[ Show ]
[ Shrink ]
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 14:48:04 09/24/03 Wed
Subject: POSC 170
John Sa’omoana Tuhaika
Date: September 24, 2003
The Real World Order
by Anne Marie Slaughter
Slaughter is responding to the idea that the new world order announced by George Bush is the answer to world problems. The high-hope is based on the idea that the international organizations such the united nations, headed by the United States is the only way to international peace and harmony, as it has supports of most of the world powers. However, she argued, “infeasible at best and dangerous at worse,” because this organizations lack a more centralized government, which can make sound and effective decision. She also argued that the absence of structured-institutions and lack of members of all countries of the world makes international institutions fragile and weak.
Slaughter argued that the United Nations in particular is not effective because it is can never operate separately from the most powerful nations that are backing it. However, the problem here is that major powers who are playing a vital part in the U.N. cannot give their full power or even their sovereignties to empower the organization.
This is crucial because U.N. failed to stop United States from going to war against Iraq. Even if powerful countries such as France, Germany, Russia and China disapproved of it. Because U.S. was supported by a number of allies in U.N., particularly Britain, it was able to invade Iraq. If the U.N. had an a more powerful government and centralized government making decision, U.S. would have been pushed to the side and an invasion of Iraq wouldn’t have occurred.
Earlier on in one of the readings, as Waltz quoted Fox who described international politics as “politics with the absence of government” ((Fox. 1959. P.35) 71) and describing as decentralized and anarchic.
But then she highlighted the liberal internationalism’s view of so called “the new medievalism” which embraces the idea of a creating ‘international rules and institutions to solve states’ problems’ and this will put an end to ‘nation states.’ This may have some problems if governments still hold on to their states’ sovereignty and allow little from international institutions into their own state affairs.
Furthermore, this seems to be a good idea as it would punish world extremists. It will empower international organization by creating rule-making institutions to effectively handle international affairs, instead of just watching powerful nations doing what they want to do, with little respect to, for instance U.N. This will make the world a better place.
But there’s the dilemma, as long as U.S. is on the top of this uni-polar system, or in theory, on the top of the world political food chain, they will do anything to hang in there. Such international law will merely create a multi-polar system whereby people live together according to laws and treaties, and U.S. will not support it.
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
- Void -- Anonymous, 21:41:58 03/12/08 Wed