title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
There are successful precedents for supra-national bodies The history of the European Union (EU) in the post-World War II era provides an encouraging example of what might be done at the global level through a functioning world government. It is widely agreed among economists that the relatively high degree of prosper... | |
A world government would reduce the probability of a catastrophic nuclear world war Ever since the destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 during the closing days of World War II, the threat of global devastation through nuclear world war has hung over human civilization like a Damocles’ s... | |
A world government is not needed to prevent nuclear world war, because such a war would be so catastrophic that the common sense of humanity will prevent it from ever happening. From the earliest days of the nuclear arms race, and especially after intercontinental ballistic missiles were perfected in the 1960s as the p... | |
The basic flaw in this argument is that throughout modern history. Western Europe has always been far more homogeneous, in terms of economics and culture, than the world as a whole is at the present time. The immense human and material losses of World War I and World War II created a far more intense motivation in the ... | |
International relations specialists have long concluded that for a successful political amalgamation to take place, the people of the various regional components of that amalgamation must have a great deal in common. The history of nation-states demonstrates, for example, that a common language is a strong unifying for... | |
A world government would enhance the probability of mitigating global environmental problems A world government would enhance the probability that effective means will be developed and implemented toward ameliorating the global problems of resource depletion and environmental decay. In a world divided into a host of j... | |
A world government would foster a constructive cosmopolitanism A world government would give people a higher focus for their political loyalties than their respective nation-states, and thus facilitate the development of a higher degree of cosmopolitanism than is possible under the sovereign nation-state system. This ... | |
Although it is a popular form of entertainment to malign generic bureaucracies, professional sociologists define a bureaucracy in neutral terms as any large-scale, hierarchical organization that practices specialization and division of labor in its operations. According to this definition, such organizations as armies,... | |
Although post-World War II world government proposals were mostly for an unlimited world government descriptively designated the “omnipotent world state,” there has been considerable evolution in world federalist thought since the immediate post-war period. More recent proposals envision a limited federal world governm... | |
A world government would be ineffective in practice From the early 1990s, at about the time of the collapse and dissolution of the Soviet Union, there has developed an immense literature on global governance in the post-Cold War era. It is agreed by many if not most international relations authorities that the existin... | |
There is no feasible transition path to a world government model Some eminent international relations authorities have argued that no feasible transition path of a benign nature exists from the present situation of national sovereignty, to a world government. A nuclear world war might change this situation: such a war... | |
The forces of nationalism are too strong to permit the loosening of state sovereignty any further The force of nationalism is so strong in the contemporary world that no national population will be willing to turn over any substantial part of its national sovereignty and autonomy to a world government. There is too mu... | |
A world government would add another, laborious level of bureaucracy A world government would add another layer of bureaucracy to a world which is already laboring under a heavy burden of bureaucracy. Were a world government bureaucracy to be added to what already exists at the national, regional and local levels, it ... | |
The fact that some international relations authorities do not have the imagination required to perceive a feasible transition path to world government is not necessarily strong evidence that such a path does not exist. The principal reason why the idea of world government is not being pursued vigorously at the present ... | |
There is no popular support for such a body There is too much economic, political and cultural heterogeneity in the contemporary world to permit the establishment of a democratically organized, authoritative and effective—yet benign—world government. This was especially the case during the Cold War era with its virul... | |
While it cannot be denied that interest in world government is currently at a low ebb, among both the general public and international relations professionals, it is arguable that a principal reason for this is relatively low familiarity with alternatives to the “omnipotent world state” concept developed in the immedia... | |
There is no doubt that the processes of global governance have improved since the decline of the Cold War in the early 1990s as a result of the collapse and dissolution of the Soviet Union. But it is unduly naïve to suggest, as do some global governance enthusiasts, that the United Nations and other international insti... | |
