Answer briefly from your opinion for those 5 discussion: ( each discussion no more than half page)
- Whose view of the Concert of Europe (Elrod or Kagan) do you find more convincing? Why? (referencing specific empirical issues would be excellent here)
Given the rigorous requirements for collective security, do you think it could ever be a realistic approach to providing international security? Why or why not?
- The conventional approach sees the post-WWII order as deeply multilateral. An alternate view sees it as the result of the US exercise of its vast power in the immediate post-WWII period, and thus a product of hegemonic power tempered by geopolitical realities. Which view do you find more convincing, and why?
2. The P-5 veto has ensured that whenever great powers have conflicting interests, the UN is unable to act. Was the veto a necessity in order to create the UN? Was there any politically plausible alternative…In other words, what would you have done differently if you could have designed the UN, that could have both been politically possible and more effective?
- Why do you think the USSR embraced participation in the UN, but when offered participation in the Marshall Plan and the Bretton Woods institutions, opposed this?
In the cases where the UN did not Gives examples from the casesplay a major role, why do you think this was so?
- Do you think international law really law? Why or why not?
2. All ICC active cases have been levied against African countries/leaders. Three primary reasons have been offered to explain this.
- That is where the most egregious crimes against humanity are perpetrated, therefore the ICC is acting fairly;
- Rights abuses in powerful states like China cannot realistically be prosecuted so prosecuting abusers in weak states is the best we can accomplish right now, therefore the ICC is acting in accord with real-world constraints;
- The prosecution of crimes against humanity is an imposition of Western concepts of law and human rights imposed upon weak states and other cultures, therefore the ICC is acting in a neo-imperialist manner and the rights abuses in Africa should be ignored by the West and handled by Africans,
Which explanation is more convincing and why?
If you have a compelling issue that you would like to see discussed feel free to include that in your post in addition to the questions below.
1. Do you think there an inherent tension between democracy and IO? Explain.
2. Three broad options emerge from this week.
a. Stick with the UN however flawed because it is the most inclusive organization.
- Form a Concert/League of Democracies to function when the UN fails to act effectively.
- Rely on forum shopping (multi-multilateralism) and ad hoc groupings (minilateralism) when the UN fails to act effectively
If you were the President of the US, which approach would you choose? Why? (be sure to base this on realistic analysis, not wishful thinking)
3. Does the “international community” exist? If so, is it influential? Explain.
- In the cases where the UN did not Gives examples from the casesplay a major role, why do you think this was so?