| Papers [1-14] of 29 :: [Page 1 of 3] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 —> | Search results on "AMERICAN UNILATERALISM": |
|
|
American Unilateralism, 2005.
This paper discusses the unilateralism and power of the United States.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 4 sources, £ 24.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines if American unilateralism and hegemony are the only way to ensure peace in the world. The essay defines the terms 'unilateralism' and 'hegemony' and goes on to discuss how they apply to America and the rest of the world when dealing with international relations and policy-making.
From the Paper
"Most people around the world would agree that the United States of America is the most powerful and influential country on earth. We have a permanent seat on the United Nations and are involved in most major international policy decisions around the world. In fact, it can be argued that an international policy proposal would need American support more than any other country to be successful. We have the power to make or break international policy and many in the international community feel that possessing and wielding this kind of power is unfair, preferring that power and decision-making be more equally divided between countries. However, the hegemony we possess and the unilateral actions we take are not used abusively. It is necessary for America to retain this type of power to ensure that each country of the world "stays in line.""
| |
|
Unilateral Do Not Resuscitate Orders (DNR), 2007.
This paper explores the ethical issues of unilateral DNR orders.
2,070 words (approx. 8.3 pages), 7 sources, APA, £ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses unilateral DNR, or do-not-resuscitate orders, placed in the chart of patients without the consent of the patient or the patient's family. They are used when CPR would be futile. The paper then describes the ethical controversy involved with this issue--that many fear physicians could abuse this practice. The author argues that policies must be in place to safeguard against abuse. A model unilateral DNR policy is presented.
Outline:
Introduction
Review of Literature and Analysis
Explore Options
Apply Rule Ethics
Position
Considerations For Practice
Conclusion
From the Paper
"In the early 1960s, CPR or cardiopulmonary resuscitation came into use. CPR was originally developed for patients who suffered a cardiac arrest secondary to anesthesia. The practice of CPR quickly became the standard of care for all patients suffering cardiac arrest. With advancements in technology the norm has become aggressive treatment until death. From the earliest days of CPR, few issues have been more contentious than whether a physician may determine, without patient or surrogate consent, that CPR is not indicated(Leonard, 1999). According to the Journal of Critical Care Medicine, by the late 1960s articles began to appear in medical literature, which described the agony many terminally ill patients experienced from repeated resuscitations that only prolonged their death (Burns, 2003). Because of the suffering caused by CPR performed on patients with terminal illnesses, hospital staff began using the unethical practice of slow codes or show codes. Orders not to resuscitate evolved in the early 1970s."
| |
|
Unilateral and Bilateral Conceptions of Free Choice, 2005.
A discussion on the works on Anselm.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 1 source, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper analyses two of Anselm of Canterbury's short works; "Free Will" and "The Fall of the Devil".
The paper discusses free will and free choice in the context of both works, and concludes that, though on first perusal both seem to offer very different and distinct views, in actuality the two are closer than they seem.
From the Paper
"In Anselm's "Free Will" and "The Fall of the Devil", there is a distinct impression left, at least initially, that the first of these two readings cleaves to the view that "free choice" is a unilateral conception with God controlling all, while the second of the two readings posits that "free choice" is very much that with man (or at least angel) apparently free to thwart the intended dispensation of salvation by God. However, the following paper will argue that the two chapters are actually closer than they appear because God has permitted subordinates a measure of power and autonomy that necessarily leaves them free to reject his will. "
| |
|
The United States as a Hyper-Power, 2005.
This paper reviews multilateralism versus unilateralism in discussing the United States' present status as a hyper-power.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 5 sources, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the relative merits of multilateralism. The author suggests reasons why America, like any great power, is disinclined to tie itself to multilateral organizations. The paper argues that there is no guarantee that an international community led by the EU would lead to happier results.
From the Paper
"In 2005, America is the world's unmistakable and largely unrivaled superpower; this power, however, has sometimes been used in a unilateral manner that has compromised American legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world's people. But although criticism of the United States is common, it must be asked whether or not it is realistic or feasible for the world to demand that the planet's most powerful nation tie its national interests - as it defines those interests - to international organizations that are already frequently hamstrung by internecine squabbles - and which may not have America's best interests at heart."
| |
|
Should the United States Invade Iraq?, 2002.
An argument in support of the United States refraining from attacking Iraq, because it would cause tremendous human suffering and serious harm to American interests throughout the world.
