National Sovereignty and International Relations - Assignment Example

Political Science research paper Affiliation Question A is a territory that has a political structure and which is governed by a government. A state is a nation that has one leader and which has marked it boundaries. The government exercises its power and authority over the state and protects the state from external forces (Duncan, 2010 pg 121). State-A state actor is a person carrying out a particular mandate on behalf of a particular nation. A state actor thus carries the responsibilities of the state and it takes responsibility for his or her actions that pertains his/her duties (Duncan, 2010). National sovereignty- Sovereignty, on the other hand, is where the state has absolute autonomous. Sovereignty take make their own decision that come centrally from their own country (Duncan, 2010 pg, 114). They create their rules and regulations which are independent and do not have to get approved by any other nation. The rules that the state makes with regards to daily operations are not influenced by other countries and when the other countries try to interfere the sovereign state stands it grounds and does not negotiate or become intimidated by any other countries(Duncan, 2010 pg, 114). Ethics-There is no standard definition of ethics as many people refer to it in different approaches (Ethan & Joel, 2009). Some define it in terms of human rights, democracy and others justice. Ethics is standards that are set and accepted by all people on the basis of morality and help to protect individual rights. Question 2 Two theories in international relations are realism and idealism. Realism is believed the oldest theory that explains international relations. The theory is based on the subdivision of the world into nation-states that are headed by rational governments whose interest is the protection of the states and nations (Joel, 2009, pg 4). The classical realist argument is that the national government aim is increasing the states power. By increasing the power of the state, the realist believes that the state will have better control of its own territory. On the other hand, neo-realists believe that states can have better control and increase their own security without necessarily being hungry to gain more power. They believe if the state is safe then, it has a better control of its own territory (Joel, 2009 pg 3). The basic assumption on the international system is that it is anarchic. International system is a combination of the independent state. In this case, there is no embracing outside powers and the independent states makeup their own rules and have been in charge of their domestic affairs. The realists attribute this state of affairs to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, although this is debatable. The anarchic system is not affected by international organization, and multinational corporations have minimal interference with running the country. The countries nation –states only fight for their own territory and thus their contribution to the international affair is minimal. Another basic assumption is that all the states are rational in their operations and that their main aim is to survive (Joel, 2009). They concentrate much on ensuring national security by using their military. The realists believe that there are no moral values in international politics, they hold to the aspect that states cannot be driven by any other sense that than survival. Realism main strength is seen when engaging with powerful economies since they are not influenced by international politics. The main gap in realism theory is that it fails to explain how combination of different states makes them have diff foreign policies. Idealism also referred to as liberalism is different from realism. The idealists tend to see opportunities and cooperation in situations where the realists see competition and conflict. The idealist believes in world economy, cooperation and spread in democracy to protect international interests. They believe in international system and by its own internal order. The idealists, unlike the realist play a great role in world politics (Joel, 2009 pg 3). The non-state actors have great influence in globally politic in the case of idealists. The ultimate goal of idealism is enhancing international peace. One of the policies of doing so is by propelling the growth of international organizations and continued acceptance of international laws provided by the liberals. According to liberalists, states are concerned with the achievement of absolute gains rather than relative gains. The main strength of idealism is that it offers a good chance to test the ability of non-state actors. Therefore, it puts democracy as one of its international objective and aims at ensuring a peaceful cooperation (Joel, 2009 pg 5). Comparing the two theories and the extent of globalization, then idealism is a better theory in the modern world as its goal of ensuring world peace is more fundamental to international relations than that of realism that aims at only ensuring internal security. Question 3 Ethical issues are those issues that affect people terms of their human rights. Ethics is standard that people have set for themselves and which are supposed to be followed that promote morality. Those issues that do not upload morality then it mean that they are unethical (Duncan, 2010 pg 115). Ethical issues affect most government especially in international relations where they tend to define the nature of