The outcomes of the Paris Accord are rather hard to assess, as the treaty only came into effect towards the end of 2016. However, even in the short amount of time that the treaty has been in place, some outcomes can be assessed. The most positive outcome of the accord is its ratification by one-hundred and seventy-six countries, as well as twenty-one other countries that have agreed to it but have yet to ratify it. In this sense, the United Nations succeeded in achieving its goal of creating a treaty that most of the world’s states would agree to. However, arguably the most unfortunate outcome of the treaty is its failure to achieve one of its central goals: decreasing carbon emissions. Countries that agreed to the accord “promised to try to …show more content…
President Donald Trump “announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate accord, weakening efforts to combat global warming and embracing isolationist voices in his White House who argued that the agreement was a pernicious threat to the economy and American sovereignty” (Shear). This is a major blow to the Paris Accord, as the United States is “the Earth’s second-largest polluter,” making up 15.53 percent of all per capita carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion (Shear). “Under the accord, the United States had pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 and commit up to $3 billion in aid for poorer countries by 2020” (Shear). While Trump expressed his desire to “negotiate a better deal for the United States, the leaders of France, Germany and Italy issued a joint statement saying that the Paris climate accord was “irreversible” and could not be renegotiated” (Shear). Thus, the withdrawal of the US from the accord, it loses one of its most powerful members and with it, all the aid it would have provided developing countries in their efforts to “adapt to climate change and transition to clean energy” …show more content…
The president of the US believes that the agreement “imposed wildly unfair environmental standards on American businesses and workers” (Shear). This situation demonstrates the reality that states will work through international organizations as long as their personal interests are not being impeded on too much. President Donald Trump believes that the Paris Accord interferes with and places an undue burden on the American economy, hence he believes that it is not worth keeping the US enrolled in the treaty. He has placed a higher value on the US’ economic performance than he has on the contents and goals of the treaty. The country’s economic success is a crucial interest for the president, so his plan to withdraw from the treaty is understandable. This outcome points to the unfortunate truth that international organizations can only do some much to keep state involved in their actions. Once states begin to feel that their interests have come into conflict with the goals of international organizations, they often very quickly begin to pull back from the organizations. This was exactly the case for the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Accord. Thus, it is a fair assertion that international organizations are used mostly by states when there is a lot to gain,
Smaller states like Delaware and New Jersey objected to the Virginia Plan saying that the large states would easily outvote them in Congress if the number of votes were based on population. After weeks of debate, William Patterson of New Jersey put forth a plan that called for three branches including a legislature with only one house where each state would have one vote. The New Jersey Plan with a single house legislature and equal representation was more like Congress under the Articles.
After the Declaration of Independence, U.S. became a nation but didn 't have a government to guide the nation. People, the early settlers, suffered by the excessive power of the Monarch so they wanted to incorporate the ideas of ordered government, limited government, and the representative government. Based on these ideas the Article of Confederation was created. Although it was too weak and inadequate to manage all of the states. As the weakness became palpable, the nation required stronger government system and that 's when the Constitution was created as it saved the nation from the crisis. One thing that made the creation of the Constitution possible was the Great Compromise, which was
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...
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
The Treaty of Versailles is one of the most controversial postwar resolutions ever drawn up. The leaders of the prevailing 4 nations, Woodrow Wilson, Georges Clemenceau, David Lloyd George, and Vittorio Orlando, were the authors of this controversial document. Each leader went into Versailles with their own idea of how the world should look after the great war. However, the European leaders widely agreed that Germany should be restricted, to some extent, militarily and sanctioned economically. France demanded the most from Germany, to ensure that Germany could not recreate a war machine ever again. Specifically, France wanted to annex Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhineland to create a buffer zone between Germany and mainland France. France demanded
The League of Nations was an Intergovernmental Organisation which persisted from 1919 up until 1946 where it was formally replaced with the United Nations towards the end of the Second World War. Many consider the League as one of the International Systems greatest failures due to it being widely regarded as an ‘ineffective instrument to tackle aggressors’ (Catterall, 1999, p. 52) and its inherent failure to prevent international conflict. However,
The Treaty of Versailles was a treaty created at the end of World War I, in hopes of establishing peace among nations. Although it sought after harmony, the United States’ Senate refused to ratify the treaty due to the distasteful idea of the United States’ involvement in the League of Nations, and Woodrow Wilson’s unwillingness to compromise with Henry Cabot Lodge’s revisions of The Treaty of Versailles.
