This paper seeks to give answers to such questions: Should the US have obtained permission from the UN to invade Iraq in 2003? Why or why not? What are the implications of the Iraq war for nation-state sovereignty? …
Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Download file to see previous pages
As much as the United States opted to become a member country of the United Nations and party to the ratification of internal laws and agreements, it was mandatory for it to obtain permission from the UN to invade Iraq in 2003.
This is mainly due to the voluntary decision of US leaders to become a member of the UN and thus, subject to all agreements enacted at the UN level. It is mandatory for all member-countries to abide by the rules and regulations of the UN most especially when these were made with the consent of its members, and US is obviously one of them.
There were several instances that the US have practiced their obligation before the members of the UN Security Council and one of these instances were when US Secretary Colin Powell presented the George Bush’s view on February 5 before the council . This meant that the US respected their role and the role of the UN with regards to the international conflict. Powell argued that Resolution 1441 of the Security Council aimed at disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Powell insisted that Iraq was already found guilty of material breach whatever hat may mean. But it would soon be established but no sooner than in 2002 that the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found no trace of evidence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq . ...
In addition, Article 51 arose from the need for imminent self-defense when Council deliberation can no longer be an applicable due to the urgency of an action. The US appeared exaggerating at that time to argue that Article 51 was applicable for Iraq to be invaded by force by the US. 2. What are the implications of the Iraq war for nation-state sovereignty? There are various negative implications  of the Iraq war for nation-state sovereignty but with contrasting meanings for nations depending on the level of military might. The Iraq war meant that the United States remain a superpower to reckon with. Its administration decides when, where, who, and why attack an individual, or a nation-state. This was a dangerous period of democracy and international relations as US through its president George Bush defied the mandate of the international body when it comes to actions beyond the US borders and territory. It flouted its force and might among the organization of nations, and together with the United Kingdom which supported the US, they showed that their intents backed by might and a blinded military are above any kind of international law and understanding. It acted like the Nazi Germany for occupying other nations. The international laws that they tried to use as an excuse to invade Iraq were lame and a breach of UN membership. They have brazenly shown that for economic reasons that will benefit their oil magnates – British’ Shell and 14 other contractors . For the part of Iraq and other nations that future US leaders will have their hot eyes on like Iran and North Korea, and the rest of other nation states in the world who cannot stand the force of a superpower, the implication
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
The modern discipline of international relations takes into account a diverse range of related disciplines that can affect the bilateral relations between two states, for example economics, history and culture. Policy making by the USA vis-a-vis a Middle Eastern nation like Egypt would take into account all of the above factors and disciplines while studying the present scenario on the ground and then framing a policy that would serve the interests of both nations.
Table of Contents 1 Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Thesis Statement 3 Expansive Detail of the Event 4 Arguments 5 Realist Theory 5 Liberal theory 7 Conclusion 9 References 10 11 Introduction International relations can be defined as an expanded antagonism between the realist, liberal and radical traditions.
To better appreciate the international approaches taken by countries in the third and second worlds, the author analyzes the various international relations theories that exist. In the constructivist’s view, the world is basically a ‘social construct’, which is supported by an in-depth comprehension of international structure.
303). Wilden's referring to the "external" goal of the theory assumes that theories bear in themselves the subconscious information, which is falling outside the limits of their textual context. An effective method of revealing of political and normative implied sense of theories is a research of ostensibly minor areas for them.
Hence, it becomes highly important to understand International Relations. International Relations is the study of the interaction between the various actors that take part in international politics which includes the countries, states, non-government organizations, international organizations, local governments, bureaucrats and individuals.
On the other hand, terms established through the international society are under applied to a certain historical narrative and theoretical standpoints that are derived from historical narratives. Nevertheless, the paper will provide with an argument, critique and evidence in
How can we use Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave as a metaphor for thinking about International Relation today? Plato was the first to establish a theory which was considered to include both the political power and the political leadership legitimization.
6 Pages(1500 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Save Your Time for More Important Things
Let us write or edit the essay on your topic
with a personal 20% discount.