IR Debate No.1: Is State Power Vanishing?

By
This is the first essay in my new series, IR Debates. If you didn't catch the introductory article, you can read it here. 

I am arguing for Argument 2, which is "States Are Down, but Not Out." 

First of all, States are much older than any IGO, NGO, or MNC. Since they have been around for so long, they have fluctuated. Anything that lasts for thousands of years must change. Nonstate actors gaining influence is merely one of these changes. 

Iceland is one example of a country that has changed. Settled somewhere between 870-930 C.E., it has experienced colonization and independence, paganism and Christianity, need and abundance, and monarchy and oligarchy. Additionally, it endures infamous earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. But through all of this, it remains the Republic of Iceland. 

Secondly, there is something to be said for doing things the way they have always been done. Society likes to stay the same because change comes with struggle. And for states to be "out," as the textbook puts it, would be a tremendous change. 

I remember listening to a current events discussion last week. Someone brought up a conspiracy theory, which is that the leaders of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico want to dissolve our borders and make a super-country. (Please note that I do not believe that, I mentioned it for this example.) All within earshot were incredulous and dumbfounded. We were adverse to that idea because we love our country and think it's better than Canada or Mexico. But on the other hand, Canadians think that Canada is better than America and Mexico, and Mexicans think that Mexico is better than Canada and America. Despite flaws, people have a special place in their hearts for their own nations. 

In conclusion, states can make it through adversity, people avoid change, and nationalism is not dead. 



Sources:

Britannica Encyclopedia, "The History of Iceland"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Book Report: Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus

By
Image
An insane doctor in a stained, white lab coat stands before his worktable, on which is laid the gargantuan body of a hideous monster. He cackles madly as he pulls a lever down, and the grisly beast jolts and rises to stand on two green feet with bad toenails. The monster stares stupidly at the doctor for a moment, then utters three fateful words: "I. Kill. You." He beats the doctor over the head with a chair in less time than it takes to say, "unethical medical experimentation," and breaks a window to reach the outside world, where he will murder as many people as possible. This is not Mary Shelley’s story of Victor Frankenstein and his creature. There are three major differences between the modern stereotype and the original novel: the Creature’s appearance, nature, and the character of Victor.  Big. Green. Smelly. Not the Creature. Shelley never referred to him as green. He is probably grayish, if he isn’t a human skin tone, since he was crafted out of pillaged pi
Read more

Kiss That Power Goodbye

By
"In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a high school cheerleader could not be punished in school for using curse words on social media when commenting about not making the cheer team while she was off school grounds. Do you think students should be held to the same standard when exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of speech whether they’re on or off school property?"  My answer to this prompt: Public school speech restrictions are in place to protect innocent ears and inhibit conflict. They benefit schoolchildren. However, the favorable result of a policy is not the only factor to take into account when considering its expansion. Before all else, we ought to ask if the entity has the right to take this action.  In this case, the question pertains to the federal government and public school speech restrictions. Since 1979, when the U.S. Department of Education came into being, public schools have been government institutions. The government does not have the
Read more

IR Debate No. 5: Human Rights: A Hollow Promise To The World?

By
States make few efforts to promote and protect human rights. First and foremost, it is important to understand why human rights matter. Every man, woman, boy, and girl is created equal and bears the likeness of God. Fundamental human rights are endowed by God, not by government leaders. State human rights policies affirm that which is already true.  The freedom of expression, right to life, the right to work and get an education, and freedom from slavery and torture all fall under the human rights category. Being generally agreed upon as beneficial principles, these rights also contribute to international norms. Most states say that human rights are good and they are working on them, but they are inconsistent.  Inconsistency holds people and policies back. For example, the right to life is a human right and thus, in theory, it is supported by all democratic countries. However, abortion is still legal in 173 countries out of 195. Many of these nations restrict abortion, but that does no
Read more