engagements. Humanitarian intervention is where some nations especially the west offer supports in cases of any catastrophe that affects another country. Mainly the poor countries guest some form of assistance from the developed economies in the world. Rieff argues out that this is just a sop by the western economies to avoid dealing directly with issues affecting the third world economies (Ethan & Joel, 2009).. The difference between sovereignty and autonomy is not easy to determine. The two terms are much related in international relation. Autonomy is that state where is free to make any decisions it plans to undertake without any form of coercion or influence. The autonomous decision though has to be in accordance to laws set prior of the state becoming autonomous. A good example of a state that is autonomous is Puerto Rico. Sovereignty, on the other hand, is where the state has absolute autonomous. Sovereignty take make their own decision that come centrally from their own country (Ethan & Joel, 2009). They create their rules and regulations which are independent and do not have to get approved by any other nation. The rules that the state makes with regards to daily operations are not influenced by other countries and when the other countries try to interfere the sovereign state stands it grounds and does not negotiate or become intimidated by any other countries. Humanitarian intervention is controversial because as Rieff argues out that this is just a sop by the western economies to avoid dealing directly with issues affecting the third world economies (Ethan & Joel, 2009). In addition, every country is a sovereign state and thus it must make decisions for itself and ensure it can protect its country. In the course of humanitarian intervention, the right of citizens in a minority country that has no adequate power may be violated in disguise of offering humanitarian intervention (Ethan & Joel, 2009). The process of humanitarian assistance should have good laws that will assist in ensuring that the interceptors practice ethics. 4 Human rights The origin of human rights is regarded as relatively recent; however, any historical research of human rights reveals how indeterminate the evolution of human rights has been. Human rights are the offspring of natural rights that evolved from the perception of natural law. The nature law has played a dominant role in western political theory for centuries, through ensuring standard of higher-order morality against other laws are adjusted (Duncan, 2010). Human rights can be described universal. An existing basis in international law offers legality to the human rights movement and an instrument to hold governments to account. The UN was established with significant effect from Non-Western countries, giving it legality Jack Donnelly evaluates the human rights nature and the perception of “relative universality”. Donnelly argues that human rights are not universal due to undeniable diversity among cultures in the contemporary world. Even though, the indication of "relative universality" seems paradoxical, it implies that it is unbearable to classify human rights as strictly universal as they do not exist and happen everywhere within all things. Individuals might agree on the lawful jargon of certain laws, nonetheless disagree on the religious, moral and philosophical implications (Ethan & Joel, 2009 pg, 204).Consequently, it is significant to have a balance between universalism and relativism. Even though, many have accepted Donnellys human rights concept and appreciate his understanding of cultural complexity, many scholars disagree with certain aspects of his theory One critic argues that Donnelly perception fails to address difficult issues such as how to judge competing rights, how to address irrational views, how to clarify the origin of reasonable opinions or, beyond such obvious cases as genocide and slavery, how to get the overlapping consensus (Ethan & Joel, 2009 pg, 205). This may appear confusing, and, however, his major argument is that Donnellys "relative universality" belief does not go far enough to answers on how to handle a cultures execution of contradictory rights. Inappropriately, other scholars have not been able to present a theory that exceeds Donnellys theory (Duncan, 2010,)pg 205). Langlois makes the point that there is no broad and deep international consensus on the definition of human rights because there is no wide and deep international consensus on what values people adhere to (Ethan & Joel, 2009 pg, 206). Cultural relativity is a fact. Cultures differ, dramatically, across space and time. It is a set of doctrines, which imbue cultural relativity with prescriptive force. For ones purposes, people can distinguish substantive and methodological cultural relativism (Ethan & Joel, 2009 pg, 206). Among mid-twentieth century anthropologists, methodological cultural relativism was popular. They supported a fundamentally non-judgmental analysis of cultures to a free anthropology from insentient, and even conscious biases entrenched in judging and describing other societies according to contemporary Western values and categories (Riffat, 2009, pg 1). Such point of view leads directly to anthropological or historical relativity of human rights recognition. In human rights discussions, cultural relativism appears as a substantive normative doctrine, which requires respect for cultural differences. The Universal Declaration norms are obtainable as having no normative force in the different cultural traditions face. Practice