“International Agreements.” The Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Third Edition. 1994: Columbia University Press. Lanouette, William. A. “Why We Dropped the Bomb.”
The Treaty of Paris was negotiated in the city of Paris, & there were a couple of important people who helped negotiate this treaty. Those people were John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Laurens, & John Adams. The Treaty of Paris started on January 4, 1784, & it ended/was negotiated on April 9, 1784. This treaty happened because the Revolutionary War needed to end, & American Independence needed to be recognized “American Revolution”.
Thanks to U.S space-agency NASA's ominous new warning on the perils of climate change, the world is gung-ho for "going green" again. NASA's Steve Nerem declared at a press call on August 27 that, "Data shows the sea level is rising faster than it was 50 years ago, and it's very likely to get worse in the future." Consequently, the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) slated for December will, presumably, be mankind's last chance to "cut a deal to avoid 2 degrees Celsius of global warming," and keep us away from its "truly awful effects." Additionally, a combative climate change manifesto, sponsored by Noam Chomsky and Desmond Tutu among others, has surfaced, and demands a "radical change in the global economy" to save the human civilization.
Globalization and the increasing role of non-state actors have shifted the position of states, the traditional “main players” in global governance. However, whether this change undermines states is debatable. In one sense, states’ roles have somewhat diminished: Non-governmental entities – namely transnational corporations (TNC), but also global non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and others – have an increasing voice in global policy debates, which may lessen states’ influence in governmental affairs. But in several other key ways, states’ retain their powerful role. For example, states remain the key negotiators and entities in major global governance entities. Additionally, states retain compulsory power over their subjects or constituents, a form of control that new players in global governments have generally not obtained.
...ment and well-being. It is clear that without the ongoing presence and work of international organisations, the international system would be in a far worse and more chaotic state, with a far greater chance for a civil war to breakout. They also are a major player in helping develop states political and economical systems.
...rk together. Efforts such as the Montreal Protocol were largely successful in reducing the use of ozone-destroying chemicals, but many countries chose to not even participate in the Kyoto Protocol or other efforts. It appears that corporations do control many governments today.
According to Pease (2012), an international organization are conceived as formal institutions whose members are states and these are divided into two sub-groups called intergovernmental organizations (IGO) and non-governmental organizations (NGO). An IGO consists of states that voluntarily join, contribute financially, and assist in the decision making process. All of their members’ resolves, structures, and administrative protocols are clearly outlined in the treaty or charter. An example of an IGO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). First, all IGOs comes from an established government which can be further categorized by rules of membership which qualifies NATO because it is an alliance of about 30 members from North America and Europe. Secondly, IGOs can have limited participation in membership or restricted membership which qualifies NATO because this is a security agreement and it limits its involvement by confining it to an amalgamation of specific governmental, geographical, and martial considerations. Thirdly, IGOs are categorized by their purpose meaning the member can be multi or general purpose organization and they can take on any global issue (Pease, 2012). This qualifies NATO because over the years the organization has participated in several international war related issues such as the Korean War and the Cold War. Most recently, NATO, for the first time in history had to engage Article 5 of the treaty after the 9/11 attacks in New York City and the no-fly zone in the country of Libya.
According to the Commission on Global Governance (1995), global governance refers to “the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is the continuing process through which conflict or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken”. Some main actors involved in the process of global governance include states, international organizations (IOs), regional organizations (ROs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Global governance implements in various issue areas including security, economic deelopment, environmental protection and so on. Different states and organizations have different or even conflicting interests. Yet as globalisation continues and the world becomes more inter-connected than ever before, global governance or cooperation among different actors is increasingly taking a more significant role in the international stage. Some critics view global governance quite negatively as they believe that the current system lacks efficiency and effectiveness. In this paper, however, I shall argue that global governance is carried out more effectively in maintenance of world security and promotion of economic development while less effectively in environmental protection and preservation. Thus, despite limitations of the existing mechanism, global governance is still largely a postive development in world affairs.