*현* 스토어

*현*

개인인증

팔로워0 팔로우

소개

등록된 소개글이 없습니다.

전문분야 등록된 전문분야가 없습니다.

판매자 정보

학교정보

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

직장정보

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

자격증

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

판매지수

판매중 자료수

90개
전체 판매량

186개
최근 3개월 판매량

0개
자료후기 점수

평균B
자료문의 응답률

-

전체자료 90개

What are the main challenges and opportunities to the Nation-State in the global era?

“What are the main challenges and opportunities to the Nation-State in the global era?”There is a pervading belief amongst commentators that the sovereignty of nation-states is being undermined by the processes of globalization. Broadening the understanding of globalization beyond economic processes, this paper will seek to examine the economic, social and security challenges that face the nation-state in the global era. Such an examination reveals that the global era actually offers the nation-state many opportunities, both for internal strengthening and for longevity in the international system.The term nation-state enjoys a widely understood definition that is conveyed by Max Weber as “a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a given territory.” Holton adds to our understanding by highlighting that it is a hybrid term that combines “nation” – the people and their cultural identity, with “state” – the institutions which exercise pule as meaningful units of participation in the global economy of today’s borderless world.” Further, Ohmae asserts that the global economy undermines state sovereignty by making nation-states vulnerable to economic choices determined outside their territory by people and institutions over which they have no real authority. This argument is supported by Rosencrance et.al, who argue that state sovereignty is “blunted” by global economics via two pressures. Firstly, nation-states must look outside themselves for raw materials, production and finance. Secondly, nation-states cannot protect their citizens from adverse affects of the global market such as low growth and unemployment. They point to the Asian financial crisis of 1997-8 as an example which demonstrates that in the global era no nation-state “is large enough to withstand the huge financial drains imposed by the . . .world economic order.”Regional economic groupings such as the EU are also read as a threat to the sovereignty of n. Furthermore, as Levy et.al note, the developing principle of humanitarian intervention poses a dramatic challenge to the sovereignty of nation-states. The practice of foreigners entering a nation-state to protect its citizens against gross human rights violations overrides “the foundational principles of the Westphalian order, namely that territorial sovereignty is inviolate.”Coupled with the growth of international law in the global era has been the increasing number of NGOs. These organizations work at all levels of society from small-scale community organizations to the transnational such as Amnesty International. NGOs challenge state sovereignty because they are involved in activities that were once the preserve of the nation-state. Also, they create a separate site for identification and loyalty. Focusing on the growth of transnational NGOs in the global era allows us to identify further challenges faced by nation-states. NGOs often target issues of human security: the environmenation-state provides: law and order and protection of property rights, economic support through tax regimes and subsidies, protection from terrorism and response to conflicts, an educated labour force and social cohesion. Indeed, Singh argues that the current speculative global economy would collapse without the support of state regulation. Nation-states also offer legitimacy through their sovereignty.The threat to the sovereignty of individual nation-states posed by rising ethnic nationalism can be seen as an opportunity for small states and the Westphalian system as a whole. The number of nation-states has doubled since 1945. Singh notes that between the late 1980’s and early 1990’s twenty new states were formed after the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia. Rosencrance et.al argue that the global era enables the survival of small states by offering them equal opportunity to participate in the market and in institutions. Moreover, as Mann asserts, ethnic divisions can be seen to be cGrew (eds) The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate, Polity, Cambridge UK (2000), 99Clark, Ian “Globalization and the post-cold war order” in John Baylis, Steve Smith & Patricia Owens (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations 4e, Oxford University Press (2008), 560Held, David “Democracy, the nation-state and the global system” in David Held (ed) Political Theory Today, Polity Press, Oxford (1991), 197Held, David “International Law” in David Held & Anthony McGrew (eds) The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate, Polity, Cambridge UK (2000), 167Mann, Michael “Has Globalization Ended the Rise and Rise of the Nation-State?” in David Held & Anthony McGrew (eds) The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate, Polity, Cambridge UK (2000), 136McGrew, Anthony “Globalization and Global Politics” in John Baylis, Steve Smith & Patricia Owens (eds),td

사회과학| 2009.05.21| 12페이지| 30,000원| 조회(351)

세계화, 글로벌, globalization, 기회, globalisation, G..