1,943 words (approx. 7.8 pages), 11 sources, MLA, £ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper argues for the United States to act in concert with other nations in containing the Iraqi dictator. It provides a history of the United Nations endorsed 1990 Gulf War. The author describes how the U.S. interest in Iraq is its oil and weapons of mass destruction. The author of the paper expresses fear that a unilateral U.S. war on Iraq would cause terrorism and anti-American sentiment worldwide.
From the Paper
"In 1991, the United States, with the endorsement of the United Nations Security Council, launched an offensive against Iraq shortly after the latter invaded Kuwait. The war?s aims, according then president George Bush, were the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, stabilization of the Gulf, and protection of Americans in Kuwait. (Ambrose & Brinkley) Two major reasons for the war not mentioned by Bush, it is widely acknowledged, were the protection of American oil interests in the region and the disarmament of Iraq?s nuclear weapons program. After few days of bombings Iraq surrendered and withdrew its forces from Kuwait, thereby realizing the stated objectives of the war. As the war ended, and throughout the 1990?s, the UN, under American leadership, enforced various sanctions on Iraq with the hope of preventing Hussein?s regime from obtaining biological and nuclear weapons. Nowadays, particularly after Hussein expelled international arms inspectors from Iraq in 1998, and even more so after the relative success of the war in Afghanistan, many Americans are convinced that the US, with or without international backing, should invade Iraq with the goal of removing Hussein and inserting a regime that will be favorable to American interests. While reasonable arguments are being made about the dangers emanating from the Iraqi regime, the unilateralist military overthrow of the Iraqi government is likely to have negative ramifications on both American and universal interests for many years to come."
| |
|
The League of Nations and the United Nations, 2005.
This paper discusses the participation of the U.S. in the League of Nations and the United Nations as an element of the American national interest.
1,730 words (approx. 6.9 pages), 15 sources, APA, £ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, although the U. S. failed to support the League of Nations, America supported the United Nations because the supreme national interest of America was to obtain a world atmosphere in which the United States could grow its inner social values devoid of undue commotion or danger from the outside. The author points out that collective action via the United Nations instead of unilateral action was considered politically viable on key political issues. The paper concludes that the League of Nations and the United Nations disappointed hopes the following the two world wars because, in no way, can they be an autonomous political power; at best, the U.N. is a mirror image of the opposing interest of autonomous states.
Table of Contents
Introduction
America's Rejection to Support the League of Nations
The Historical Background
The Fundamental Principals that Lead to the Rejection of the League of Nations
America's Support for the United Nations
Using United Nations to Achieve the Goals of American Foreign Policy
The Fundamental Goal of Military Security
The Fundamental Goal of Political Security:
The Fundamental Goal of Stability and Welfare
The Fundamental Goal of World Order
Conclusion
From the Paper
"In the United States of America the major disagreement on both the groundwork venture and the refined Covenant of the League of Nations had been on the base that the League would function as an intrusion with the sovereignty of America and with the Monroe principle, that it concerned desertion of the traditional American policy, which had not been in favor of entrapped coalitions, and that the government did not have the power, within its Constitution, to insert such an agreement . Independence has revealed to be just so much freedom of action on the behalf of countries as is coherent with their responsibility, within international law and principles, to authorize the application of uniform independence or freedom of action by their sister countries. The League agreement had assured all States in their application of this sovereignty free from coercion by other Countries, and he who desires more is actually in search of the authorization thoughtlessly to ignore these commitments -- to refuse, for instance, the fair rulings of a properly established tribunal -- which is the German perception of independence."
| |
|
Rhodesian Politics in the 20th Century: UDI and the Drive Towards Freedom, 2001.
Analysis of Rhodesia's unilateral declaration of independence under the government of Ian Smith.
2,707 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 19 sources, £ 56.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper deals primarily with Rhodesian (modern-day Zimbabwe) politics in the 20th century, specifically that of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) and its ideology. Issues such as the role of ZANU, Cecil Rhodes and the British invasion, and the last one hundred years of Rhodesian history are considered, particularly focusing on the country?s drive towards independence. Cecil Rhodes? confrontation with the Ndebele tribe, African resistance groups and their role in fighting for freedom, and Rhodesia?s long history of British alliance are all discussed as subjects that help to answer the author's thesis. The main question the author tries to answer is: Was Ian Smith?s government acting in good intention when declaring illegal independence from Britain?
From the Paper
The road to freedom and development in modern day Africa has been a lengthy struggle for the continent?s nations. Political negotiations, violent uprisings, and anti- European liberation movements were all employed by different African countries at various times, depending on how difficult achieving independence would be. For nations like Tanganyika, independence was obtained through less hectic means; as this country?s primary nationalist movement (Tanganyika African National Union), led by Julius Nyere, won a decisive majority in the 1958 British parliamentary election. TANU?s victory coupled with the support they received from several powerful white-settler politicians resulted in independence for this nation, ultimately constructed around a fair and non-racial constitution.
| |
|
Preemptive War, 2005.