Officially talks are ongoing so an agreement is still possible. Moreover a failure to reach an agreement does not mean that Germany should act unilaterally. Restraint will in the long term mean Germany is much more likely to negotiate an agreement with the United States as they will be more willing to listen to an ally... | |
No chance of an agreement with the USA The German government has been working towards a ‘no-spy agreement’ with the United States. It however looks unlikely that such a deal will every become a reality with officials saying “we won't get anything” and “the Americans lied to us” about the chances of an agreement. [1] G... | |
Politics is about action. The German government has to take some action on the issue of NSA surveillance and German privacy or it will look weak. Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich went to Washington in July but was accused of “returning empty-handed” and having “not moved a single step forward on any of the key po... | |
Illegal under German law Monitoring communications in Germany’s capital – including the communications of government leaders like Merkel would be illegal under German law. Numerous politicians, such as then interior minister Hans-Peter Friedrich have stated that those “responsible must be held accountable”. [1] There ... | |
Of course spying on another country is illegal, but everyone does it. Le Monde in July had a report on The Direction Générale de la Securité Extérieure (DGSC) having systematically collected “the electromagnetic signals transmitted by computers and phones in France, as well as the digital streams going back-and-forth b... | |
Doing nothing makes Merkel and Germany look weak Politics is about action. The German government has to take some action on the issue of NSA surveillance and German privacy or it will look weak. Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich went to Washington in July but was accused of “returning empty-handed” and having “no... | |
If countries will not act on narrow issues involving privacy freedoms and internet surveillance even when their head of government is on the receiving end then what hope is there for the broader picture? There is no point in proclaiming everyone should follow the law then we would have no crime if there is no mechanism... | |
A failure by the United States to agree to a no spy agreement already damages relations. One of the leaders of the SPD, Thomas Oppermann, has said “failure of the agreement would be unacceptable” and would “change the political character of relations.” [1] If the US is willing to damage relations by stonewalling then s... | |
Will the investigation get anywhere; who should be prosecuted? The biggest problem facing an investigation by a prosecutor is whether there is any point in the investigation. Who could be relevant witnesses? Would any of them cooperate? [1] Ultimately who do you prosecute? Germany might be able to bring some of the US... | |
Investigating a sideshow The issue of the United States bugging Merkel and whether Germany can reach an agreement to prevent spying in the future is really a sideshow. The bugging of one person no matter how important does not matter. Much more important is the protection of the internet and internet freedom. This Ger... | |
Damages US-German relations An investigation would have serious repercussions for German-American relations which would be seriously against German interests. Germany needs the United States as an ally in NATO and both are currently disengaging from deployments in Afghanistan. Much more important might be the impact o... | |
There is a big difference between justice not being done because the United States refuses to cooperate and justice not being done because German prosecutors could not get the evidence to bring charges. If the former there is at least a chance of a trial, possibly in abstention, where all the evidence can come out. | |
The reality is that antibiotics and similar medicines are mostly sold to Monopsonistic governments and don’t represent the profit base of big Pharma. Instead they have focussed on products such as Prozac that are high-profit by their nature, while thirty-year old antibiotics are left to become ever less effective again... | |
ACTA promotes medical research Companies that accept huge research costs – such as the pharmaceutical industries – need the surety of knowing that they will have some payback for that research. Without that there is little point in them undertaking the research in the first place and medical science will suffer. It’s... | |
Were proposition’s case true then it would raise the question of why no consumers groups have been involved in the negotiations or representative of cloth and other manufacturers in the developing world – or for that matter the originators of design techniques more generally. The only people consulted were the stakehol... | |
Piracy in an Internet age. In an age of such easy global communications, the threat of piracy is far greater for creative industries than it has ever been before. There is a huge difference between a few cheap video copies and global downloads available free of charge. With sites making movies that cost millions avail... | |