미리보기

닫기
Explain the rise of both neorealism and neoliberalism and the way in which each encompasses a critique of the other.

Explain the rise of both neorealism and neoliberalism and the way in which each encompasses a critique of the other.Neorealism and neoliberalism are recognized as contemporary IR theories which elucidate the international system after the Cold War. In spite of today’s rapid and complex changes of the international system, the significance of these two theories in explaining contemporary international relations is still considerable. International relations, as Stephanie Lawson defined, is closely related politics and generally classified political science while it also noted as economics, sociology, anthropology and social science which includes social philosophy and law. In political science, a number of theories are related to international relations theories. However, the most dominant and influential theories in the current century are neorealism and neoliberalism. These theories render international conflict and cooperation under the anarchical international system while suggestinics (1979). This publication replaced Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations which was the bearer for realists. He pointed out the drawbacks of realism and put emphasis on the structure of the international system. However, different from realists’ and neorealists’ prediction, the international status in 1980s was fairly stable with cooperation among states. In addition, interdependency between states has intensified since 1990s. Neorealism revealed its shortcomings in rationalizing high interdependency between states. These chains of events led to the emergence of neoliberalism. Robert O. Keohane sympathized with criticism on neorealism in his book, Neorealism and Its Critics (1986). He examined the concept of multilateralism which also can be understood as pluralism, i.e. whereas realists considered state as the only important actor in the international system, neoliberals believed plurality of actors in the international system is crucial. Neoliberalism agrees with realism on the rationt element for states’ security in neoliberalism as well. One difference is that they define security in a broader term. It often includes health, welfare, environment and human right issues. Neoliberals admit that state’s action will be affected by power of the state but at the same time they claim that cooperation is possible by the aid of institutions. They believe international security will be fulfilled by international regimes and institutions and they also believe that non-state actors will take a big role of the accomplishment. Neoliberals’ big question is ‘How states can promote and support cooperation in the anarchical and competitive international system? Neoliberals believe states’ action is passably dependent on international regimes and institutions. Therefore, they assert that even though the anarchical international system deters the cooperation among states, it can be accomplished by the aid of international regimes and institutions. Neorealists criticize neoliberals s of social structure. In other words, he meant the theory cannot be adopted universally. Meanwhile Ashley pointed out that Waltz’s theory failed to doubt about states’ problematic fundament. He also criticized Waltz’s theory in various aspects, i.e. statism, utilitarianism, positivist discourse and structuralism.Such criticism against each other developed intense debate between neoliberals and neorealists. In 1993, David A. Baldwin elucidated main debates between neorealists and neoliberals in his book, Neoliberalism, Neorealism: The Contemporary Debate. According to Baldwin there are six main features in the neorealist-neoliberal debate. First, although both neorealists and neoliberals agree on the anarchical international system, they have different ideas on how the anarchical international system affects the states. Neoliberals assert that neorealists overlook the significance of international interdependence, globalisation and the regimes created to manage these interactions. Convee is an on-going discussion and not easy to conclude. There is no doubt that this debate will further develop the study of international relations but none of these theories can perfectly explain the international system. Any radical theory will not be able to explain the complexity of the international system. Therefore, it is important to have flexibility to accept the other’s viewpoint in international relations. Today’s globalised world has created various values that are not easy to rationalize. Maybe it is time to review the recent history of international activities and create a new approach.ReferencesAlain Touraine(2001), Beyond Neoliberalism, p.1-7, 8-23Authur Macewan(1999), ‘There are Alternatives’, Neo-liberalism or Democracy?, p.1-21Colin Elman(2007), ‘Realism’, International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century: An introduction, p.11-20David A. Baldwin(1993), ‘Neoliberalism, Neorealism, and World Politics’, Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate, p.E 1

사회과학| 2009.05.21| 9페이지| 30,000원| 조회(354)

신자유주의, 이론, IR, 신현실주의, 비판, Neoliberalism, 전개, ne..

