«Since the founding of Israel, over 50 years ago, America has taken the fledgling country under its wing . The sympathy of the American people towards Israel has wavered little despite the ups-and-downs Israel has been through in its short history ....» Document abstract
$4.95
5 word format
Language : english
international relations
term papers
date published
02/08/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : Advanced
requested 15 times
SummarySince the founding of Israel, over 50 years ago, America has taken the fledgling country under its wing . The sympathy of the American people towards Israel has wavered little despite the ups-and-downs Israel has been through in its short history . Especially throughout the Clinton administration, America has taken a soft stand towards Israel, favoring them over Palestine, even while trying to keep a neutral stance during peace negotiations. During the last five years, however, American foreign policy has wavered back and forth depending on the negotiating tactics of the President. President Clinton took on peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine as a primary goal of his administration. President Bush has been less inclined to focus his energies on peace in the Middle East.
Table of Contents- Since the founding of Israel, over 50 years ago, America has taken the fledgling country under its wing
- In March of 1998, Bill Clinton, despite popularity problems at home, continued to provide a bridge between Yasir Arafat and Binyamin Netanyahu
- Following the election of Barak in Israel, America resumed its more pro-Israeli stance, with 'barely suppressed delight' at the election results, since Netanyahu had proven difficult to negotiate with
- Although a compromise could not be reached, at least important issues had been discussed for the first time, such as control of Jerusalem
- Pro-Israeli continued even after conflict erupted in the region
- With recent conflicts erupting in the Middle East, America finds itself in a tight position, either supporting Israel and loosing favor with the Arab countries
- American foreign policy towards the conflict between Palestine and Israel has taken many stances
«As Michael Walzer frequently states, “war is hell”; however, that has not stopped people from engaging in it for thousands of years. There are a variety of reasons nations have entered war, among them are: territorial expansion, the spread of...» Document abstract
$2.95
3 word format
Language : english
international relations
presentation
date published
03/05/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : General public
requested 9 times
SummaryAs Michael Walzer frequently states, “war is hell”; however, that has not stopped people from engaging in it for thousands of years. There are a variety of reasons nations have entered war, among them are: territorial expansion, the spread of democracy, self-defense, and humanitarian crises to name a few. According to Walzer, however, some of these reasons are more justified than others, and some of them are not justifiable at all. While some people may view war as an aberration of human behavior and decency, Walzer believes that some wars are not only justified, but also necessary, such as the Allied response in World War Two. For an institution as chaotic and violent as war, Walzer seeks to create parameters and conventions. Thus, in his book, Just and Unjust Wars, Walzer attempts to establish, among other things, what exactly a “just war” is, what the rules of war are, and who they apply to, and when intervention is a morally legitimate response.
Table of Contents- According to Walzer's view, we have very compelling reasons never to intervene in another nation's practices or problems
- However, Walzer does note some exceptions to this general prohibition of intervention
- Finally, a very serious reason for overriding the non-intervention principle is in the case of humanitarian crises.
- One justification for interventions that has been used repeatedly...
- Walzer asserts that the Allied intervention during World War Two to stop Hitler's genocidal regime was absolutely justified
- Walzer still seeks to limit the means the Allied forces could use to effect the fall of the Nazis
- There is, however, one position of Walzer with which I do not agree
«The United Nations is not the first international organisation to be established to help settle conflict peacefully and to prevent future conflicts from arising. In 1899, the Hague Convention for the Settlement of International Disputes was...» Document abstract
$2.95
3 word format
Language : english
international relations
school essay
date published
25/04/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : Advanced
requested 36 times
SummaryThe United Nations is not the first international organisation to be established to help settle conflict peacefully and to prevent future conflicts from arising. In 1899, the Hague Convention for the Settlement of International Disputes was established. “The conference was convened at the initiative of Czar Nicolas II of Russia "with the object of seeking the most objective means of ensuring to all peoples the benefits of a real and lasting peace, and above all, of limiting the progressive development of existing armaments."”1. “The Hague Convention set up the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which was the first global mechanism for the settlement of inter-state disputes”1. There was also the League of Nations established in 1919 by Woodrow Wilson. However, these organisations proved to be ineffective due to a lack of credibility and legitimacy. Therefore, I shall look at the United Nations’ effectiveness as a system by looking at what is has done so far, and by examining just how legitimate and credible it really is.
