UW JSIS 201 Final Essay prompts
15 test answers
Unlock all answers in this set
Unlock answers 15question
Again from Mazower (p. 395), critically comment: [Speaking about responsibility to protect] "Why Gadhafi and not Tibet? Or Gaza or Bahrain? Supporters (of R2P) say a little intervention is better than none. But that may be quite wrong, and for reasons that go beyond the obvious reproach of double standards. The main point is that the way leaders treat their people is not the only problem that counts in international affairs. A world in which violations of human rights trump the sanctity of borders may turn out to produce more wars, more massacres, and more instability. It may also be less law abiding. If the history of the past century shows anything, it is that clear legal norms, the empowering of states, and the securing of international stability more generally also serve the cause of human welfare."
answer
Responsibility to protect is the international security and human rights norm to address the failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. A state forfeits their sovereignty when they fail to protect their population against human rights violations. Intervention in foreign affairs is fundamental problematic; not only because the standard for intervention is often ambiguous, but also interventions often cause conflicts and warfare. - double standard in foreign intervention > not in Rwanda but in Iraq - problems with interventions regarding human rights violation > the inefficiency of human rights activists and approaches (treaty signing, naming and shaming, legal accountability ICC ) > human rights violation are difficult to solve (spoilers, perverse-equilibrium trap) - Intervene with state sovereignty can cause serious conflicts - What constitute human rights? > western liberalism can be viewed as human rights imperialism, it is not a universal principles
Unlock the answer
question
Was there a new world order established in 1991? Why or why not? How is the situation today systematically different than the situation in 1991? Or is it systematically different? Explain.
answer
A new world order was established in 1991 resulted from the change of power distribution in the international system. However, many would argue that the situation today is systematically different than the situation in 1991 since the balance of power shift constantly in the international system. - New world order established as the result of the end of the Cold War > power distribution changes from bipolarity to unipolarity > US domination (third wave of democratization) > Regionalism (EU) > Fukuyama - The actual practice of global governance in the sense of new collective efforts to address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve > establishment of the responsibility to protect (the Gulf War -- collective effort) > establishment of international organizations (WTO, ICC) - The situation today is already systemically different from that what was established at 1991. The balance of power change constantly in the international system, and there is many rising challenges to what was established. > Rising challenges to the western/US hegemony (Huntington's The clash of civilization) > Rising Asia (rapid economic growth in Asia prove that Asian values are no lesser than Western value, as well as the the effectiveness of Asian model of development)
Unlock the answer
question
Global Trends 2030 identifies four megatrends over the next two decades (individual empowerment, diffusion of power, demographic patterns, and food, water, and energy nexus) and seven game-changers (crisis prone global economy, governance gap, potential for increased conflict, wider scope of regional instability, impact of new technologies, and the role of the United States). Thinking about the world in 2030, which megatrend do you think will be the single most important? Why? Which game-changer do you think will be the single most important? Why?
answer
food, water, and energy nexus > environmental issues potential for increased conflict > clash of the civilization
Unlock the answer
question
In 1941, Henry Luce (who owned Time Magazine and other media properties) wrote an editorial arguing that the century going forward would be "the American Century." In what ways was the period from 1941 to 2016 the American Century, and what ways was it not? On balance, would you agree that it still is the American Century?
answer
- Yes > America's determination to spread liberal democracy throughout the world in the Cold War as well as during the War on Terror > US economic domination following the WWII and remaining until today > Key player in international organizations (UN, NATO) > intellectual capitals Today is still American Century but may there are increasing challenges to the domination
Unlock the answer
question
Consider the relationship between global collective action problems and global institutions over the period from 1950 to 2000. Which major collective action problems have global institutions dealt with rather well, and which have they failed to deal with very well? What explains the results you identify. [Be sure to think about several different collective problems, and develop criteria to assess whether the collective action problems are dealt with well or not.]
answer
- well: free trade, WTO > the spread of liberal ideals; free trade > US hegemony > corporates interest - well 2: collective security > the Gulf War - not well: environmental issues > tragedy of the commons > nations behave on their best of interests > developing countries vs advanced countries; what's fair?!