is to be examined entirely through the culture standards in question (Ethan & Joel, 2009, 206). Islam has laid down fundamental and universal rights for people, as a whole be respected and observed under all circumstances. The fundamental rights are related to Islamic belief and faith since they are exquisitely ordained (Riffat, 2009, pg 5) Therefore, human rights in Islam are religious responsibilities, meaning that it is compulsory for every Muslim to restore them and protect them if violated. Islam states that all people are equal in terms of their human rights as well as equality before the Islamic code of law. Its legal and judgments penalties are valid to all classes of people and races without any difference, and without any individual, nation or group acquiring privilege or immunity (Riffat, 2009, pg 5). All human beings are entitled to their honor, reputation and integrity during their life and after their death. Islam convicts the abuse of position, authority, and power, and commands individuals to assist oppressed persons even using force when necessary (Riffat, 2009, 6). All people in an Islamic society, irrespective of his religious or faith affiliation, social status, has certain immutable rights. Human Rights has made the World Politics more Ethical, through becoming part of the day-to-day language of diplomacy in the whole universe. 5 Just War Theory It is a doctrine that ensures war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, which should be met for a war to be just. The theory is also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics studied by ethicists, military leaders, policy makers and theologians (Ethan & Joel, 2009, 115). There have differences between Islam and just war theory, in Islam jihad can only be initiated by the caliph or his delegate. It must be committed in the name of God and only for freedom from tyranny. Women, old and sick, and children should not be harmed (Riffat, 2009). Moreover, crops and trees should not be damaged and should be fought until the enemy lays down his arms. On the other hand, in just war a legitimate authority must wage war. The war must perpetuate a just cause. The war cannot target non-combatants but must try all peaceful means first. Moreover, violence must be proportionate. Just War principle in Islam The classical Islamic ideas of Islamic Jihad in the sense of warfare do not come from the holy Quran. The term jihad is used to refer the believers inner struggles for righteousness, and from the jurists of the early Abbasid times, when it was established in the perspectives of an effort to explain the Islamic communities nature and their affairs with the non-Islamic world (Mohamend, 2007 pg, 4)Vital to these perceptions is a legal division of the universe into two realms: the abode of Islam or the Dar al-Islam, and the rest of the world referred as the Abodeor Dar Al-harb of war (Mohamend, 2007 pg, 5) Criteria for just war include the Principles of Jus in Bello, the Jus Ad Bellum Convention as well as Jus post bellum. The Jus Ad Bellum Convention The justice of wars principles is held to be having a reasonable chance of success, having just cause, declared by an appropriate authority, being a last resort, possessing right intention, and being proportional to the means used. One can detect that the principles are not exclusively consequentiality as they invoke the concerns of both models. Whereas this offers just war theory with the benefit of flexibility, strict ethical framework lack means that the principles are open to broad understandings (Ethan & Joel, 2009 pg 117). The Principles of Jus in Bello The guidelines of just conduct within war fall under the two comprehensive principles of proportionality and discrimination. The discrimination principle concerns legitimate targets in a war, whereas the proportionality principle concerns how much force is appropriate morally (Ethan & Joel, 2009 pg 117 ). Moreover, a third principle can be included to the traditional two, namely the responsibility principle that demands an investigation of where accountability lies in war. Jus post bellum Following the war cessation, three prospects emerge either the army has been victorious, has been defeated, or agreed to a ceasefire. Justice principles may then be practical to each situation. The jus post bellum, the principle of discrimination should be engaged to avoid imposing punishment on non-combatants or innocents, the rights of the defeated deserve respect. The claims of victory should be relative to the character of the war, compensatory claims should be tempered through the principles of proportionality and discrimination, and controversially, the need to re-educate or rehabilitation aggressor should also be considered (Ethan & Joel, 2009 pg 117) . In conclusion, preventive war can be described as part of just war. This is a war, which prevent another party from attacking the other party and is known to be planned. Question 6 Definition Terrorism can be described of as the threatened application of force to civilians with the aim of bringing about social or political change. Moreover, terrorism, especially the suicide terrorism can be thought to be a rational act performed specifically because of the impact it will have, such as confusion or fear (David, 2004 pg 148). Challenges in Defining Terrorism Finding an appropriate and well-accepted meaning of what terror is becomes very difficult. There are several confrontations that face experts and scholars when defining the terms “terrorism” and “terrorists”. Differing cultures and backgrounds of individuals defining terror and the differing accounts are amongst the several challenges that face those wishing to define terror (Ethan & Joel, 2009, pg753). Moreover, labeling an individual or group as a terrorist is considered offensive, particularly in the present politically proper environment, potentially detrimental to those in the political field (David, 2004 pg 146). However, labeling an individual as a terrorist can serve a political rationale as in the case of misinformation towards a war effort, or to assist in the definition of an enemy. However, the major problem with the inability to have a wide acceptance of defining terrorism is that it becomes impracticable to devise or implement global accord against terrorism. The problem with the available definitions is that they are so many and differ so widely, it is hard to decide a more accurate one. Each country, state, nation, and government has their individual definition. John Horgan points out that the most satisfactory definition of terrorism is the threat of use or use of violence to attempt to get some effect in a political context (Ethan & Joel, 2009 752, 753). However, after mentioning, researchers go past this definition, and the problems arise. Another problem is individuals own biases, opinions, and stereotypes. In the United States (US), most of the citizens would relate a terrorist to a person from the Middle East. However, an individual living in Iraq or Afghanistan could have another idea of a terrorist as a soldier from the US. Therefore, this shows that a man’s terrorist is a freedom fighter for another man and supplementary shows that how individuals show themselves and others are totally unusual than reality. These set stereotypes and biases further confront finding an acceptable definition of terror. Research study about terrorism is also a challenge in definition of terrorism. Rinehart (4) points out that those literature works about terrorism possess an inflexible prejudice of a ‘problem-solution’ direction in which an individual is merely trying to substantiate a set of counterterrorist regulatory. The research is erratic because as previously mentioned; fixed stereotypes and biases tend to be involved. Moreover, there is insufficient research into the reason behind terrorism, and also the psychology of terrorists by real psychologists (Ethan & Joel, 2009 pg 753). The shortage of the prime, first-hand study and the private nature of the available data pose a great challenge in definition of terror. To effectively define terrorism, the following points must be addressed; Whether resistance terrorism and the government terrorism are part of a similar phenomenon. The border amid terrorism and other types of political violence Is terrorism a subcategory of Violence, coercion, Influence or power? Unraveling terrorism from simple acts of crime, from open war flanked by yielding groups and from activities clearly arising out of intellectual ill health. The link between terrorism and guerrilla warfare. Can terrorism be lawful? What justifies its use? The affiliation between terrorism and crime. Non-malfeasance This principle is defined as failure to inflict harm or evil on others. Examples of regulations supporting this principle are "do not impose suffering on others" and "do not kill." However, after being faced with the September 11 2001 tragedy, and other acts of terror worldwide, the principle expanded its meaning to “do not terrorize or kill naive parsons or citizens with wild abandon. No rules of just war, no health care ethics and no known religion that condone such actions. Beneficence In the resistance to the doing harm to others, is the ethical belief of beneficence. This code includes doing of good, prevention of harm, and removal of harm. Rules supporting this code are "rescue persons in danger” as well as "protect and preserve other peoples’ rights." Distributive Justice This refers to equitable, fair and proper allocation resolute by justified standards that constitute the terms of social support. Ethical challenges transpire with distributive justice in an area with competition for limited resources. Costs imposed by global terrorism combined with those of preventing the attacks are exorbitant. Sovereignty Terrorism, being an act of political aggression aimed not only at innocent citizens, affects the legitimacy of the state. Terrorism, in the 21st century, is slowly moving away from direct condition funding toward more unstructured groups, often with accessibility to resources of the state but less likely to be controlled by the state itself. In an increasingly global environment, the conventional state-centric method of response to terror will not be adequate and may be counterproductive (). Therefore, to be effective, strategies used by nations to curb terrorism must change fundamentally. They should use a flexible and broad global strategy that seamlessly incorporate global economic, legal, political, diplomatic, military and cultural elements. International terrorism can destroy the integrity of the state through undermining its aptitude to protect its civilians from direct attacks. Question 7 Every workplace impacts the environment either negatively or positively to an extremely large degree. The management of big business becomes eco-friendly when it comes to matters of use of energy to cool and heat the building and bring products into it. Removing waste from it has a significant impact on the community and the planet. The major