This paper discusses the U.S. foreign police that uses preemptive and unilateral war.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 3 sources, £ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper relates that America has become a preemptive and unilateral military force in the world due to the Bush Administration's foreign policy. The author points out the illogic of attacking a country with no ties to Bin Laden or weapons of mass destruction makes for dangerous foreign policy. The paper stresses that NATO as a real international arbitrator of tyranny seems lost as America appears to be taking on a single mindedness of its own.
From the Paper
"This foreign policy analysis examines the role of preemptive war through United States Foreign policy. Though the normative political reasons for the war in Iraq were caused in response to the attacks of 9/11 on American soil, the reasons for war in the Middle East rely more on oil and American domination. By examining the way that Bush's presidential policy intervened in foreign affairs with military might before 9/11, we can see that preemptive and unilateral war is the new trend in the Bush Administrative policy after 9/11."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy Decisions, 2004.
An examination of whether U.S. foreign policy decisions are more beneficial to the United States itself or to the world it is aiming to 'protect'.
2,451 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 5 sources, MLA, £ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the question, "Is the U.S. seeking to protect its own national security or simply to secure its own national interests throughout the world by having a unilateral approach to foreign policy decisions?" The paper uses two main sources as the basis for the analysis of this question: "Logic of American Foreign Policy" by Patrick Callahan, published in 2004; and the fifth edition of "American Foreign Policy" by Glenn Hastedt, published in 2003/4. These two main sources are introduced, in depth, and the frameworks that arise from these books are then used to frame an analysis of the question posed in this paper; supplementary examples are taken from recent political involvements of the U.S. in Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo, and China. The final section of the paper, therefore, looks at the question from the viewpoint of the book reviews, with supplementary information where necessary.
From the Paper
"Essentially, Callahan?s book looks, in depth, at six facets (or ?logics?) of the role the United States plays on the world stage: hegemonism, liberalism, realism, isolationism, liberal internationalism, and anti-imperialism. The book looks at each of these logics, and essentially traces the development of these logics through the study of the relevant policy documents and historical responses to these policies; a critical summary is then given for each logic. Three case studies are then presented at the end of the main body of the text: the debate following US intervention in Kosovo; the debate surrounding the 1990 Chinese trade debate, and the events following the events of September 11th 2001. These issues will be discussed, when relevant, in the present paper."
| |
|
The Bush Doctrine, 2005.
This paper examines the U.S. foreign policies of 'containment' and the 'Bush Doctrine'.
1,980 words (approx. 7.9 pages), 10 sources, MLA, £ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that 'Bush Doctrine', implemented in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, has given a decisive new direction to the U.S. foreign policy, which was previously based on the principles of containment and deterrence. The author points out that this new foreign policy principles of pre-emption and unilateralism immediately were put to test by the U.S. administration by its war with Iraq. The paper relates that the results of this change in policy have been mixed and it is still too early to tell whether the Bush Doctrine would prove to be a long-term, lasting and successful change in U.S. foreign policy or the country would have to revert back to the time-tested and less controversial principles of containment, deterrence and multilateralism.
Table of Contents
Policy of Containment: Origin and History
The 'Bush Doctrine': its Roots and Implementation
The Defense Planning Guidance Draft of 1992
Neo-Cons' Letter to President Clinton (1998)
George W. Bush & His Foreign Policy 'Tutors'
Terrorists Provide the Opportunity
From Containment to Preemption
Formal Pronouncement of the Bush Doctrine: The US National Security Strategy
Preemption
Unilateralism
US Hegemony
Actively Promoting Democracy, and Liberty around the World
Pros and Cons of the New Bush Doctrine
Cons
Tarnished US Image
Invitation to Isolation and Enmity
Unethical Doctrine
Invites Abuse and Sets a Precedent for Others
Democracy Cannot be Exported
Pros
Threat of Terrorism needs New Strategy
Pre-emption by US: not the First Time
Is the Bush Doctrine Succeeding?
Conclusion
From the Paper
"The doctrine of preemptive war invites abuse because it offers no criteria by which to judge whether a threat justifies a preemptive strike. The U.S. invasion of Iraq is an appropriate example of such a 'preemptive' war in which there was arguably no imminent threat of an attack except in the sole judgment of the Bush administration. It also sets a dangerous precedent for others to follow in order to settle their regional differences. There are a number of current political disputes around the world in which the stronger adversary could invoke the 'preemptive' doctrine to attack its weaker neighbor. For example, China could attack Taiwan over the question of Taiwan's independence; India could attack Pakistan over the Kashmir dispute, and Russia is already threatening to attack Georgia over the alleged cross-border terrorist activities of Chechen guerillas."
| |
|
International Policy Trade-Offs, 2004.
