Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of economic globalization
Importance of economic globalization
Importance of economic globalization
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of economic globalization
Over the past thirty years, the idea of globalization was considered as a golden policy, which many countries decided to actively embrace this idea. Not until the financial crisis exploded in 2008 did many countries, especially developed economies, change the logic of international relations, developing the zero-sum logic that boosting the relative power and wealth of developing countries bases on the crippling of developed economies driven by the factors like slower economic growth, growing rivalry and clash of national interests. However, I think it is the time that all nations need each other more than ever because the international political system has undeniably entered a period of dangerous instability and profound change, and many global …show more content…
Secondly, the problems of uneven distribution of power and the international system lacking a sovereign authority contributing to make and enforce binding agreements make nations do what they want and like to do causing the difficulties in trusting and cooperate with each other. And, I think that the main goal of a country is power maximization and security, so these power seeking state under the framework of no existing binding power are much more willing to take international relations as a battle for survival. Not surprisingly, all nations will try their best to protect themselves first by seeking power and control. Even though many international level organizations have been created to balance this world, the organization itself doesn’t work well to promote the cooperation. Take United Nation as an example. Some member states consider the system as a mechanism for promoting a particular hegemonic order favoring the powerful and rich countries. And, the UN is severely limited in its abilities to interfere with world affairs as a result of the inhospitable political climates surrounding and changing configuration of world politics. The drafters of the Charter couldn’t foresee the frequent change of the balance of initiative, authority, activity and accomplishment among the UN’s major deliberative bodies, which greatly undermine the binding power of the Charter. Difficulty of Group 77 within UN in reaching common interest due to the different economic needs and levels of development does harm to the global cooperation. Self-interested national behavior couldn’t contribute to the smooth and effective functioning of the UN. But back to
The formation of the United Nations in 1945 marked a monumental success in the international political realm. It was founded to foster relations with its member and non-member states, encourage the respect of human rights, and fight to solve social, economic, and humanitarian issues. However, of all of these motives, its foundation was based primarily on creating peace and preventing conflict between members. The idea of collective security in the UN has become the heart of peace keeping within the union and all members vow to preserve peace and eliminate identified aggressors. Chapter VII of the UN charter is the impetus behind collective security and provides the legal foundation for the UN to eradicate all threats to the peace.
...ractices of other branches of power that the UN cannot grasp upon. In contrast, the virtues of the UN remain undeniably consistent throughout history, but the powers and legislative action the organization fluctuates due to the constant uprising of conflict. However, throughout the history of the 20th century and post Cold – War conflict, the organization's extensiveness has increased, such through the actions of the Non-proliferation treaty of nuclear weapons, and the ongoing tasks of UN Peacekeeping missions. These actions reflected upon the UN fiasco of the Cold War, demonstrate the emerging “politico-economic” society, by laying a prodigious impact of the world via its numerous stretches of the organization.
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
Fifty-eight years after the signing of the Charter, the world has changed dramatically. Its universal character and comprehensiveness make the United Nations a unique and indispensable forum for governments to work together to address global issues. At the same time, there remains a large gap between aspiration and real accomplishment. There have been many successes and many failures. The United Nations is a bureaucracy that struggles – understandably – in its attempt to bring together 191 countries. It must come at no surprise, therefore, that a consensus cannot always be reached with so many different competing voices.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
The past fifty years of world history, the American people have witnessed drastic change from the fall of the Soviet Empire and the end of the Cold War, to 9/11 and the destruction of the World Trade Center. These events were driven and responded by foreign policy advisors in the U.S. who utilized a number of instruments available to them including: conventional diplomacy, economic, and military power in order to create the desired outcome. However, it takes much more to navigate and traverse the intricacies of negotiating with foreign nations, whether they be adversaries or friends. The United States has a history of foreign policy blunders, the most notable of them being its military failures such as the Bay of Pigs, and Vietnam which many
In “Anarchy is What States Make of It” Alexander Wendt describes two opposing state systems—competitive and cooperative. In competition, “states identify negatively with each other’s security so that ego’s gain is seen as alter’s loss.” In cooperation, “the security of each [state] is perceived as the responsibility of all.” Currently, there are problems such as the spread of nuclear weapons, terrorism, poverty in developing countries, international financial instability, and climate change that confront the entire global community. Ideally states could cooperate in order to solve all of these dilemmas in the next twenty years. Realistically, they will only solve problems with specific and easily stated solutions. Cooperation tends to trip over every possible stumbling block, and simple solutions are necessary in order to clearly define a problem, evaluate the costs and benefits, and allow states to reach a consensus. Simplicity may require fewer actors; some problems would be better off solved within a state or bilaterally.