environmental issues regarding big business include management of industrial waste, sustainable growth of raw materials and management of air and water emissions (Ethan & Joel, 2009 pg 381). The above issues affect big business because regulations require them to change procedures and equipment and meet the imposed standards that cost the business much money. However, several businesses undertake stricter measures in an effort to conserve the environment. The businesses pay for the proactive and protective environmental measures that try to recover the expenditure through goodwill of the consumer or consumer base received from an environmentally friendly policy (Ethan & Joel, 2009, pg 381). Local politics is related to big businesses and one among the most significant factors for the success of the state is its economic policy. Economic development and the growth of steady, competitive surroundings for organizations is a top concern for national and local administrations. Nevertheless, international institutions, such as state monopolies or trade bans on some fields of the economy can have a severe impact on the world of business (Ethan & Joel, 2009 pg 387). Local politics in a state affects big organizations and could initiate a risk factor that can lead to a loss. In addition, they could transform because of the policies and actions of governments and international institutions at all levels, from the local to the federal level. Big businesses should be ready to deal with the fallouts of trade politics. In the community development practice, organizations and practitioners play different roles in the implementation, planning and diffusion of the projects and ideas that they want to endorse. Some of these responsibilities serve to make the communities more powerful, though others can lead to their disempowerment. Most of the big businesses are monopolies and offer direct results of free market systems that generate high profits. The business concentrates most of the available resources on their hands eliminating competition. This leads to lack of employment to the local populations, thereby leading to widespread poverty. Big businesses on utilities and other services like transport can have an unpleasant effect on the standard of living of the average person (Ethan & Joel, 2009, 385). Transmission of power lines and plants require long-term investment. Moreover, when transportation is in place, it is impractical for another business to come up with their own power transmission system and provide power at a lower rate. The same applies to airlines and the other big corporations because of the enormous initial investment and prerequisite for those services. Few businesses would control and ensure that their owners’ lucrative while the working class would remain with enough money to keep buying those goods to fit their requirements. An economy set up like this will discourage any progress for the betterment of the community because everyone will suffer. There is no point to have technology if the enormous mainstream of the populace cannot use it. This will slowly lead to inferior living standards for community members. Question 8 The event of September 2011 attack in the US has been one of the occurrences that still show political Islam and security issues in Islam. This occurred after the US offered humanitarian intervention to ensure that there was political stability in the Middle East. The move by the US attracted the Islam opponents to launch the attack (Mohamend, 2007pg, 1). The Global war was another response that shows the emergence of political Islam. To understand the perspective of Islam in international relation, it requires one to have an in depth understanding of the relationship between politics and Islam. According to the Islam political view, politics is an inseparable aspect of Islam. Two main concepts are essential in understanding Islam politics (Mohamend, 2007pg, 2). The first ideology is that Islam is a way of life. Islam is a comprehensive way in life that rules all the overall human life. This is seen in books like etiquette and fighter fact that Islam is a way of life; it includes politics since it is also a way of life. Therefore, it believes whole in the way of life and it rejects person that practices it in parts rather than wholly. The second is the ideology of man as God’s khalifah of the whole world. Man is supposed to submit fully to God and follow all obligations. There is one has to respect what God says as inscribed in the Quran and as describe by His prophet (Mohamend, 2007pg, 3).Doing what one is obligated means that one establishes God’s order and thus will get favors from God. References Abudulahi Ahmed (2001) Islam, Islamic law and the dilemma of cultural legitimacy for Universal Human rights. Donnelly, J. (1986). International human rights: a regime analysis. MIT Press. Langlois, A. J. (2001). The politics of justice and human rights. Asia Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law, 2, 138-143. David K Linnan. (2004) Enemy Combats. Terrorism and armed Conflict Law. A Guide to the Issues. Ethan B. Kapstein & Joel H. Rosenthal (2009) Ethics And International relations Duncan bell (2010) Ethics and world politics. OUP Oxford Joel H. Rosenthal (2009) Ethics and international Affairs A Reader. Mohamend H. Hassan (2007) War peace or neutrality: An overview of Islamic polity’s Baisi of Inter-State relations. Riffat Hassan (2009) Are Human Rights Compatible with Islam? The Issue of the Rights of Women in Muslim Communities Read More