미리보기

닫기
Is globalisation a means of strengthening the world’s strongest economies as well as an opportunity for greater prosperity, freedom and democracy for the peoples of the world?

Is globalisation a means of strengthening the world’s strongest economies as well as an opportunity for greater prosperity, freedom and democracy for the peoples of the world?Globalisation is a trend which has emerged after the Second World War and flourishing distinctively since late 20th century. In the era of globalisation, economies are integrated, national boundaries are collapsed, cultures are homogenized, and interdependence among nation-states and national institutions are increased. The driving forces of this trend are economic interests and the development of technology, in particular, communication and transportation. Economic interests stimulate corporations to seek cheaper material resources and labor resources which entail international trade and outsourcing for the sake of a greater profit. On the other hand, the communicational development dropped the cost of transportation and telecommunication. As a result, more and more people open businesses, travel, and study oversncreased.Measures of global inequality (such as the global Gini coefficient) have declined modestly, reversing a long historical trend towards greater inequality.Within-country inequality in general is not growing, though it has risen in several populous countries (China, India, the United States).Wage inequality in general has been rising (meaning larger wage increased for skilled worker than for unskilled workers).The growing inequality threatens workers with low wage competition. Moreover, governments no longer can protect domestic workers. Governmental intervention is restricted by the logic of the market and it affects the welfare of domestic workers. Today, international capitalists can buy labor in anywhere. They are seeking for cheaper labor and they can withdraw their company anytime if they are not satisfied the profit result. The pressure of competition has deteriorated the welfare of the workers and this phenomenon is more frequent and serious in less-developed countries thefit from this, for example, the economic miracle in East-Asia. Proponents of globalisation suggest that globalisation is a means of spreading wealth, democracy, freedom and prosperity. In contrast, censurers suggest globalisation lead to social exclusion and fragmentation. The evolvement and result of globalisation is not black and white, it has both positive and negative aspects to human society. However, it is evident that advanced nations have enjoyed more benefit from the output of the new global trend.Democracy is tightly interwoven with the globalisation process. According to a report of the Global Governance Reform Project, modern democracy has evolved through five stages. The first stage began with democratic revolutions in Britain, the U.S. and France in 17-18th centuries. Then, the influence transmitted to Europe in 19th century. The second stage happened in the late 19th century and led by the working-class movements and initiated welfare reforms in Russia, China and other gnificantly, freedom of speech and freedom of action became reality – even though there are some restrictions, the degree of freedom is noteworthy compare to the pre-globalisation era. The significance of democracy lies in political freedom of individuals and it is a very important part of human freedom. However, to a certain extent this contributed to the spread of liberal individualism which destructed all types of communities. This is a challenge to all nations participated in globalisation process.One of the positive aspects of political globalisation is enhancement of international security through bilateral or regional treaties and pacts. However, the limitation on controllability of the proliferation of terrorism is critical. Sometimes, terrorism affects a nation’s political position – for example, Bali bombing for Australian government and 9/11 for the U.S. government and other many national governments. Criminal networks became more complex and organized. Any single actor, sucon human rights and environment are the main reasons. In globalised world, economically weaker nations often sacrifice their sovereignty for the sake of economic ends. When the establishment of new market is on the weaker countries’ expense, economic inequality is inevitable. Then, stragglers fell behind from the competition will be threatened by social inequality and then their protest will threaten democracy. However, although globalisation may not bring real freedom or democracy to the world, this is the only way to achieve economic development at the moment. This is a new wave that started in the 20th century and it is a new leading trend. In this era, global cooperation is imperative. The limits of globalisation and newly emerging problems are only can be dismissed by the solutions drawn by global cooperation. Decision-makers need to create and agree on common goals and values for the entire human beings.Globalisation is not necessarily an opportunity for spread of democracy since 10

사회과학| 2009.05.21| 17페이지| 30,000원| 조회(345)

세계화, 경제, 민주화, globalization, 화, globalisation, 번영

미리보기

닫기
“In an age of international terrorism, the law on self-defence needs to be expanded to include the right to pre-emptive self-defence.” Evaluate the arguments both for and against this proposition.