We should be wary of any figures set on losses to the economy as a result of piracy, mostly because the coinsumer who is downloading pirated materials will simply use his dollars elsewhere. [i] There have also been studies that show that these same people who illegally download also spend more on legal downloads. [ii] ... | |
ACTA is needed to protect brands There is a genuine value to a brand – in part because, for clothing companies for example, it is a mark of quality as much as it is of origin. However even if that were not the case, the brand identity of a company is part of its legal property and should be protected in the same way a... | |
The EU [i] has described this agreement as a balance of the interests of all stakeholders – including customers or other users. Nobody is banned from freely sharing their own ideas, inventions or research; merely from ripping off that of other people. The oppositions need not worry about the articles it mentions as the... | |
Government is about taking tough decisions rather than pandering to majoritarian whims. Legislation such as this protect industries in the creative, IT, manufacturing and medical sectors. The support it has garnered among trades union demonstrates that they, at least, recognise that it is about protecting jobs. It is n... | |
Creativity will suffer if ACTA is brought in Many within the creative industries have developed business models that work with the Internet. A few giants – frequently not producing the most artistically acclaimed work – are simply trying to defend their monopolistic profits. The idea that any of the companies involved... | |
ACTA attacks free software and privatises data ACTA represents a fundamental attack on the right to produce or host free software. It is written in such a way as would protect the rights of corporations such as Microsoft to build systems that require updating while, at the same time undermining freeware software such ... | |
ACTA is anti-democratic This has been a secret stich-up between a handful of, mostly Western, governments and massive corporations or their representative trade organisations. It has notably failed to receive democratic support and poses a genuine threat to freedom and equality offered by the Internet. So far it has b... | |
The major corporations, which seem to exercise the opposition so greatly, are also major employers and major investors. In addition to which counterfeiting is a much greater threat to small corporations that are dependent on one good idea and lack the financial muscle to protect that idea, for example Ifttt, an interne... | |
There is little evidence that the Ba’ath Party would have tolerated a handover of power to Saddam’s sons. Even in North Korea, the issue of Kim Il Sung’s succession became fraught, and hotly contested amongst the North Korean political elite.. However, the issue of who should run Iraq was and should remain a matter for... | |
Although there has been a huge cost in human life the alternatives may well have been worse Saddam had made quite clear his intention to hand over power to his sons Without intervention there is little doubt that Saddam or one of his still more murderous sons would be running Iraq. Even though there were no WMDs, it s... | |
By empowering the Shi’a majority, the outcome of the war has provided an obvious link to Iran, an equally obvious threat to Israel and has implication for nations “from Lebanon to Pakistan. [i] ” The weakness of this government represents a far greater threat to security and regional stability than any dictator, howev... | |
Saddam Hussein is gone and Iraq is now functioning as one of very few democracies in the Middle East It's important to be clear that this debate is looking at the results of the Iraq war and, by any definition Iraq is in a much more stable and secure position than it was in 2003 when American, British and other intern... | |
In the unlikely event that something resembling a democratic government survives in Iraq after the international troops leave then that would, of course, be welcome. However, some context is required to establish whether the price was worth paying. Over a trillion dollars, 4,000 American dead, tens of thousands of Ira... | |
His removal provides stability and security not only for Iraq but for the Middle East as a region The Middle East is a tinder box at the best of times. Having an unpredictable megalomaniac sitting in the middle of it was dangerous, not only for Iraqis but for other peoples in the region. Hussain was a danger to the Mi... | |
The sands of Iraq are as soaked in blood as they are in oil. For once the Iraqis have actually got something out of their mineral wealth, which has otherwise served as a curse for over a century. There has been a functioning civilization around the Tigis-Euphrates Valleys for at least ten thousand years it was only wi... | |
An entire generation has been turned against the West and fundamentalist clerics have gained enormously in influence The aftermath of the war has been to create an entire people with no reason to love the West and more than100,000 reasons to hate it as a result of an estimated 105-115000 dead. [i] The country is teete... | |
Even if the outcome is a stable democratic Iraq, the war was still a costly, illegal, ideologically-driven mistake The cost of the Iraq war has been astonishing both in the lives and treasure spent and the resentment and chaos stored up for the future. Even if the result had been Switzerland on Sinai, it would still n... | |
