Foreign Policy Donnelly

The foreign, military and economic policies of states, the intersections of these policies in areas of change or dispute, and the general structure of relations which they create, are all analysed in terms of aspirations to achieve national and/or international security. Security is most commonly associated with the alleviation of threats to cherished values (Williams; 2008). However this is a definition that is undesirably vague and a reflection of the inherent nature of security as an ‘essentially contested concept’ (Gallie; 1962). Security in the modern day context has many key concepts associated with it: uncertainty, war, terrorism, genocide and mass killing, ethnic conflict, coercion,

In “On the American Indians” Vitoria argues that there are few situations that justify a country to use humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention is defined as a military force, publicly stated to end the violation of human rights, against another state. Vitoria discredits the justification of humanitarian intervention in every case, unless one is intervening for an ally or a friend. In this paper, I will argue that his view is more plausible than it may at first appear.

Over the recent years the military has had a greater involvement with aid programs, this was most notable from her experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. Militarization of aid politicizes it for something that shouldn't be political. As the author believes humanitarian aid needs to exist in a neutral humanitarian space in order to remain its legitimacy and maintain close ties to the community level. From one example mentioned in Damned Nations, during the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, international aid agencies that worked closely with communities showed greater progress and effectiveness (Nutt, 92). In essence this administered a positive attitude towards westerners, and symbolized progress within hostile nations. Aid that is not militarized allows civilians to feel safe access to services and without the fear in putting themselves or their families at risk (Nutt, 92). In comparison military administered aid has proven to lack the same level of trust because civilians inherently become worried about being targeted as collaborators (Nutt, 92). In addition the militarization of aid proves to bring further danger towards humanitarian workers. “Over the past decade, attacks against aid workers have increased 177 percent, with reports of rape, violence, extortion, abduction, and killings” (Nutt, 94). The author states this was reflected from a misjudgment that involving armed militants into

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

The era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy as "the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states is no longer sufficient. Several alternative definitions are more helpful at highlighting aspects of foreign policy

Throughout post-WWII history, the United States has taken on the role of the world’s police. They feel the obligation to ensure the spread of their ideals for selfish and self-righteous reasons. John Mueller and Odd Arne Westad share their arguments as to what the United States’ actions have produced during the Cold War in Eastern Europe, Korea, and Vietnam and during the post-9/11 period in the Afghanistan and Iraq. While some of their arguments are valid, others are flawed.

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

The United States, it seems, serves as the unofficial international police. We attempt to impose our views on the world and then correct anyone that strays from our “status quo”. Through our diplomatic actions, America tries to preserve our national beliefs in exchange for the deterioration of another country’s. We were formed by the “global forces” who were attempting to create a global empire, but once we became our own nation, we became one of those forces (197).

It can be argued that a nation’s relations with other nations is primarily based on promoting its short and long term national interests, while reflecting its core values. In the process of promoting national interests abroad, a nation’s political, social, and moral values can be faithfully reflected, or become compromised/distorted to some degree when democracy and human rights are not advanced or are negatively affected. Many students are often astonished at how the U.S. has supported regimes that have not respected the rights of its own citizens, or its neighbors, and it can, and should, lead to very interesting conversations. A nation’s citizens, and rising citizens (our students), have a civic responsibility to seek to understand and critique their government’s foreign policy and examine the balance between the protection of vital interests and promoting core values, and to assess whether our policy makers are

The debate of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect have been discussed in international relations discourse more seriously within the last 60 years. The major historical developments which have led to an increase in the intensity of these debates have had beneficial and detrimental effects on Earth within the last 20 years. Several factors have contributed to this including; globalization, the rise in international accountability, an increase humanitarian consciousness to prevent major atrocities from occurring, the expansion of territorial to global responsibility of the western world, and the realization of the western world that regional sovereignty no longer accounts for national security. To develop an opinion

The key objections to humanitarian intervention include the conflict of interests with the self-interested state and sovereignty, the difficulty of internal legitimacy, the problematical Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, and the debate over legality of intervention. The issue of morality stands as an overarching issue which touches on all of these. Overall, one finds that despite a moral imperative to intervene, humanitarian intervention should not occur but is perhaps the lesser of a series of evils.

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will

Since norms are how states ought to act and behave, a shared moral assessment is key for establishing an international norm. Norm emergence, the first stage in the norm life cycle, relies purely on norm entrepreneurs convincing actors to support the norm (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998, 895). A shared moral assessment makes it easier to persuade states to support the norm. For instance, anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa became an international norm due to the shared moral assessment of racial equality (Klotz, 1995, 452). As there was international agreement of racial equality, there was also international agreement that racial discrimination, such as South Africa’s apartheid policy, was morally wrong (Klotz, 1995, 453). Thus, it was easier to convince the international community to impose economic sanctions against South Africa as a signal to end apartheid

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.