Table of Contents- The United Nations is not the first international organisation to be established to help settle conflict peacefully
- The United Nations was established in the aftermath of World War II to help stabilise international relations
- Another way of looking at the effectiveness of the United Nations
- The formation of the Security Council is also a point of contention
- The United Nations is a label that people associate with a sense of reassurance
- Another reason why the United Nations seems to be losing legitimacy is because of its failure to do anything
- Lastly, the United Nations claims to be fair and looks legitimate with the input and involvement of NGOs
- Conclusion
«With the advent of postmodern theory in the mid-to-late twentieth century, Western thought has come to realize the need for a more complete view of human knowledge and being, one that does not fall prey to the modernist Enlightenment fascination...» Document abstract
$3.95
4 word format
Language : english
international relations
term papers
date published
24/04/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : Advanced
requested 3 times
SummaryWith the advent of postmodern theory in the mid-to-late twentieth century, Western thought has come to realize the need for a more complete view of human knowledge and being, one that does not fall prey to the modernist Enlightenment fascination with ‘rationality’ and ‘objectivity’ which claims to have a monopoly on truth. In the realm of healing, this has led to the development of a fuller conception of human subjectivity, the so-called ‘biopsychosocial’ model, which acknowledges that biomedical treatment is alone not adequate for the health of an individual (Fox 5). Instead, a more holistic approach is required, in fact, the kind of approach used in traditional healing. Despite the seeming compatibility of these two views, integrating traditional healing practices into the ‘modern’ world has turned out to be quite problematic due to the prestige enjoyed by Western scientific medicine, the religious nature and context of traditional medicine, and the dangers of exploitation of indigenous knowledge in the modern, globalized capitalist system.
Table of Contents- The cultural definition of the individual's place in society
- Western Medicine and Traditional Healing
- Traditional Healing
- Traditional Healing and Globalization
- Conclusion
«The Pope, as a spiritual and temporal leader, wields a double sovereignty: over the City of the Vatican as Head of State, and over the Holy See (or Apostolic See) as Head of the Roman Catholic Church. This fundamental distinction, “perennialized” by...» Document abstract
$2.95
3 word format
Language : english
international relations
research papers
date published
01/04/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : Advanced
requested 1 times
SummaryThe Pope, as a spiritual and temporal leader, wields a double sovereignty: over the City of the Vatican as Head of State, and over the Holy See (or Apostolic See) as Head of the Roman Catholic Church. This fundamental distinction, “perennialized” by the 1929 Latran accords, is at the basis of the papal foreign policy: although it is sometimes designed as the emanation of the Vatican’s national sovereignty, it is generally carried out in the name of the Holy See (the religious authority).
Table of Contents- Introduction
- History and structure of the Holy See's diplomatic corps
- The World's oldest diplomatic services
- The diplomatic hierarchy
- Representation in States
- Representation in International and Regional Organizations
- A very particular situation on the international scene
- 'The Pope, how many divisions ' a foreign policy based on time and soft power
- The Holy See has a very specific situation on the diplomatic scene
- An overview of the Holy See's priorities
- The protection of Catholics around the World
- Human and nations' rights
«“We have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not combined. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed.”
Winston Churchill’s famous quote aptly describes Britain’s approach to European...» Document abstract
$3.95
4 word format
Language : english
international relations
presentation
date published
27/03/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : Expert
requested 17 times
Summary“We have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not combined. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed.”
Winston Churchill’s famous quote aptly describes Britain’s approach to European integration since the inception of the EU in the 1950’s. Churchill emphasised that although he was ‘not opposed to a European Federation’, he ‘never thought that Britain or the British Commonwealth should become an integral part.’ Churchill’s attitude towards the EU has been imitated by many of the Prime Ministers that followed him. Britain’s relationship towards European integration has generally been one of a reluctant union, supporting free trade and mutually beneficial cooperation, while attempting to distance itself from economic and cultural ‘unity’ with Europe. In the same way, Keynes wrote in 1919: “England still stands outside Europe. Europe’s voiceless tremors do not reach her. Europe is apart and England is not of her Flesh and blood.” This statement also highlights the fact that by the end of the First World War Britain was considered to be “in Europe but not of Europe”.