The war was illegal and the removal of Saddam should have been left to the Iraqis Yet another puppet regime is not what the Middle East needs Events from the Arab Spring have demonstrated, more graphically than anything else could have done, that Arab peoples are more than capable of dealing with their own dictators a... | |
Iraq now has a professionally trained army and police force accountable to a democratically elected government and, through them, to the people. Unusually among Arab nations the security forces should now act as upholders of the law rather than the personal armies of local and national strong men used to settle grudge... | |
A U.S. dovetailing of interests in Central Asia is unlikely to last. September 11th moved Central Asia from being an area of peripheral importance to being a central US interest. [1] There is nothing to say that it will not sink back to being peripheral in the future. The Taliban were both sheltering extremists such as... | |
Desire to stabilize Central Asia September 11th brought a change in how the United States dealt with the autocratic rulers of Central Asia, bringing policy more into line with Moscow’s interests. The US changed from promoting democracy in the region to trying to keep the region stable by supporting the incumbent regim... | |
Even if both agree that fighting terrorism is in both their interests this is not a reason for cooperation when views about how to tackle the problem divide. While both have used military force in their attempts to defeat terrorism both have criticised the other’s force as being excessive. The United States continued t... | |
Russian and the US have many areas where they can cooperate. In 2009 President Obama stated “I believe that on the fundamental issues that will shape this century, Americans and Russians share common interests that form a basis for cooperation.” [1] This makes the real question ‘how to cooperate’ rather that whether t... | |
Even assuming that US-Russian there are many areas where the US and Russia could cooperate this does not mean that it will happen. Cooperation between the United States and Russia would have been even more vital to the world at the end of World War two when both were superpowers and both had common interests in keeping... | |
Although the United States would like to get its hands on Russia’s vast economic resources it is not a good place to do business. Russia was accused of being a ‘virtual mafia state’ by US diplomats in a wikileaked cable. [1] According to then US Ambassador to Russia Russia needs to “support the “sanctity” of commercial... | |
Shared experience of terrorism A shared experience of terrorism means both have long term reasons to cooperate against it. Russia already had experience with terrorism with a string of bombings in the summer of 1999 which the Russian government blamed on the Chechans. [1] As a result of this on-going Chechen terrorism... | |
Economically compatible There is a huge potential for economic cooperation between two of the biggest states in the world. Russia desperately needs investment and technology to modernize its economy. The USA can offer this and more. It has helped Russia to get into the World Trade Organization, [1] to integrate it int... | |
"Kupchan: Russian Opposition to Kosovo Independence ‘Perplexing’". (Charles A. Kupchan, CFR Senior Fellow for Europe Studies). US Council on Foreign Relations. December 18, 2007 - "But on the question of Kosovo, direct Russian interests are difficult to discern, and therefore it appears that Russia’s backing of Serbia ... | |
This is a problem with perception, not with the fundamentals on the ground. The United States can reassure Russia that missile defence and the expansion of NATO is not directed at Russia. NATO has accommodated Russia by not expanding into the Former Soviet Union (excluding the Baltic states) so there is little reason f... | |
Russian and US strategic interests conflict Contradictions between Russian and U.S. interests will always exist. The United States is not Russia's ally, and it can be confidently predicted that it never will be. While politically the two countries sometimes temporarily need each other to face global challenges, as lon... | |
Russian and US economic interests conflict Good economic relations are possible only as long as long as The USA believes that Russia is genuinely trying hard to bring its economy into line with the Western world. Both Putin and Medvedev have emphasised that the country’s economic interests will always determine Russia... | |
Russia’s near abroad Russia and the US have a fundamental divergence over the notion of spheres of interest. Russia only accepts any other country playing a role in its near abroad very grudgingly and will attempt to get other great powers out whenever possible. In the aftermath of 9/11 Russia could not prevent Americ... | |
No countries economic interests exactly match yet that does not lead to conflict. The European Union and United States have had several trade wars, for example over the EU giving preferential treatment for Caribbean producers of Bananas, [1] but are still close partners in NATO. The reset is having an effect in bringin... | |
Missile defence shows Russia is still suspicious of U.S. motives. Russia has been suspicious of most US actions fearing they are directed against Russia. This suspicion is in part born out of the cold war, Russia is much weaker than the USSR was and is worried about any US expansionism. The expansion of NATO to includ... | |
