- Treaties
o State sovereignty can play a crucial factor in the resolution of world order allowing states to enter treaties with free will than political pressure.
I know this isn't your final version - but the wording here isn't very clear, and it's also not completely correct. So yes, state sovereignty gives autonomy to states to choose with treaties they enter, but that doesn't mean that they won't be influenced by political pressure as you've stated. So I'd re-word it to say that it gives states the opportunity to enter treaties that suit the interests of their nation. But, a downside could be that the global political sphere is at times full of pressure from different states - either trying to bag themselves the best bargain, or trying to gain cooperation for the greater globe. States can enter treaties with other states without any external force as each nation state can utilize state sovereignty as its means for the decisions its makes which can assists as well as impede the resolution of world order.
Just from the "as it means" part, I'm a little confused. "States can enter treaties with other states without having to refer to an impartial body, allowing states to create partnerships on a global level that can assist with maintaining world order." Mayyyybe something like this? I'm not certain it's what you're trying to say. State sovereignty can ensure cooperation as states willingly enter these treaties demonstrated in the Indus Water Treaty, a bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan been highly successful as despite both states having history of conflicts, state sovereignty has allowed the resolution of world order having allowed both countries to mutually agree on the division of rivers and use of water without any external pressure leading it to be the ‘most successful water sharing endeavors today.’
Reference this quote - if it's from someone important then boast it! Great example, too. There's a lot of treaties in the world that don't have a whole lot to do with maintaining peace, and you've selected a great treaty that remains a pertinent example for the rest of your essay. However
comma, state sovereignty can also impeded
impede* the resolution of world order in relation to nation states signing treaties as countries aren’t obliged to sign it if it doesn’t meet their interests. This is demonstrated in the time taken by Australia to sign the Kyoto Protocol as it was against its economic interest which impeded the resolution to world order due to the lack of global cooperation. Thus whilst state sovereignty allows nation states to willingly enter treaties which can play a pivotal in assisting world order it can also then impede world order resolutions choose to refrain from signing treaties that don’t meet their self-interests.
Good one! With the suggested opening sentence I proposed, this balanced approach is great. - Limited response of un
o The limited responses of the UN due to the notion
application of...rather than notion. It's not just a notion. of state sovereignty can severely impede the resolution of world order. As a result of state sovereignty, the international community can provide limited responses when countries commit war crimes against its people or threaten the global peace as they have the right to have unwanted input from the international community regarding conduct and manner. This is demonstrated during the Rwandan genocide, where the UN in fear of
breaching undermining state sovereignty was only capable of sending peace keepers into the country which also had limited capabilities in resolving the conflict within the country.
Perhaps identify the name of the resolution in Rwanda...I can't remember it off the top of my head but I'm fairly certain there was a title given to it...I remember it from the movie Hotel Rwanda...sorry I can't think of the name. It might be a number like Resolution ####. Furthermore, North Korea’s recent nuclear testing has made world order difficult to resolve due to the fact that interference can be considered state sovereignty being impeded. North Korea has utilized State Sovereignty to withdraw its signature from the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty in 2003 as despite being suspected of building nuclear weaponry, it is difficult for the UN to investigate this matter due to it being a closed and separate state. As a result, the UN carries the capacity to impose sanctions upon the nation banning exports and global assets freeze from nation which also relies on cooperation of other countries to ensure it success. However, countries such as China, who are allies with the North Korea can choose to ignore such sanctions that aim to resolve world order utilizing the principal of state sovereignty. Thus state sovereignty can severely impede the responses the UN can take agsint nations that fail to cooperate in the global aim of resolving world order issues
This might be a good time to talk about the UNSC? The p5 and veto power? Also would be a good spot for a media article - there's so many on North Korea!- Limited enforceability
o State sovereignty has resulted in the limited enforceability of international law which severely impeded the resolution of world order. Nation state
s can utilize their state sovereignty to display their political will in assisting the maintenance of world order. This is evident
when This doesn't make sense. Solomon islands which formally requested Australia to intervene in its internal conflict, which was in Australia’s best interest the ‘environment for hostile actors and jeopardize national security” as reported in ‘RAMSI ends with its mission accomplished for Solomon islands. Via RAMSI, Solomon Islands has a low crime rate by global standards and lowest rates of gun
possession? or use? in the world, displaying that if countries use state sovereignty to display their political will, globally world order is attainable. However, if the state sovereignty’s decides for the lack of political will to cooperate then it is difficult to attain a resolution for world orders as displayed by the US Guantanamo Bay which is illegally operating under the 1949 Geneva conventions despite being hard international law. Having be located in Cuba outside of US jurisdiction the prisoners from the war of terror are detained, interrogated and tortured without a trials. Whilst US President Obama promised to shut it down, the international community is powerless to act as there is no political will and they cannot impede state sovereignty. Hence resolutions to world order are highly reliant on state sovereignty displaying political will to address the issues which threaten world order