The effectiveness of the UN as a multilateral institution

Lawrence W.

Order the writing of a tailor-made International affairs Term papers

Free quote online

Thesis Format .doc

The effectiveness of the UN as a multilateral institution

Download

Read an extract

Reader
Abstract
Contents
Extract

Abstract

The concept of globalization continues to be a hot issue in the arena of political discourse. Globalism, or interdependence, has been, and continues to be a critical force in world politics that affects nearly every aspect of global economic, political, diplomatic and military behaviour. It continues to influence major debates in the fields of international relations, foreign policy, international trade, development, finance, immigration, governance, democratization and security. Globalization occurs because of one or more of the following factors; the death of geography (territorial borders are becoming increasingly insignificant), the death of distance (new technologies are making the distances between countries and culture significantly smaller), sensitivity (states are becoming increasingly sensitive to different crises that happen elsewhere in the world), vulnerability (states are becoming much more vulnerable to these crises), and finally the death of independence (states are losing the capacity to maintain independent control over their own autonomy).

Introduction.
Three different approaches that dictate how states react with and to each other.
1. The Hart-Rudman Commission.
Multilateralism.
1. Opponents of multilateralism.
2. Efforts to shape multilateralism.
3. Multilateral institutions.
Tests to choose between unilateral or multilateral action.
1. Unilateralism: Acceptable in situations where a state's security is genuinely threatened.
2. Instances when multilateral agreements place limits on a nation's ability to produce peace in volatile areas.
3. Unilateral action resulting in multilateral interests being furthered.
4. Rejection of multilateral treaties by superpowers like the United States.
5. Issues that can not be dealt with by one country alone.
6. Responsibilities that face the international community.
7. Excessive use of unilateral strategies: Detrimental effect on the soft powers like the United States.
The Gulf War.
1. Secretary-General of the UN's visit to the White House.
2. Independence of the UN.
Conclusion.
Bibliography.

Get this table of contents for free after login.

Extract

[...] Nye Jr., author of The Paradox of American Power Why the World's Only Super Power Can't Go it Alone, this increased vulnerability is a call for the Americans to develop multilateral laws and institutions that put constraints on others while providing a framework for cooperation.[5] The events of September are evidence that even a superpower like the United States is vulnerable and needs friends.[6] Multilateralism is something that should be embraced not only by superpowers, but also by smaller states as it can be used as a strategy to gain leverage on larger states.[7] Some opponents of multilateralism claim that it costs too much. [...]

[...] This has proved detrimental in the long-term for the United States.[11] Multilateral institutions such as the UN and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are another way multilateralism reduces worries about power asymmetries.[12] Such institutions, at least in theory, accomplish two things; first, in the case of the United States, they reduce Washington's autonomy, second, they also limit the autonomy of America's partners, which allows others to exist and operate in a global environment where the United States' power is more restrained and reliable.[13] The key reason why multilateralism is important, especially for superpowers like the United States, is that it acts as a deterrent for other to construct alliances against them.[14] Now that we have established the merits of multiculturalism, it should be noted that as good an approach that it is, there are some instances in which unilateral action might be a better approach. [...]

[...] Ibid Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Michael G. Schecter, International Institutions: Obstacles, [...]

[...] After the Cold War, the Western media, followed by US President Bush proclaimed the era as a World Order.”[33] This was meant to symbolize a new global community that was based on the “collective security) system of the United Nations' Charter, which was backed up by the Security Council.[34] As a result of this World Order,” there was supposed to be an increase in multilateral expenditures regarding military-security issues.[35] The money for this increased spending was to come out of members' peace dividends, which was the money saved from decreased spending on national military forces around the world after the Cold War.[36] With this increased multilateral spending, came a redistribution of power within the UN from the developing world dominated General Assembly to the Security Council[37] which is dominated by the world's superpowers: France, Russia, China, United States, and the United Kingdom.[38] What are the consequences of the New World Security Order for this future of the UN and multilateralism? [...]

[...] Ibid. Ibid Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid Ibid. John Ruggie, Constructing the World Polity (London: Routledge, 1998) Nye Jr., The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go it Alone Ibid. Ibid. [...]

doc