His argument against free trade is sound, however through other readings, especially Moonhawk Kim’s on the GATT/WTO, it can be seen that the theory of free trade is still evolving at the international level and that by sticking with it and having States being willing to work with each other it will end up being able to accomplish all that it is theorized to do. The argument has been made that globalization in inevitable and free trade is the best option for States to employ for their economies. Fletcher, however, sees this as a great lie. In chapter one of his book Free trade doesn’t work: What should replace it and why, he begins with his argument against globalization and then finishes with the faults of free trade and what he calls lies that are told about to in an attempt to connive States this is the path to take. Fletcher begins his argument with globalization.
States struggle to attain new gains alone, so one of the common ways of achieving new gains in international environment is cooperation. In addition cooperation helps states to obtain new and common advantages. Generally, cooperating states perceive both collective and conflicting interests, thus they may disagree about more or less of their interests (Zartman & Touwal, 2010). Mostly, states prefer common interests with less cost, and cooperation plays a vital role for attaining the common interests among the
Hence, this highlights the importance of international law in foreign policy and the pursuit of both hard and soft power. In essence, I would argue that contrary to common perception, international law is of paramount importance to foreign policy. This is because although international law curbs the expansion of hard power, it promotes the pursuit of soft power. In the international arena today, soft power trumps hard power and hence, I would argue that international law is more important than ever. Therefore, it is certainly not an “is an unnecessary distraction from the pursuit of power in the international arena”.
They are trusted more by the people than governments, this being because they bring legitimacy and put pressure on governments and intergovernmental organizations. For this reason and many more, collective cooperation is necessary. It is more of a reactionary measure than a proactive measure. Scholars like Thomas Weiss, Parag Khana, Nicolas Berggreuen and Nathan Gardels are some of the contemporary minds that would agree with solid and cohesive global governance. The benefits of globalization can become less marginal and more equal with nations that are less developed in areas such as education, human development, economic and social conditions and list goes on and on.
The situation in today’s society is that we are becoming more united, and sharing more ideas and giving ideas, and helping others, we are all interconnected now whether it be economically, or socially we cannot just stop all this exchange and go back to in my opinion is an isolationist type of way of running, and we are too depended on each other globally now to go back to this. The end results are as given globalism although very flawed still has a much bigger positive aspect about it and this policy, is the way to go and to raise and have strong political, and socio-economic
It is still important for each and every state to hear information directly and with limited misinterpretation, just because communication can be instantaneous, does not mean all states will reach out to every other state in the world system. International organizations present opportunities for all voices to be heard. Furthermore, formal assemblies provide a chance for non-government organizations and government organizations to educate states on issues which they believe are
However, if states take into account the principles of categorical imperative, there will be probably no conflict or chaos in the world politics. In conclusion, when the principles of categorical imperative are concerned, we easily realise that they depend on each other and they help us to evaluate the actions, which are moral. These principles of categorical imperative have the same goal that is being moral. For to be moral, the actions should be universal and should not have the aim of using others in order to gain advantages. If rulers conduct through the principles of categorical imperative then, it is obvious that the world would be more peaceful and fair.
To be clear, this does not mean that these material factors have any less value, or that these social constructs are any less powerful. This is relevant to international agreements because material factors like the military and economy have a large effect. Material factors often are what leads states into agreements, especially when it comes to trade and other financial agreements. Material factors also can encourage states to comply with agreements. Constructivism simply holds that these are still social constructs.
The future of humanity depends upon such a solution in the face of current woes. Overthrown to most intimate structures, the contemporary society sets itself again on the principle of globality. An older global tendency is asking its right to existence. Indisputably, the ampleness and the gravity of the problems confronting the humankind need a global approach, in order to find the saving solution. But "globality" or "mondialization" does not mean a uniform and indistinct totality swarming with the slogan of economic efficiently, no matter how important would it be.
International institutions would help solve these problems with the rules and regulations that each state would have to follow in order to progress any more with their interests. This is a big point in a liberalist's theory: each state gains something not mattering on quantity but quality to the country (referring to Doyle's article). So there it is. That's how they all connect. International institutions won't completely dissolve uneasiness in reliability in other states, but it will for sure help bring states closer together than they are now.