| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "NATIONAL INTEREST VERSUS WORLD": |
|
|
National Interest versus World Interest, 2004.
This paper discusses whether nations should put the concerns of the global community ahead of their own nation's concerns.
678 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 2 sources, MLA, £ 16.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This article raises the question whether the concerns of the global community should be placed before their own nation's concerns. This matter is answered by suggesting that a nation's long-term interest is in fact bound up with the interests of the world community. In this paper, the writer's analysis is based on the beliefs of Sun Tzu and Machiavelli.
From the Paper
"Should nations put the interests of the world community ahead of purely national interests? At first glance, this proposition is likely to sound admirable but perhaps naive. However, the question may also lead us to consider where nations' long-term interests lie. Small weak nations certainly have an interest in a peaceful world community in which more powerful nations will not threaten or oppress them. Even large powerful nations however, may well find it in their own long-term interest to put world interests first."
| |
|
The Developing World versus the Developed World, 2008.
This paper discusses the power held by the developed nations over the developing world.
861 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 2 sources, APA, £ 20.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that the G7 nations of Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and the United States remain some of the most powerful economic forces in the world today, yet they seem unable to exert any real pressure upon China according to Reuters reporter Louise Egan. Their conflict with China over China's currency value exemplifies the greater power held by developing nations in the current world economy. The writer points out that despite increasing pressure from the G7 nations to ensure that China's currency more accurately reflect its real value, China seems unlikely to allow its currency rise according to G7 demands.
From the Paper
"Once upon a time when the U.S. caught an 'economic cold,' the rest of the world, particularly the G24 nations would catch the flu. Now that has changed. Furthermore, of the powerful, developed nations, the EU block countries rather than America and Japan exercise more dominance and have more confidence in the wake of difficulties when negotiating with the developing world.
"The IMF has been somewhat caught in the middle of this war between the G7 and G24 war for dominance. Because it has an inclusive membership policy for all nations, it strives to be accommodating rather than polarizing, especially after it was criticized for being unduly harsh to developing nations when they were suffering their own financial difficulties. "
| |
|
International Law and National Interests, 2008.
Argues that international law does not have an independent effect on the behavior of states.
2,270 words (approx. 9.1 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, even in cases where states obey an international law, they do it because it's in their best national or security interest to follow the law. The paper utilizes the rational decision making model to introduce this argument. The paper then presents the Crimean war of 1854, the current Iraq War, the dispute over the Bakassi peninsula between Nigeria and Cameroon and the "Montreal Protocol" and chloroform carbons as examples. The paper also reviews treaties and agreements, which deal somewhat directly with individuals, such as the international criminal court of justice. The paper concludes that state interest, which is shaped by the position of its political class, citizens and interest groups, determines if the state preference is to follow international law or not.
From the Paper
"A good example of a states following international law because it is in their national interest was the dispute over the Bakassi peninsula between Nigeria a Cameroon. The Bakassi peninsula is an oil rich region between Nigeria and Cameroon. This peninsula has been cause of serious rivalry between Cameron and Nigeria. Both countries claimed that they had jurisdiction over the peninsula. The complexity of this case required a review of old colonial documents between these nations and their colonial masters. "
| |
|
Economics & National Interest, 1993.
Looks at the need for U.S. govt. to create policy to deal with the threats of free trade, regional trading blocs and a changing global marketplace.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 5 sources, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
" Throughout its history, the United States has supported the free trade system. Ideally, this system is designed to keep international trade open and to prevent governments from imposing restrictive tariffs or quotas on the importing or exporting of goods. Recently, however, there have been increased complaints among American politicians that some of our major trading partners are engaging in unfair practices. For example, some foreign firms have engaged in the practice of "dumping," in which goods are exported at a loss "in order to drive other products out of the marketplace" (Bonker, 1988, p. 32). Furthermore, some foreign governments have adopted policies which give an unfair advantage to the companies of their own nations. These governments often provide subsidies to companies that utilize aggressive exporting techniques. In addition, these governments.."
| |
|
Global Politics versus National Politics, 2002.
A discussion on the issues of globalization and its effect on national politics.
760 words (approx. 3.0 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 18.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper deals with globalization and the problems it creates for the development of political values and goals in the nation-state. The paper looks in particular at the case of Jamaica which is trying to find a middle path between developing a global character and maintaining some form of national distinction.
