POLS170 Group 3

  It is important for the United States to work with the United Nations and other international organizations. The previous president of the United States acted independently from the international community by pulling the United States out of multiple international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord, the World Health Organization. Donald Trump did more to harm the United States’ standing with the international community than Bush. First, even though the US is one of the world’s largest emitters of carbon dioxide, his administration chose to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord. This decision placed the United States in unfortunate company, as we were one of the few states in the world not committed to solving the greatest threat to the world, climate change. Trump pulled out of the accord because he thought that it was harming the United States. However, by doing this, he hurt both the US and the rest of the world, as the United States government was no lon...

     The ICC is an international organization with a mission to prosecute individuals for high international crimes. In total, the court has indicted 45 people for crimes ranging from war crimes to genocide. While  the ICC on paper appears as a very effective and positive institution in our world, there is a great deal of  reform that needs to take place for the institution to actually become effective in its mission.        The first shortcoming of the ICC as an organization is that major powerhouse nations are not involved  in the organization, which raises questions about the legitimacy of the organization. Firstly, the lack of  presence in the ICC from the United States, China, Russia, and most of the rest of Asia means that the ICC  does not have the backing of major world powers, and that a lot of things and crimes that go on in those  countries are left unchecked. Another shortcoming and poor result of this lack of ...

The United Nations was originally created in order to maintain peace and security. It is an assembly of a variety of nations that all work together to maintain order. The UN has a variety of councils that specialize in different areas to ensure efficient work and action. One of those councils is the security council. This council is designed to look at global threats and help neutralize them. There is a large debate on why or why not this council should continue to operate. First they operate under international law. This widley differs from the idea of law that most people have and the difference is an important distinction. First, while it is written like traditional law there is no country or entity to back it up. This is crucial because there is no prosecution, so no jail time or fines. So knowing that the security council operates under international law, what is their purpose and how do they back up their actions?  The security council is made up of five permanent countries a...

       The International Criminal Court is a flawed system that depends upon cooperation to put into effect its accusations and carry through on its convictions. It only truly has control over members of the International Criminal Court, which does not include the United States. The International criminal court has the potential to hold countries accountable for their war crimes and to foster international peace through more cooperation. This begs the question if the United States would benefit from joining the International Criminal Court? I believe it would not be in the United States best interest to join the International Criminal Court. The International Criminal Court is unstable and based heavily on power. The addition of the United States would most likely not create the stability the International Criminal Court would need to truly be effective. The United States would be joining an unpredictable force that could cause problems with the United States in...

The article The Principles of Embedded Liberalism: Social Legitimacy and Global Capitalism and especially the chapter Embedding the Activities of Transnational Corporations, written by Rawi Abdelal and John G. Ruggie, reminded me strongly of discussions about a referendum in Switzerland in the year 2020. Abdelal and Ruggie draw attention in the article to the fact that that subsidiaries of parent companies act as distinct legal entities. It has the consequence that the parent companies do not get held accountable for the wrongdoings of their subsidiaries. The referendum on which Switzerland voted in November 2020 wanted to change that and introduce extended liability for Swiss companies. Abdelal and Ruggie would have been big supporters of this initiative. An alliance of aid agencies and environmental organizations, including UNICEF, Amnesty International, and Greenpeace, launched the initiative back in 2015 by collecting the necessary 100’000 signatures to let the Swiss people vote o...

Madison K.  There had been a widespread debate about whether or not Iran should be allowed nuclear weapons. Both sides use compelling arguments as to why and why no these dangerous weapons should be placed in the hands of Iran. On one hand it can be argued that these weapons will shift the powers of the world back into balance. Why should one country get the privilege of controlling such weapons and not others? Kenneth Waltz also argues that the fear surrounding these countries is irrational and needs to be critically looked at. There is no way that a country would expedite their own destruction just to show the world of their capabilities. Leaders must be more rational than that. On the other hand the fear that these weapons will get into the wrong hands or be used for bad is very supported. The leader of Iran at the times was Saddam Hussein. He was definitely an extremist and in the eyes of many could use these for destruction. How could the world trust a man who killed thousands...

      When considering if Iran should be in possession of nuclear weapons, it is important to consider the  region that they are located in, and additionally the history of behavior that they have initiated. The very  argument which tackles and weighs up whether or not Iran should be nuclearized is described in Colin  Kahl's  One Step Too Far  where he argues that it would be very ill-advised to allow Iran to be in possession  of nuclear weapons, especially in today's political climate. I agree with Kahl's viewpoint in this instance,  and my determination that Iran should not have nuclear weapons is heavily influenced by the instability in  the region and the history as well. In the Middle East as a whole region, there is a lot of instability, and  terrorist groups flourish throughout the region. In recent memory, groups such as the Taliban have been  able to get better footing in countries such as Afghanistan due to gover...

Nicolas Grünig The results of the 20-year mission in Afghanistan are disappointing for the USA and its NATO partners. The chaotic evacuation was an infamous high point that has shown the failure again with all clarity. From every defeat, one has to learn lessons. After what happened, it seems almost impossible that the U.S. will in the future be able to win over its population for foreign military missions with unclearly defined goals, as in Afghanistan. America and the West have grown tired of intervention. The era of missionary world improvement has come to an end. Europe will also learn its lessons from the events in Kabul. The events in Afghanistan can act as a catalyst for introducing an effective security policy without the heavy dependence on the United States.   After the chaotic evacuation out of Kabul, a realization that the European countries had is how dependent they are on the U.S. When the U.S. withdrew from Kabul Airport, the Europeans had to leave, whether they want...

The Middle East would be worse off if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon. Like Kahl, I believe that by possessing a nuclear weapon, Iran will become more aggressive, and there will be an increase in the likelihood of conflict in the region. Like Kahl in his response to Waltz, I believe that by possessing a nuclear weapon, Iran would act more belligerent in the Middle East. Even without a nuclear weapon, Iran utilizes its relationship with Hezbollah and other terrorist groups in order to expand its influence and flex its muscles in the region. Iran’s relationship with terrorist groups has led it into conflict with states like Israel in the past. However, because Israel possesses nuclear weapons, and almost complete US support, the Iranians have been unable to take full advantage of the Middle East. Israel knows this, as they have conducted operations like assassinations and missile strikes against Iran in order to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Once Iran gained nuclear capabi...

  Suzy Hannigan      The idea of mutually assured destruction creates a false sense of security for many countries because mutually assured destruction only works if the powers are equal. This means that for mutually assured destruction to actually be a deterrent there has to be a reasonable assumption that if one power was to attack they would both inevitably destroy one another. Any other distribution of power could not guarantee mutually assured destruction and therefore, proves that it does not actually exist. Mutually assured destruction gives the illusion that states are protected from nuclear weapons but in reality an attack could happen at any time especially to states that do not have second strike capability. Nuclear weapons may not be used between major powers because the destruction it would cause would be astronomical, but there is really nothing stopping major powers from using nuclear weapons against smaller powers to send a message, especially when...