Fluent Essays

this is a discussion post!you have to answer the 6 questions below using just the book found in the instructions as reference!include in text citations from the book too!should be minimum 100 words for each question, so 600 words total minimum!check the example file as well to see how this should be done!Discussion Thread: 5.1 What role should UN Resolutions play in Legalizing the use of force in war? Q & ACourse: International Organizations (PSC – 4400) Spring (2019/2020)Book: International Organizations: Perspectives on Global GovernanceAuthor(s): Kelly – Kate S. PeaseEdition: 6th year 2019ISBN: 978-0-81533-8046-7Good Afternoon, This a Discussion Board for Political Science: International Organizations: Perspectives on Global Governance: (PSC-4400). (DUE: 25 DAYS)Follow instructions down below, preferably someone who is really good within Political Science.Here is a copy of the book cover we are using:https://read.amazon.com/?asin=B07G43F3QVtry this link to E-Book off of Amazon!Discussion Thread: 5.1 What role should UN Resolutions play in Legalizing the use of force in war?Q1:What role do you think UN Resolutions should play in Legalizing the use of force by a member state in war? Should a UN Security Council Resolution that specifically authorizes the use of any and all means necessary to restore peace be required before a member state can go to war to respond to a threat?Q2:Some liberalist scholars argue that nation states should always come to the UN Security Council to present their case for the use of force, before they go to war. After all, it is the UNs purpose to resolve conflicts by peaceful means short of war.Q3:Realist scholars, on the other hand, argue just as strongly that states have a right to use force in self-defense, to protect its citizens, to protect its sovereignty, and in a half dozen other circumstances fully recognized in Just War Doctrine and international legal precedents. The UN Charter recognizes this right as well.Q4:The most recent case in which the passage of a UN Resolution became a controversial diplomatic stumbling block was UNSC Resolution 1441 in December 2002 against Iraq. The US requested a use any means necessary resolution against Iraq who was refusing UN WMD inspectors access. When the French vetoed the original resolution, the language was changed to read serious consequences before it was passed.Q5:Critics of the US invasion of Iraq have since staunchly argued that that conflict was illegal, since the UN never specifically approved language sanctioning the use of force, even though Iraq had violated 12 previous UN resolutions along the way. Those who supported the war argued that the threat of the use of WMD by Iraq was real, the US Congressional Resolution authorized the President to use force with or without UN approval, so the use of force was justified as self-defense. Other critics argue that UN resolutions are really just the big powers tool to legitimize their use of force against the little states and the means (with a veto) to prevent the little states from getting to use force.Q6:So, who is right in your opinion? Is UN approval in the form of a resolution required to use force? Should a UN SC resolution be a required stop along the Road to War? In what cases do you think would it NOT be required. Justify your answers using examples.ReferencePease, K.S. (2019). International Organizations: Perspectives on Global Governance.New York, NY London Routledge. example_discussion_board.docx Unformatted Attachment Preview This is just a discussion board post: Q & A Examples down below! Discussion 6.1 Free Trade versus Fair Trade Policy Debate Collapse Q1: The United States has benefited greatly from a Free Trade policy since it was adopted in 1944. The US has pushed the policy in every corner of the world, in every international organization and in every allied nation to the point that it became known as the Washington Consensus. However, recently the current Trump administration has dubbed the existing free trade environment as Unfair trade, and has begun to push back. As part of its new Fair Trade policy, the Trump administration has proposed to increase US import tariffs on imported steel and aluminum to 20 percent. It has also proposed 20 percent tariffs on $1.5 Billion worth of products from China. The nation states affected by this tariff proposal immediately declared the new tariff as illegal and promised to retaliate. Q2: Based upon what you have learned in Chapter 6 and the Instructor Notes, do you think the new 20 percent tariffs are a good way to create Fair Trade? Is it a sound policy? What is the likely outcome? And does such a protectionist policy make sense given the effects of similar policies by all nations during the Great Depression of the 1930s? What position will the World Trade Organization (WTO) take during the inevitable trade dispute? Q3: Justify your answer and give examples. Discussion 6.1 Collapse ANS1: Fair trade? There is such a thing? We hear the term bandied about on a regular basis but has there ever really been such a thing? Maybe the EU comes close, or even the USMCA, but, historically, there always seems to be a loser. ANS2: Even in those so-called “free-trade zones” trade is not free. Especially when it comes down to agricultural products and other nation-specific business lines of interest. As for 20\% tariffs, no it is not a good idea, but trade has been significantly higher at other points in history, especially toward the end of the 19th century. As for sound policy, that is yet to be answered. One would think not, however, President Trump was able to use the threat of higher tariffs to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico. That same threat was leveled against the European Union, bring them to the table to begin negotiations to resolve trade imbalances. That jury is still out, however. And, according to Pease, “Free trade is not always seen as a universal good” (Pease, 2012). ANS3: The biggest potential misstep is with China. With the Doha meeting in 2001, China was admitted to the WTO, which is likely to cause significant internal growing pains within the WTO as Trump pushes his agenda. Trump raised tariffs on several products from China and China retaliated with increased tariffs of their own. However, according to all the trade experts, though some pain is being felt by US businesses, financial pundits claim China has suffered significantly worse. Having said that, what happens when the Chinese Government actually feels threatened or cornered? That could pose a tremendous threat to the world economy, not just the U.S. The most likely outcome of this will be a new trade deal. It is unlikely that it will satisfy all parties, but it is probable that it will lower, maybe even reduce or eliminate, many of the existing tariffs. The question is: how far will Trump or China actually go to make their point? In many ways, Trump is given the economic structuralists reason to crow, as they believe that IOs are there to support the needs of the powerful. Both China and Trump adding fuel to the economic structuralists fire, by showing trade between both countries as being a “zero-sum game.” Currently, the U.S. has the advantage. ANS4: Comparing the trade situation to the Great Depression is the equivalent of apples and oranges. Though we are currently involved in wars against terrorism, none rises to the level or concern of the international community. The tariffs imposed are nowhere near as high as those imposed after WWI, through there is some concern over the stability of global market and the degree of protectionist measure are not equitable either. Still, with the prospects of a trade war on the horizon, if it’s not already here, the entire global financial community is on edge and it only takes one false step to set off a domino effect that could destabilize the entire, or at least portions, of the world economy. ANS5: The WTO has historically, at least on major issue, leaned toward the U.S. It was in fact the U.S. deference to the WTO, previously, that resulted in the WTO gaining some of its initial wasta (Arabic word for power, authority). ... Purchase answer to see full attachment