1920-1946)”, United Nations Office of Geneva). The organization attempted to dominate world affairs until World War II, but ultimately caused the outbreak of
The international setting is home to 196 countries and many international organizations in the world today. The number of countries and organizations in the world is a malleable figure that is constantly fluctuating. Over history, we have learned about countries conquering others, colonies forming their own countries, and countries forming their own colonies. Keeping track of the ever-changing states in the international system has been an overwhelming process. To make life simpler, over the past couple hundreds of years, in an effort to organize the states motivations to make bold decisions, we have developed theories to explain the process. These theories are backed with hard evidence and reaffirmation by other scholars over time. The main
Thirdly, level of centralization of legal functions; centralized versus decentralized is critical to comprehend the divergence. In the international sphere, there are no supreme governments and/or anarchic system prevails and hence horizontal structure exists. Thus, it is challenging to enforce the law. Either by collective actions or individual actions such a...
Roskin, M., & Berry, N. (2010). IR: The new world of international relations: 2010 edition (8th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Longman/Pearson Education.
Liberalism emphasizes democracy on making international corporation available. The democratic peace theory also highlights democratic states are less likely to have war with each others. Secondly, non state actors, such as red cross and human right watch, have the same important role in the international stage than government-state actor. Finally, international organizations and global civil can nonetheless generate spaces for cooperation and create the conditions for meaningful joint action.(Ikenberry)
Russett, B., Oneal, John. (2001). "Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations." New York: Norton.
Globalization has led to several substantial changes in global governance and the entities participating in governance activities. First, over the past 70 years, an increasing number of nations have signed onto international agreements. For example, when the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was created in 1947, it had no institutional structure; by 2009, though, more than 150 nations – accounting for 97% of world trade – were members of GATT’s successor, the World Trade Organization (Fidler, 2009). The World Health Organization, started in 1946, now comprises 194 member states and has nearly 150 country offices (Council on Foreign Relations, 2012). In both of these entities – and in others, such as the Genera...
However, Hedley Bull, in his most famous analysis ‘The Anarchical Society’, rebuts these realist criticisms, writing about the primacy of International Law and insists that it is a ‘negligible factor in the actual conduct of international relations’ alongside the fact that states ‘so often judge it in their interests to conform to it’. This directly opposes the idea that realists put forward, as it suggests that states are actually inclined to adhere to international law, and it is crucial to the success of it. Although there is an element of truth in realists’ analyses, it is not to the extent of which realists contend and it should be noted that they fail to acknowledge the fact that the favourable conditions order would bring serves an incentive for states to cooperate within the realms of an international society. Furthermore, realist critiques do not actually deny the existence of an international society, but there critiques revolve around an evaluation of its effectiveness. Opposing the popular conception of neo-realists that the current political climate consists of an anarchical system with all else following from this by chance, therefore assuming that it is a contingent, is Brown’s emphasis on there being ‘a reason we have and need an international society’: to achieve a good amongst all states. This is shown by international organisations such as the European Union and United Nations, the latter of which has the ability to impose sanctions and other punishments on states if it does not adhere to international laws. The United Nations mandate explains how it seeks to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’, as it was initially born out of the League of Nations which was set up after the end of World Wa...
An Intergovernmental organization is one where the member states cooperate without giving up the ultimate right to make their own decisions. A Supra-national organization is one where the ultimate right to make decisions lie with the common institutions and national governments only have the right to maneuver within the framework of policy decided at the collective level (Gallagher 125).
In the modern world of globalization is important to realize that there are existing organizations that serve the purpose of a one-world government. The United Nation serves as a one-world government without any sovereignty. The plan to have a one-world government would not need much restriction but take the existing structure and make sure that is beneficial to all continents and not just the élite.
The international law is the fundamental basis of sovereignty and equality of all states. It promotes peace, order, and justice to the international society. The effectiveness of the international law is also anchored to the international community whether they will follow or not. It is important that international community has rules and obligation to follow in order to prevent chaos in the society. The development of international law led to the understanding of different policies and sanctions for the states. It deals with conflict of the states to relieve destructive conflict. The international law is agreed upon by the international community but there is no enforcing body unlike in the domestic law. State has been relying to treaties and international agreements for the prevention of war.