In Machiavelli’s book, The Prince, he maintains a harsh perspective on reality. His advice on how to maintain power leaves no room for compassion or generousity. While some may believe that these are qualities of a good person, Machiavelli believes these qualities lead to the downfall of rulers. He acknowledges that, in reality, it is impossible for someone to have qualities of a good person and simultaneously a good ruler. Machiavelli’s realistic outlook causes him to emphasize that it is better to maintain power through fear, rather than compassion.
This ideology is counter to that of liberalism as it infringes on the natural rights of its citizens, and it is undemocratic as this society would not have the consent of the governed as a whole. Furthermore, counters the rule of law because the author believes the authority should never be challenged, and therefore the author suggests that the authority is exempt of these laws. A thinker such as Hobbes would agree with the author of this source as he believed that without a strong government it would lead to nation wide chaos, such as that that the author describes through the use of the phrase, “A society that allows authority to be challenged will never succeed.”. Additionally, Locke would disagree with all parts of this source, as he believed that individuals know for themselves what is best and therefore should have the freedom to make their own decisions. For the second sentence of this source Locke and Rousseau would both disagree as they believed that consent of the governed was vital to society, which directly contradicts the authors issues with the challenging
The inability of foreign actors to concentrate on aiding groups, and instead focusing on aiding the state, resulted in a genocide. This raises the question as to whether current conflict and crisis prevention strategies need to be rethought, or disposed of completely. It is a possibility that modern conflict and crisis prevention strategies should focus less on control of state function and more so on addressing immediate contentions and grievances of the parties involved. The limited effectiveness of modern strategies on groups such as ISIS, The Muslim Brotherhood, ABNES and Al Badr begs to question if these strategies are indeed effective in terms of conflict prevention or if they are only effective at delaying
The proponents of the theory see this move being necessary when human rights are violated and consider this move to be more essential than those of sovereignty, since their actions are strictly motivated by the human need (Stewart & Knaus, 2011). However, the theory has been criticized by its opponents, terming it as a false move that has not been sanctioned, and that is undertaken by a nation under the pretence of rendering humanitarian help but is only aimed at achieving ambiguous goals Chomsky,
That by itself is not a great disaster, but the resultant skew results in the political leadership receiving sub-optimal and stilted bureaucratic advice, with adverse security repercussions. If the decision making polity is so configured that the military dimension is not adequately integrated and specialist military decisions are taken by a generalist bureaucracy on its behalf, it is only natural that the quality of those decisions will lack in military
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM The violation of an individual by another normally calls for repercussion and or in the least restitution. This is so as a result of long laid down principles that create an enabling environment for peace, law and order. In the situation where such does not take place or is noticeably cut short, a fundamental wrong capable of disturbing the peace of the society has occurred. It is wrong for those given some sort of over by people to misuse or under utilize such powers to the detriment of the people. It can only be left to ones imagination the breach of trust for ones government a person will feel in the instance where an employer assaults a person with intention to rape and one’s home government turns a blind eye.
Additionally, some of the states do not respect and neglect International Laws based on their superior military, economic and political might. The following factors display the weakness of International Law in easing tensions: • Intervention of non-parties undermines commitments of parties to their obligations under the Convention, and leaves the option for other states to leave the Convention • The lack of good faith on the Implementation of principles and general provisions of sovereign states to implement provisions of the Convention. • Failure of a country to recognize and follow international laws. On the other hand, the region benefits from the presence of resolutions and laws, for instance, stability and security over the disputed area. It would be advantageous for weak states to solve disputes without the participation of World Powers.
It is indeed imperative to understand this in order to further investigate the geopolitical scenario in existence today. It is ironic that while ideas and concepts of national sovereignty have gained massive importance in intellectual spheres and have been in fact been considered the norm, it has also been subject to great abuse and violation. The UN charter preaches respecting states' sovereignty but the UN has been unable to deter high-profile invasions, the war in Iraq, being the most appropriate example of this paradox. The infamous CIA or Central Intelligence Agency, the spy agency of the United States is another brilliant example of how powerful nations may breach certain security codes of conduct to obtain information to carry out overt tasks. Relatively freer movement within the European Union for economic purposes, especially from east european countries to the more prosperous ones of Western Europe is another example.
National sovereignty versus legislative powers of the EU What is also noteworthy is that national and cultural sovereignty with the contracting country prevails for the importance of protecting human rights. Obviously, countries do not appreciate that pressure to comply with these clauses is coming through external relations. In other words, that such a dominant figure like the EU, is making itself capable of putting pressure on domestic authorities to revise its legal order or change it. And with that said, it is obvious that the EU is in need of a stricter policy which will lead to more compliance and fluentness. In connection with the notion of national and cultural sovereignty, legislative powers of the EU are closely related.
Laws crafted will be for the good of the region and not of the nation. This does not mean, however, that federalism is an evil thing that we should avoid. It has advantages too. However, the scale inclines more to the heaviest side or the disadvantageous side of it. The cons outweigh the