The strategic interests of Russia and the west will not always conflict. In the post-Cold War, post-September 11 world, the political presumptions that require a substantial reliance on nuclear forces do not exist, and, in fact, cannot exist. 9/11 showed that national interests can change. The terrorist attacks instant... | |
International negotiations take place with many organisations that are not states in their own right. When the leaders of nations meet with trades union or corporations, pressure groups or networks it does not endow those bodies with statehood. Likewise, regional governments and authorities routinely meet with nationa... | |
Palestine is a legal entity and deserves to have its voice heard on an equal footing with Israel Nobody can dispute that Palestine functions as a nation, its citizens are governed within the jurisdiction of a government that is one of the closest observed in the world. Abbas has as much right to speak for the Palestin... | |
In law this point was settled with the creation of the state of Israel. The map of the Middle East, as with much of the rest of the world, was redrawn at the end of the second world war. The resulting nations, many of them newly created following the collapse of the European empires, formed the constituent members of t... | |
Palestine has its own infrastructure and government and is, in all meaningful ways a state In any meaningful way Palestine is a state. It may well be one at war with a neighbour and in dispute over its boundaries but the only reason it has yet to be recognised is that it would be politically inconvenient for the US, I... | |
Regardless of what people may wish, Palestine is not a state. It is probably the most recognised issue in twentieth century politics that the statehood of Palestine is a matter of dispute. The United Nations is the forum for those states that recognise each other’s existence to debate matters of mutual concern, it is n... | |
The issue of Israel/Palestine has been a major one for the UN for sixty years, it is simply unfair that one of the parties represented and the other one is not The territory claimed by both the state of Israel and the state of Palestine is contested. These matters should be settled by the UN but this is not possible w... | |
Palestine is a unique case; the UN removed its statehood during the creation of Israel. They are, perhaps ironically, Ishmael and Isaac to the UN’s Abraham. One recognised and the other shunned. The issue of statehood for Palestine was a misstep created at the inception of the UN as fallout of the decline of the Briti... | |
Exactly the same point could be made of any number of member states. It is highly questionable as to whether the authority of the central governments of Afghanistan or Pakistan extends into much of their territory, it certainly doesn’t in Iraq or many of the nations in central Africa. Much of Latin America is under th... | |
The Palestinian cause has no shortage of advocates in the UN this would add nothing to the discussion The entire Arab League is already perfectly capable of speaking for the Palestinian cause in the United Nations. There are established nations whose leaders have not addressed a full meeting of the General Assembly as... | |
The UN has historically recognised statehood when nations achieve it, not when they ask for it or wish it Establishing statehood is a matter for international law and, as things stand, Palestine is not a state. Since 1990, 34 new countries have been created – mostly as a result of the collapse of the former USSR [i] .... | |
The Gaza Strip and West Bank cannot agree on a government so who should the UN recognise, Hamas or Fatah? If the Palestinian people cannot agree on who speaks for them then what is the rest of the world to make of the situation? One of the defining attributes of statehood is a single, stable government that can, in so... | |
The United Nations fulfills a number of roles but perhaps its foremost function is to act as an arbiter in international disputes. To do that effectively it needs to reflect the opinions of the international community and deal in realpolitik. As things stand that would make it impossible for the organisation to take wh... | |
The United States has far too often relied on the use of force and coercion. For much of the Cold War and thereafter, America covertly and openly helped overthrow and wage war on governments that it perceived to be hostile to its national interests. From Latin America to Southeast Asia and the Middle East, coercion and... | |
The US had led the world through consent rather than coercion. An important part of the liberal international order the US maintains is that power is diffused and is based on negotiation, strategic bargaining and the exercise of power through mutually-agreed rules and institutions. Globalization and the liberalization... | |
Rather than promoting a progressive global agenda, the United States has often undermined effective cooperation and coordination between countries as a result of unilateralist and self-interested policies. Thus, it has often regarded the United Nations as an ineffectual rival to its national interests – leading the cou... | |
The US has used its power to promote democracy, human rights and international law The collapse of the Soviet Union and the victory of liberal democracy over communism have provided the US with more impetus to actively promote democracy, human rights and international norms and law. Under President Clinton, the Leahy ... | |