Unlock the answer
question
Major powers attempted to create new world orders in 1919, 1945, and perhaps in 1991. Why did those orders breakdown so quickly? Was there a different pattern to their breakdowns? Should we draw common lessons from their breakdowns or is each case different? Explain.
answer
- World orders breakdown as the result from changes in the balance of power. -1919 > WWI ended > Treaty of Versailles - unfair treatment of Germany pushed the rise of Hitler > Appeased Hitler and allowed him to take over the Sudetenland and the Rhineland > League of Nations > Lack of enforcement, US and major powers not a part of it - 1945 > End of the World War II, people started to built new world order after WWII. > To build new world order, the United Nations Charter becomes effective > United Nations > Conflicts between US and USSR (Western countries vs. Eastern) - 1991 - shift, hasn't declined > Soviet Union dissolved, Western ideals "prevailed" at the end of the Cold War. First Gulf War. > US-focused world order > US triumphalism (which US thought was universal and right) > Failure of the prevention of nuclear-proliferation - US is so involved and has a such big monopoly - if something goes down, WO might come to an end > Common lessons: Lack of the support from the global community; Lack of legitimacy - Different lessons 1919 - LN lacked enforcement power 1945 - UN suffered from conflicts between its two most powerful members 1991 - Non-Western countries did not see US as legitimate
Unlock the answer
question
Is terrorism as experienced since 2001 an unprecedented challenge for global order? Justify your answer.
answer
Main argument: YES. Terrorism today is a newer challenge than ever seen before. Terrorism is meant to instill terror in ordinary people, who in turn demand changes in their own government; causes instability (hurts one of the 4 main elements of world order). Terrorism as a weapon to incite fear has become more prominent, beyond islamist terrorist groups - Point 1: Media is adding to the terror via horrific videos and also because a lot of attention focused on terrorism - Point 2: Deaths has increased due to terrorism - Point 3: Members are more trained and recruited more private citizens - Point 4: Nonstate actors getting more powerful - Point 5: International level more of a threat
Unlock the answer
question
This course argued that core elements of world order are predictability, stability, legitimacy and enforcement. Which of these elements was most problematic in 1919, 1945, 1991, and today? Why?
answer
Enforcement is often the most problematic element of world order.
Unlock the answer
question
How is it determined and who determines whether the world order is predictable, stable, legitimate and enforced? Why does it matter, and do the answers to these questions feedback on world order itself?
answer
- The first step to determining a new world order comes after a major global event(i.e. WWI, WWII, the fall of communism) Most "policies" in a new world aim to prevent another event like the one it spawns from - Who determines whether the world order is predictable, stable, legitimate, and enforced? -> Major states who are usually winners of the major global events (i.e., Western European countries and US after WWI and WWII) - Legitimacy of a world order is often determined by the nation states at the top of the hierarchy - the most powerful. However...when people do not think the dominant power is legitimate, how does this challenge manifest? - It matters because usually the world is more stable, and thus more developing, under an hegemonic, unipolar world order. - Does the description of a world order drive the actual power hierarchy? what is the feedback loop...self-fulfilling prophecy? Or, is the idea of a world order just a way to describe power dynamics at one point in time, that will change almost as soon as it is determined?
Unlock the answer
question
Kurlantzick puts forward a series of measures to reverse the retreat of democracy. Are they wishful thinking, or can they be made to work? What in your opinion are the most likely reasons why the retreat of democracy may be reversed and what are the biggest obstacles that need to be overcome? Explain.
answer
- Manage expectation > Russia for example as a democracy failure due to the unrealistic expectation - Prevent stagnant > keep promoting democracy through policies like the containment and appeasement > Truman doctrine, Marshall plan Keep the middle class on board > through economic methods > promise more economic opportunities
Unlock the answer
question
Consider the 6 themes that Guha presents in the introduction to his book as common characteristics of all the makers of modern Asia. If those 6 themes were dominant in all countries, how would the world order today be different? Explain.
answer
1. anticolonial revolution 2. nationalist consolidation 3. choice of political system adopted after independence 4. economic strategy 5. foreign policy 6. attitude of the postcolonial state and its leaders to traditional beliefs and customary practices
Unlock the answer