From the Paper
"The interconnectedness of the world since the early 1990s has been described principally as globalization. The move to what has been called the ?global village? has emphasized borderless activity, opening up of markets, sharing of technology, human capital, skills and experience, as well ideas of political development and culture. This is not to say the idea of globalization is new, as from the beginnings of the industrial revolution in the mid 1900s, in European countries and elsewhere, trends and traces of what has now been so termed, popularly, has always been existent, but not until the late 20th century made distinct and given widespread attention."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
Analyzing Cartelism versus Nationalism in Zinn, 2005.
An examination of the work of Howard Zinn, and the war in Iraq.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 2 sources, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses how the element of national patriotism in a national identity is lost when cartels in the American government create wars that work in their self-interest. The writer proposes that Howard Zinn carefully understands the nature of government, and defies the sense of outward and superficial patriotism that is driving a corporate war in Iraq. The writer argues that the soldiers in the Iraq War are not fighting for their country, but are being lured into a war that serves a select elite few in governmental cartels, especially those relating to oil.
From the Paper
"This political and governmental study will contrast two articles by Howard Zinn and Elie Wiesel. In this manner, Wiesel offers an ethnocentric view of American national identity, which overlooks the atrocities caused by cartelism. In essence, Howard Zinn gives a more empirical historical, economic, and governmental to detail the greater truth of American cartelism over the democratic principles that Wiesel defines through a nationalized idealization of America today. The basis of Zinn's article reflects on the notion of 'cartels', which are defined a group of countries or companies that rule a nation by controlling prices on goods that are both imported and exported. The problem in America, Zinn argues, is that dying (in war) for one's country is different that dying for the government: Those who died in this war did not die for their country."
| |
|
Socialism versus Nationalism, 2004.
An analytical comparison between socialism and nationalism.
2,485 words (approx. 9.9 pages), 9 sources, MLA, £ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper illustrates that nationalism focuses on ethnicity and nationality, with or without the race aspect, as the central characteristic of the individual and as the primary source of loyalty for the group. The paper explains that socialism, on the other hand, focuses on economic class as the central characteristic of the individual and as the primary social bond. Due to these differences, the paper contends that the two schools of thought have different opinions on what makes a government legitimate, how democracy should function within the state, the meaning and residence of power, and the basic definition of the nation.
From the Paper
"The way in which rampant nationalism guides nations today is evident in the history of Bush's war on Terror. A great deal of documentation indicates that this war was fought largely for social and economic gain for the nation, and it was justified through rampant nationalism in the media. Through the use of rhetoric elevating the socio-cultural traditions of America and its apple-pie, and the simultaneous equation of terrorism, human rights violations and some vague threats of "mass destruction" emanating from a specified Islamic countries, the people of the states united behind the war effort to subdue Iraq. According to a conservative website, "America's war with terror is unique in our history in that its people are directly involved. The high degree of their emotional involvement...The nationalistic feelings of the American people pose ... opportunities for the Bush Administration in the war on terror." (Holsinger) Similar trends were seen in Italy or Japan during the early stages of the most recent World War."
| |
|
Nationalism and the Founding of Nations, 2007.
A discussion of whether it is nationalism which engenders nations or the opposite.
1,990 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 14 sources, APA, £ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues the case in favor of the stance that nationalism engenders nations, and not the other way around. The paper points out that there has yet to be any real consensus reached among historians regarding this question. It asserts that a large proportion of this debate relies on the context in which the argument is made, i.e. the time-frame and historical references used. Furthermore, definitions of the terms "nationalism" and "nation" vary from one source to another. The paper attempts to define these key terms. The interaction between nations and nationalism is analyzed using the nationalist movement of eighteenth and nineteenth century Germany as a reference point. The paper concludes that analyzing the origins of the nationalist movement illustrates how nationalism preceded the nation.
From the Paper
"It has already been said that a nation is not something overly definitive, so how can we justify its existence? It is generally accepted that any nation of people exists because that certain group of people have something or some things in common; race, language, culture, history etc. But it is inadequate to define a nation by describing it as an entity in which all individuals share common characteristics, because there will always be exceptions to the rule. Yet, if we try to define a nation using only a single rule, e.g. the necessity of a shared culture, then we narrow it down to too fine a focus, and potentially exclude a large number of people who identify themselves as being part of that nation. Renan, for example, championed heritage and the shared "heroic past" of a people as the only required component of a nation."
| |
|
League of Nations and the United Nations, 2005.