This paper discusses that international policy must carefully weigh competing and often equally valid choices and make some compromise between these opposing values.
3,255 words (approx. 13.0 pages), 9 sources, APA, £ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the current policy of preemptive strikes is an issue with significant tradeoffs involved for both unilateral and multilateral involvement. The problem with acting in a unilateral fashion is that the acting nation is held solely responsible for the outcome and may be seen as a rogue state by the other nations of the world, thus causing problems immediately with global backlash. The author points out that there are two theories: Liberalism, which argues that, while states may be self-interested and may be working for themselves, in the end, they are also working for the greater good, and constructivism, which argues against a single state blindly trying to force its political structure on all other nations in the name of freedom. The paper relates that similar tough issues involve the private and public clashes regarding environmental protection and immigration laws. These are areas in which a variety of tradeoffs exist, complicating foreign and domestic relationships.
From the Paper
"There is any number of debates surrounding national security. For example, there is an obvious debate plastered all over campuses and in the media regarding whether or not it is right to use war to prevent potential terrorist attacks. Some say that the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan will merely create environments conducive to the formations of disillusioned terrorist cells. Further debates surround the inevitable loss of civil rights associated with nationwide crack downs on suspicious anti-American sentiment and activity. Perhaps the most interesting debate in terms of international policy, however, is that surrounding the importance of multilateral support for national security measures. For the past century, America has generally operated on a multilateral level militarily. Since the founding of the U.N., international opinion has generally held that for conflict to be legitimate, a strong global support must exist behind it. For example, in the first Gulf War, President Bush Sr. let a powerful multilateral force to liberate Kuwait. Today, President Bush Jr. has adopted a far more unilateral strategy, accepting allies where they come in handy but reiterating that they are not entirely necessary. Evidence of this is found both in theory and in action."
| |
|
The Institutional Model of International Order, 2004.
A discussion of the Institutional Model of International Order using the Congress of Vienna as an example.
2,000 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 12 sources, MLA, £ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay discusses the institutional model of international order and contains a review of its development from the Congress of Vienna until the post-Cold War period. This essay compares the behaviour of great powers in post-Napoleonic Wars and in post-Cold War and subsequently, compares their attitude toward the institutional approaches in sustaining the international order. The post-Cold War period is selected because of its special features: the existence of the United States as the sole great power and the concern about the U.S. unilateralism due to its feasible effects on the future of the international order.
From the Paper
"The establishment of institutions the and the effort to sustain the international order and the prominent role of great powers in formulating such an effort were two of the most important achievements of the Congress of Vienna. As Ikenberry has observed; in the Congress of Vienna the great powers ?made increasingly elaborate efforts to institutionalize the post-war security relations? between them and such efforts were implemented in a combination of balance of powers strategies and the establishment of commitments by creating various types of binding institutions. Ikenberry argues that the aftermath of major wars presents the winning states with three main choices: to dominate the weaker and defeated states, to abandon the other states and simply go home, and to use their commanding power position to gain acquiescence and participation in a mutually acceptable post-war order. The third choice was preferred by Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria as the most responsible countries for the defeat of Napoleon, and they decided to sit together at the Congress of Vienna to establish not only a peace settlement but also a new international order in Europe. From Ikenberry?s viewpoint, the motivation behind such a decision was the intention ?to establish a set of rules and arrangements that are durable and legitimate, but rules and arrangements that also serve the long-term interests of the leading state.?"
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2003.
Three separate essays on U.S. foreign policy.
2,300 words (approx. 9.2 pages), 6 sources, APA, £ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents three separate essays on U.S. foreign policy, dealing with nuclear arms reduction; unilateralism versus multilateralism and the role of multilateralism to serve American interests; and presidential power in making foreign policy.
| |
|
Legitimating Role of the United Nations, 2003.
Examines the role of the United Nations as a legitimating instrument.
3,680 words (approx. 14.7 pages), 6 sources, APA, £ 88.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The role of the United Nations as a legitimating instrument is discussed in this paper. A contrast is drawn between the Gulf War of 1991, with broad international acknowledgment of its legitimacy, and the unilateralism of the war against Iraq.
From the Paper
"The most common criticism of the United Nations is that it is incapable of taking decisive action on its own. It can act only if some member nation or a coalition of member ..."
|
|
|