“In an age of international terrorism, the law on self-defence needs to be expanded to include the right to pre-emptive self-defence.” Evaluate the arguments both for and against this proposition.Globalisation has transformed various aspects of the international system. The change in the international system that derived from globalisation challenges a number of sections of international law. In particular, the most challenging part of globalisation is the proliferation of nuclear weapons and terrorism. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon and it actually has existed throughout our human history. However, the reason why the recent change of international security terrifies people is modern terrorism which considerably different to traditional terrorism. The technological advance in weaponry production made terrorist activities unpredictable in terms of time and space. In addition, modern terrorist groups are more organized than traditional terrorist groups and often do not correspond to nze the fear. The common traits of traditional and modern terrorism can be described as political nature and purpose, rare involvement with any states and organized violence. Also, they are non-states actors who do not abide by international laws or norms. Modern terrorism upholds all these traits and possesses few new properties as well. It is unpredictable, fast, devastating and transnational. Therefore, some states emphasize the importance of the right of pre-emptive self-defence. That is, states should be able to prevent or impede the potential and predicted attacks to their territory before terrorists launch their strikes. However, the Charter of United Nations prohibits the use of force by states.The UN Charter is the most authoritative reference for most political and legal issues related to international relations includes the states’ use of force. The condition of the use of force is elucidated in Article 2(4).Article 2(4):All Members shall refrain in their international relatiause of the possibility of attacks on Canadian territory. From this incident, legal distinction between a war and self-defence has created. In addition, necessity and proportionality has claimed as the criteria of a new customary international law on right of self-defence. However, the creation of the UN Charter set a restriction to states that they can only act in response of an armed attack. Although the Article respects the inherent aspect of the right, the UN Security Council’s approval is required in any circumstances under the current international law. Therefore, without the authorization by the UN Security Council, pre-emptive attacks are technically an illegal action.Some states believe the Article is outdated and deters states’ political rights. Amendment of the UN Charter has claimed by many states include the United States and the United Kingdom. The main reason of the claim lies in the new global security environment. On 7 February 2004 in response to the blame of the Iraqexample, the United States said that they went to war in Iraq to prevent potential threats of WMD and in the interest of freedom of the Iraqi people. However, it turned out that was a falsehood mission and in fact WMD did not exist in Iraq since it was removed by the US in cooperation of UNSCOM. In addition, in exchange of freedom, countless numbers of civilians were killed. In fact, it is more possible that the war was carried out for ideological, religious reason and to secure sources of oil. Like this, states can always make an excuse by mentioning the right of pre-emptive self-defence to achieve a political purpose. In addition, it is hard to judge whether it is a pre-emptive attack or an invasion when the conflict occurs based on various reasons. Along with this, states can misjudge the risk accidentally or deliberately. There will be no absolute measure to assess the degree of risks therefore it is easy to be misjudged.Furthermore, the expended right of pre-emptive self-defence cinstitutions but the right of pre-emptive self-defence is still an on-going issue. Since both opponents and proponents of expansion of the right of self-defence have persuasive opinions, it is very hard to terminate the debate. Today, we are living in the globalised world. Everything is connected to another in political, economic, social and cultural aspect. When it comes to security, most of the places in the earth are not safe from the threat of terrorism. The proliferation of terrorism and nuclear weapons force to states consider the adoption of the right of pre-emptive strike. Even though the adoption would be enormously risky, states do not have much choice to survive and protect their people and territory. When the necessity of the expansion of law on self-defence is clear, establishing institutions and measures are crucial. Quick and accurate risk assessment system at international level should be prepared in prior to the expansion of the law on self-defence.ReferencesAudrey KurGE 1

사회과학| 2009.05.21| 13페이지| 30,000원| 조회(366)

국제법, UN, 테러, terror, 찬반, self-defence, pre-emp..