This paper compares and contrasts the League of Nations and the United Nations.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 4 sources, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer compares and contrasts the League of Nations and the United Nations as international organizations formed to maintain peace and international cooperation. The writer discusses the League's role in reducing international tensions and its limited effectiveness. Further, the writer discusses the complexity of the United Nations as an organization.
From the Paper
Inis L. Claude stated that 'One World' is in some respects an idea land an aspiration born of modern interpretations of ancient moral thoughts and of rational estimates of the requirements for human survival. Both the League of Nations and its successor the United Nations were created as international organizations with a vested interest in maintaining the peace, preventing war, creating a mechanism or set of mechanisms for international cooperation and diplomacy and otherwise serving as trustees of ... "
| |
|
Nation - Nation State, 2002.
Defining the difference between a nation and a nation-state.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 6 sources, MLA, £ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Even though these concepts seem very similar, this paper uses contemporary examples to show the difference between a nation and a nation-state. It discusses the history of Zionism, the "Nation of Islam" quest by African-Americans, and the ongoing wars in the Balkans. It also looks at different factors taken into account when defining these concepts - religion, history and culture.
From the Paper
"Defining the difference between a nation and a nation-state can seem more like a bit of philosophical hair-splitting than a useful distinction for a political scientist to make in analyzing the present global situation. However, to better understand the assumptions that underline the terms of ?nation? and ?nation state? it is useful to unpack such concepts before passing judgement on what is a nation or a nation state in the real world of lived political existence."
| |
|
Public Interest or Public Best Interest, 2002.
A study of the topic of what is the 'best public interest' compared to 'public interest' and the role of the public administrator.
1,810 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 6 sources, MLA, £ 40.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper shows the difficulty the public administrator is faced with when deciding what is the ?public interest? or ?public best interest? and that sometimes the administrator has to make decisions based on the community ?best? interests or the ?objective control of administration?. Sections of the paper include: Pluralists and the Public Administrator, The Public as Consumers, The Public as Represented, The Public as Client and the Public as Citizen.
From the Paper
"Other examples can be commercials. If a child sees cereal with a toy in it, he/she will beg and cry until the mother buys the cereal. The mother may know this is not the ?best interest? of the child because it lacks important vitamins or may be full of sugar. The commercial has placed value on knowing children will see the commercial and will talk their parents into buying it. The interest of the children is met, but not the ?best? interest of the children."
| |
|
Nationalism and the Modern Nation State, 2004.
A comparison of Umut Ozkirimli?s work, entitled "Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction" and Stuart J. Kaufman?s "Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War".
842 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, £ 20.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines these two writers' views on nationality and concludes that, although Kaufman is more inclined to speak of ?hatreds? rather than ethnic identities, Kaufman also, like Ozkirimli, stresses the importance of understanding the emotional significance of ethnic and national identity when constructing a nation state, rather than the idea that ethnicity exists as a linear, enclosed historical trope within definable and easily recognizable boundaries;ethnicity is ?felt,? rather than historically in evidence, for both authors.
From the Paper
"The overview present in Umut Ozkirimli?s analysis is a warning not to dismiss the importance of nationalism, and also a caution not to accept certain groups? claims to nationhood wholesale and at their face value, as the concept of what constitutes ethnicity shifts and changes, depending on individual?s particular political alliances in a particular historical context. Ozkirimili?s work has a far more dispassionate tone, in contrast, to Stuart J. Kaufman?s Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Kaufman?s work, in contrast to Ozkirimli, is more stridently prescriptive in nature. However, Kaufman is also more rigorous in his use of international political theoretical frameworks to justify his suggestions to policymakers."
| |
|
Quebec Nationalism vs. Canadian Nationalism, 2006.
A discussion on why nationalism is stronger in Quebec than it is in the rest of Canada.
2,250 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 10 sources, £ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
It is very clear that nationalism is stronger in Quebec than it is in the rest of Canada. While Quebec remains a province of federal Canada, the question of seceding from Canada and becoming an independent country is never far from the agenda of most politicians in Quebec, and generates immense patriotic fervor throughout Quebec. This factor makes Quebec entirely different from other Canadian provinces. For example, we never hear talk of British Columbia seceding from Canada and becoming the Republic of British Columbia. In order to understand this peculiar situation, this paper investigates Canada's past and, specifically, the history of Quebec with Canada.
|
|
|