The US used its power to establish a set of open global institutions which have been broadly beneficial. As Robert Cox argues, American hegemony has been successful because the US has been able to maintain its dominance through a high level of global consensus by establishing a broadly accepted rules-based liberal int... | |
While the liberal order the US has constructed has benefited its allied economies in Western Europe and Japan, for much of the developing world the benefits have been few and far between. For example, many African and Asian nations have suffered tremendously from the spread of free market capitalism and the “structural... | |
On closer inspection, it is evident that while many of these interventions espoused humanitarian principles, they were primarily designed to advance US strategic and geopolitical interests. Critics have been right to argue that the Iraq war was fought to gain strategic control of Middle Eastern oil and to dismantle the... | |
The US has provided global leadership in tackling important issues such as terrorism. America’s hegemonic power has enabled it to provide global leadership on important international concerns. Because the US is affected by the same problems as many other countries in an increasingly inter-connected world (for example ... | |
Where the US has used military force, it has largely done it to uphold human rights and international peace, security and prosperity. Examining the use of American military power following the end of the Cold War shows us that the United States has pursued an agenda of tackling serious threats to international peace, ... | |
This argument misleadingly presents the nature of US influence as essentially coercive. In fact, it is America’s “soft power”—or the ability to get what it wants through the attractiveness of its culture and political institutions—that has been instrumental in spreading American values.[25] People across the globe—from... | |
US support for democracy has been at best hugely inconsistent, and at worst criminally apathetic. During the Cold War, the US overthrew various democratic governments (for example Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s) and supported dictatorial regimes. This has continued into the post-Cold War era, as the US support for the... | |
The US has used its power to undermine the sovereignty of other nations, often through coercion and violence. As Samuel P. Huntington has written, the US suffers from “benign hegemon syndrome.”[19] Its self-perception as an exceptional, virtuous superpower is at odds with the violent history of its foreign policy. Sin... | |
The US has established an unjust system of unequal relationships in order to exploit developing countries. While Western Europe and Japan may have been awarded a privileged position in the international order the US constructed following the end of World War II, developing countries were incorporated as “subordinate e... | |
The US eschews multilateralism and prefers unilateralism. Rather than working through international institutions and gaining the consent of the international community as a ‘benign’ hegemon would be expected to do, the United States far too often undermines multilateralism and exercises its power unilaterally. Preside... | |
The US has arrogantly (and dangerously) sought to reshape the world in its own image. A commitment to American ‘exceptionalism’ has led US policymakers to view the United States as the political and cultural centre of the world. Consequently, they expect others to follow their own standards on political, economic and ... | |
It is a hyperbole to suggest that American-led globalization and the spread of free and open markets has been “imposed” on developing countries; globalisation has been a far more impersonal and voluntary process. Moreover, rather than being exploited, the spread of free trade and open markets has benefited developing c... | |
The US is not a hegemon at all, but an imperialist power-an empire. While the US may not have formal colonies like the empires of the past, it is still able to pursue imperialism through its massive military juggernaut and control of the world’s financial institutions. America possesses what Chalmers Johnson called an... | |
It is true that the US sometimes resorts to unilateral action to advance its national security interests. However, its commitment to multilateralism is more than just instrumental and cynically selective. Even George W. Bush’s unilateralism—criticized as imperialist by even mainstream analysts—was restricted to certain... | |
While the US does have a long history of intervening in various countries across the globe, this has mostly been in response to genuine threats to national security, international peace, and basic human rights in line with the UN Charter. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new global discourse has emerged where s... | |
The educational policies of developing states should not be tailored to the needs of businesses in the developing world. Arguably, cross border trade in commodities and products is as important for nations in the developing world as partnerships with wealthy companies in Europe and the USA. Cross border trade of this t... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.