Winston Churchill’s famous quote aptly describes Britain’s approach to European integration since the inception of the EU in the 1950’s. Churchill emphasised that although he was ‘not opposed to a European Federation’, he ‘never thought that Britain or the British Commonwealth should become an integral part.’ Churchill’s attitude towards the EU has been imitated by many of the Prime Ministers that followed him. Britain’s relationship towards European integration has generally been one of a reluctant union, supporting free trade and mutually beneficial cooperation, while attempting to distance itself from economic and cultural ‘unity’ with Europe. In the same way, Keynes wrote in 1919: “England still stands outside Europe. Europe’s voiceless tremors do not reach her. Europe is apart and England is not of her Flesh and blood.” This statement also highlights the fact that by the end of the First World War Britain was considered to be “in Europe but not of Europe”.
Table of Contents- UK and the European Community: the problem of the integration
- Historical review of Britain an de European Union, from 1950 to these days
- Britain, E.E.U.U. and the European Community
«Do you agree with Waltz’s recommendation to spread nuclear weapons?
On Sunday, April 9, 2006, the Washington Post announced that “the Bush administration is studying options for military strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of...» Document abstract
$2.95
3 word format
Language : english
international relations
presentation
date published
12/03/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : Advanced
requested 20 times
SummaryDo you agree with Waltz’s recommendation to spread nuclear weapons?
On Sunday, April 9, 2006, the Washington Post announced that “the Bush administration is studying options for military strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear development program” (Washington post, 9/04/2006). That shows perfectly that the question of the nuclear proliferation is one of the burning issues of the day. Nuclear proliferation means the spread of nuclear weapons to states that for the moment are known as non nuclear weapon states. Only five states are acknowledged by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as possessing nuclear weapons: China, France, Russia, United-Kingdom and United-States, yet several others have the capability to construct nuclear devices at short notice and deliver them, if necessary, by increasingly sophisticated means (Howlett, 2001: 416). A traditional view states that further nuclear proliferation is likely to increase instability and the potential for conflict between states. This contrasts with the “more may be better” thesis advanced by Kenneth N. Waltz in the early 1980s and restated in the mid 1990s to account for changes brought about by the end of the cold war.
So one can wonder to what extent Waltz’s proposition that more nuclear weapons will be better can be justified. In a first part, one can try to expound Waltz’s thesis and the arguments that sustain it. In a second part, one can underline the weaknesses of Waltz’s thesis using mainly Sagan’s arguments.
On Sunday, April 9, 2006, the Washington Post announced that “the Bush administration is studying options for military strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear development program” (Washington post, 9/04/2006). That shows perfectly that the question of the nuclear proliferation is one of the burning issues of the day. Nuclear proliferation means the spread of nuclear weapons to states that for the moment are known as non nuclear weapon states. Only five states are acknowledged by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as possessing nuclear weapons: China, France, Russia, United-Kingdom and United-States, yet several others have the capability to construct nuclear devices at short notice and deliver them, if necessary, by increasingly sophisticated means (Howlett, 2001: 416). A traditional view states that further nuclear proliferation is likely to increase instability and the potential for conflict between states. This contrasts with the “more may be better” thesis advanced by Kenneth N. Waltz in the early 1980s and restated in the mid 1990s to account for changes brought about by the end of the cold war.
So one can wonder to what extent Waltz’s proposition that more nuclear weapons will be better can be justified. In a first part, one can try to expound Waltz’s thesis and the arguments that sustain it. In a second part, one can underline the weaknesses of Waltz’s thesis using mainly Sagan’s arguments.
Table of Contents- Do you agree with Waltz's recommendation to spread nuclear weapons?