The basis of the world is built on interdependence. The actions that go on in one country will have some impact in another country. Throughout the past 20 years, global interdependence has created a sense of great competition between many national economies, yet this sense of competition has also created benefits and new opportunities in every part of the world. This kind of mutuality has led to the many politics, developments, conflicts, and social justices that all nations face today. It shapes and continuously changes the world in many ways. The United Kingdom, Mexico, Russia, China, Iran, and Nigeria all are interdependent of each other. This interdependence is how I see the world develop and grow into the communities that are present today.
After the cold war, word ‘globalization’ was commonly used at a time of unprecedented interconnectedness when advanced nations experienced a ruthless development by exploiting energy resources and stressing culture forms in developing countries. To identify the definition of ‘globalization’, it is significant to clarify its appearance as well as implication.
The process of reforming the United Nations (UN) has been a highly debatable issue among the international community. Since the initial signing of the UN Charter in 1945, the world has changed dramatically as the UN is trying to regulate a forum that assesses and deals with global issues while also struggling to unite all 193 member states of the UN when some states have been seen to have conflicting ideas and personal agendas (Teng, 2003, pp. 2-3). This essay is targeted to highlight what I feel are the most pressing arguments for UN reform amongst the international community. This will be done by highlighting the problems and ongoing issues surrounding the lack of representation and P5 power of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), arguing that the UNSC is out of date and controlled egotistically. This essay will also highlight the humanitarian aspect of the UN and the role it plays in meeting and solving complex global problems. This will be done by showing reform propositions in the aforementioned councils in the UN in hopes of showing how reform will be achieved.
Globalization is the new notion that has come to rule the world since the nineties of the last century with the end of the cold war. The frontlines of the state with increased reliance on the market economy and renewed belief in the private capital and assets, a process of structural alteration encouraged by the studies and influences of the World Bank and other International organisations have started in many of countries. Also Globalisation has brought in new avenues to developing countries. Greater access to developed country markets and technology transfer hold out promise improved productivity and higher living standard.
Globalization, love it or hate it, but you can’t escape it. Globalization may be regarded as beneficial from an economic and business point of view, but however cannot be perceived the ditto when examined from the social sciences and humanities side of it. Globalization can be argued as a tool for economic growth, advancement and prosperity through co-operation between the developed and developing countries. The pro-globalization critics argue that the benefits that globalization brings to developing nations surpasses or outcasts the negative impacts caused by globalization and may even go a step further to state that it is the only source of hope for developing nations to prosper and stand out. However, the real question to be asked is as to what extent are the positives argued upon without taking into account the negative aspects of globalization towards developing countries. Moreover, how many developing countries out of many are exactly benefiting or even prospering from globalization is another question to consider. Therefore, my paper will dispute that indeed growth and advancement provided by globalization to developing countries is beneficial in short-term, but in the long-run, it will only bring upon negative impacts and challenges due to the obstacles involved such as exploitation of labour and resources, higher increase in poverty, and effects of multi-national corporations on local businesses and the economy, and to an extent the effects on the developing country itself.
international politics (politics in general) are objective to be interpreted by one's own understanding of
Over the last couple of years, the world has become increasingly globalized. After the cold war, all parts of the world were attracted to the process of globalization. The effect of globalization is uneven in different parts of the world and globalization suggests a world full of persistent cultural interaction and exchange, contacts and connection, mixture and movement. Different people view globalization in different ways. Some people feel it has done more good than harm, while others believe it has done more harm than good. This essay will give a deep intuitive understanding of globalization, world systems, and how globalization has affected society, culture, economics, and politics.
Globalization, the acceleration and strengthening of worldwide interactions among people, companies and governments, has taken a huge toll on the world, both culturally and economically. It’s generating a fast-paced, increasingly tied world and also praising individualism. It has been a massive subject of matter amongst scientists, politicians, government bureaucrats and the normal, average human population. Globalization promoted the independence of nations and people, relying on organizations such as the World Bank and also regional organizations such as the BRICs that encourage “a world free of poverty” (World Bank). Despite the fact that critics can argue that globalization is an overall positive trend, globalization has had a rather negative cultural and economic effect such as the gigantic wealth gaps and the widespread of American culture, “Americanization”; globalization had good intentions but bad results.