Poltics

The Key question confronting world politics in the 21st Century is how should the world be governed: through the traditional nation state or through international organizations? One being the traditional approach used for several centuries, stemming from the Realist school of though where the nation state is the primary actor. The other, stemming from the Idealist school of thought which focuses on a broader field; world problems.

I feel the world would should be governed through international organizations. We cannot deny that the world is undergoing globalization and one country’s problems can easily become our own. While there are strengths and weaknesses to both the approaches, I feel the more appropriate in this day in age would be to lean more towards international organizations. It’s ability to address world problems is one of the reasons why I feel that international organizations are the best way to govern the world. [There is wise counsel given by Shakespeare in Henry , part : “Now join your hands, and with your hands your hearts”] (Rourke, p.159). It is quite possible for international organizations to develop into the stepping stones for a larger form of “political loyalty and activity” (Rourke, p.159) This is a characteristic that nation-states lack, some even say that it could lead to the downfall of the nation-state. Nation-states tend to worry more about what will hurt their State, which is important, but it is also important not to forget about worldly issues. Nation States alone cannot deal with a huge issue, such as the AIDS epidemic in Africa. “AIDS has become the greatest transnational health disaster since the bubonic plague epidemic” (Rourke, p.155). With increasing technology and the ability to be able to be on the other side of the world within 30 hours, it is becoming easier and easier for disease to spread. IGO’s can better deal with this issue than nation.states.

International Organizations promote human rights. “With the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the UN has promoted many agreements on political, economic, social, and cultural rights”.(Rourke, p.186) The UN has used it’s power in preventing the abuse of human rights, and to end the sexual predation that is big business in some parts of the world. It also has worked to prevent the over-working of children in some parts of the world.

International organizations help the enviroment. It started with the UN Conference on Enviroment and Development in 1992, The UN has helped stop or slow down the degradation of the enviroment., they are even able to prevent the development of some projects based on whether or not it is harmful to the biosphere.

While the international organizations has it’s strengths, it is not as strong as it may seem (at least not at the moment). Many scholars feel that one day International Organizations will be the primary actor in governing the world, but as for right now International organizations can be compared to an “infant” next to Nation States. Take the UN for example, The UN was started after World War 2, the world recognized that if there where to be a WW 3 it would be the last, and the next war we would be fighting with sticks and stones. The creation of the UN was a small step towards Idealism but it still has a long way to go. The UN knew that countries would not be willing to sign a document where they could possibly lose some of their sovereignty. So it ws very important when writing the constitution for the UN that they made it clear that the Nation States would not be giving up any of their sovereignty. The UN compared to Nation states does not have much power, the only real power they have lies in the authority of military intervention if it is necessary to restore peace. This right here is where the true power of the UN lies. Also IGO’s can be corupt and people can be dishonest, so International organizations also has it’s weaknesses.

While Nation states govern the world today and are very successful today, Nation States may not be the best option in the coming future. Some may argue that states are obsolete. “ The argument that states are obsolete begins with the premise that they were created in the middle of the last millennium as utilitarian political organizations to meet security, economic, and other specific needs and to replace the feudal and other forms of political organization that no longer worked effectively” (Rourke, p.154). It is said that nation-states are too big to deal with the everyday needs of the people, and too little to do big things. Many scholars are saying that nation-states are becoming more and more incompetent in dealing with their own problems, which is inevitably putting it’s own people in danger and threatening their safety. Providing the states with physical safety is one of the main roles that the nation-states play, yet it is unable to fully protect their people. Economic prosperity is another important role of the state. Transnational corporations have more control over economic prosperity than the national governments do; based on whether they set up manufacturing or not.

States are also destructive. The idea of the nation-state, is to pursue it’s own self interest, this means that 200 other countries are doing the same thing. Which means that they eventually will clash with one another causing conflict. Again hurting it’s own people, it’s the average citizen who feels the effects of war. International organizations are for the interests of the world as a whole, working together towards one common goal. International organizations try to keep the peace for the most part. Although the United Nations has limited ability to keep the peace, it has intervened numerous times. “Through early 2004, the United Nations had mounted 56 peacekeeping operations that had utilized military and police personnel from 130 countries”.( Rourke, p.183)

Today in the 21st Century the world is governed by nation states, so far it has worked and has been the traditional approach to world governance. While there is no right or wrong answer to wether the world should be governed through Nation States or through Intenational Organizations it seems as if the world is leaning more towards International Organizations, which is probably going to be a direct result of technology and travel, States can no longer can isolate themselves and worry only about domestic problems, and Nation States alone cannot deal with world problems by themselves, so it is inevitable that the World will one day resort to International organizations.

Question