«The Jeffersonian idea that liberty and equality would be best achieved by everyman pursuing his own interest and a federal government with greatly constrained powers is often seen as America’s traditional political philosophy. During the 20th...» Document abstract
$3.95
4 word format
Language : english
international relations
presentation
date published
01/03/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : Advanced
requested 3 times
SummaryThe Jeffersonian idea that liberty and equality would be best achieved by everyman pursuing his own interest and a federal government with greatly constrained powers is often seen as America’s traditional political philosophy. During the 20th century, three periods of government activism particularly called into question this philosophy: the Progressive Era, the New Deal and the Great Society. During these three atypical periods in American history, federal governement actively attempted to reform U.S. society with profundly similar objectives: winning social and economic justice, revitalizing public life and democracy, and unify a divided society. Their priorities and greatest achievements were different mostly because they occurred in different social, economic and political circumstances. But there was great continuity between the Progressive Era, the New Deal and the “Great Society”, which this paper intends to demonstrate.
Table of Contents- Progressives, New Dealers and advocates of the Great Society shared the same commitment to achieving social and economic justice
- The advancement of gender and ethnic equality as well as the improvement of democracy in general
- The Progressive Era, the New Deal and the Great Society all defended the same idea of progress
«In 1998, the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) created both the International Religious Freedom Office in the Department of State and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Since this date, a report has been...» Document abstract
$3.95
4 word format
Language : english
international relations
presentation
date published
25/01/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : General public
requested 6 times
SummaryIn 1998, the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) created both the International Religious Freedom Office in the Department of State and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Since this date, a report has been produced every year within the United States, “reviewing and making policy recommendations on the facts and circumstances of religious freedom violations globally”. In other words, it evaluates every country on its “religious freedom”, designates “countries of particular concern” and makes recommandations to the American government. Hence, the United States tend to impose to the whole world its own conception of what should be the relations between Church and State.
This paper will attempt to show why it is very dangerous for the United States to try to evaluate the religious freedom of other countries and to promote “religious freedom” as a foreign policy goal. The United States, whose foundation is linked with the immigration of people fleeing religious persecution in Europe, has a particular conception of religious freedom, which is reflected in the religious clauses of the First amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”. I consider that this conception should not, in any case, be used to judge other countries.
This paper will attempt to show why it is very dangerous for the United States to try to evaluate the religious freedom of other countries and to promote “religious freedom” as a foreign policy goal. The United States, whose foundation is linked with the immigration of people fleeing religious persecution in Europe, has a particular conception of religious freedom, which is reflected in the religious clauses of the First amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”. I consider that this conception should not, in any case, be used to judge other countries.
Table of Contents- Due to the complexity of this question, which has been resolved in many different ways both in the world and throughout history, it is totally inappropriate to try to evaluate in a unilateral way how the different countries of our world deal with the relations between church and state
- The International Freedom Act of 1998 has strong ideological biases, which makes it an inefficient instrument to judge the religious freedom within foreign countries
«Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in 2001, Islamism is perceived as the major international threat of our time. The subject is broadly under studies, in universities as well as in the media, which often provide a biased vision of the phenomenon....» Document abstract
$3.95
4 word format
Language : english
international relations
presentation
date published
15/01/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : Advanced
requested 1 times
Summary Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in 2001, Islamism is perceived as the major international threat of our time. The subject is broadly under studies, in universities as well as in the media, which often provide a biased vision of the phenomenon. Islamism can be defined by the use of the sacred texts of Islam for political purposes, and the will to “change the very basics of the social fabric” to ‘Islamise’ society. The spectrum of means of the different organisations is wide, from social activism to terrorist violence, but all Islamist groups share that particular aim. Going back to the religion has always been seen as a cure in times of crisis. Even if major texts of Islamic radicalism have been written in the early 40s and early 60s, they started to make sense for a lot of people in the early 70s, when the economic crisis occurred in the region of Middle East and North Africa. The end of the post colonial dream and the growing disillusion and anger were the basis of the Islamism popularity. It has been reinforced by external factors and the perception of the ‘neo-imperial’ West as a threat.
Table of Contents- Islamism has to be defined as a political phenomenon, and not a religious one
- External factors also play a role in the support for Islamic groups. The idea of an Arab decline and the fear of neo-colonialism
knowledge network
Sort by
Results 11 - 20 out of a total of 44
Subject :
Type :
Extension :
Language :
Size :
Document>international relations