미리보기

닫기
For and Against (Pros and Cons) the sale of Australian uranium to India

What are the arguments FOR and AGAINST the sale of Australia’s uranium to India?Uranium is a strategic material which can be used for the development of atomic energy and nuclear weapons. Despite of its dangerousness, uranium often called as a next generation’s energy since it has significant benefits than fossil fuels. Uranium is an economical ore which generates enormous energy with small amount of material. One kilogram of uranium produces same amount of energy that three hundred drums of oil produce. In addition, different from fossil fuels, uranium hardly produces carbon dioxide which is a major cause of current global warming. These days, the popularity of uranium is massive. Due to the soaring price of oil and gas and limitation of resources, many countries are seeking for their energy solution in atomic power development. As the demand increases the price of uranium is also increasing. This is an economic opportunity to the countries with uranium resources.Australia has the woric Energy Agency (henceforth IAEA) audit 65% of its nuclear reactors under safeguard of IAEA. Although the U.S. and India say India will separate its civil and military facilities, they never said that India will give up its nuclear weapon development. Civil and military development shares various same technologies, and 35% of Indian nuclear power plant will not be audited by IAEA. The U.S. persuades India to open all the facilities but, nonetheless, India will not give up its nuclear weapons unless China and Pakistan do due to the regional security issue against China and Pakistan.Fourth, Australia’s supply of uranium may lead India to threaten the world security. Civil and military nuclear reactor uses same facilities, and spent fuel rods can be used to extract plutonium for nuclear weapons. Once India secures enough uranium supply, there’s more possibility India to develop nuclear weapons due to the given reason above. Nuclear pessimists believe that spread of nuclear weapons menace while it does sell to Russia and China. Medcalf asserts India is more responsible than China by complying with international safeguards:India has applied the non-proliferation principle of not spreading nuclear weapons materials or know-how to others, unlike China with its help to Pakistan, or Pakistan with its infamous A.Q. Khan bazaar. The US-India deal recognizes and would reinforce this, bringing many Indian reactors under international safeguards.Proponents of the uranium sale assert that banning uranium sale to India brings a great loss to Australia. First, the relationship with the U.S. will be damaged. The U.S. tries to build its strong alliance power within the Asia-Pacific region, include Australia, to respond to the soaring economic and military power of China. The U.S. pursued a new relation with India, the world’s largest democratic country. Mr. Bush’s decision to change attitude towards India and exporting nuclear technology generally approves India as a nuclear state. Aposition in global decision making process.Fifth, Australia will earn substantial amount of money from the uranium sale to India. Since Australia does not have enrichment facilities, most of the uranium dug out are exported to other countries. From the uranium export, Australian government earned AUD$546 million in 2006 and estimated to be worth $884 million in 2008. Since the running cost of nuclear plants for energy generation is cheaper than that of conventional power plants, the demand for uranium will gradually increase as well as the price of the ore. Actually, the price of uranium is keep increasing - from USD$10.75 per pound in 2003 to approximately $100 per pound in 2007. (See Appendix III) In consideration of the current price trend, the uranium export can bring a considerable economic benefit to Australia.Sixth, environmentalists assert that expansion of uranium usage instead of fossils fuels would help to slow down global warming. So far, no other materials are proven for lanal, nr. Niagara Falls, N.Y.: was destroyed by waste from chemical plants. By the 1990s, the town had been cleaned up enough for families to begin moving back to the area.1957Oct. 7, Windscale Pile No. 1, north of Liverpool, England: fire in a graphite-cooled reactor spewed radiation over the countryside, contaminating a 200-square-mile area.South Ural Mountains: explosion of radioactive wastes at Soviet nuclear weapons factory 12 mi from city of Kyshtym forced the evacuation of over 10,000 people from a contaminated area. No casualties were reported by Soviet officials.1976nr. Greifswald, East Germany: radioactive core of reactor in the Lubmin nuclear power plant nearly melted down due to the failure of safety systems during a fire.1979March 28, Three Mile Island, nr. Harrisburg, Pa.: one of two reactors lost its coolant, which caused overheating and partial meltdown of its uranium core. Some radioactive water and gases were released. This was the worst accident in U.S. nuclear-react>

경영/경제| 2009.05.21| 19페이지| 30,000원| 조회(296)

환경, 인도, 수출, 호주, pro, For, 우라늄, 찬반, Uranium

미리보기

닫기