POLS170 Blog Group 0402

After Trump decided that The United States of America should leave the WHO (World Health Organization) many people have wondered if The United States really needs WHO. Although nothing tragic happened in the years between Donald Trump removing the United States out of the World Health Organization and Biden reinstating us in the organization I would argue that the World Health Organization and the United States need each other.  The World Health Organization has been an important organization in the world since its creation in 1948. WHO works worldwide to promote health and prevent diseases such as the COVID infection from spreading. Furthermore, the organization focuses on preventing emergencies and providing aid to countries that have been hit by disasters, as well as protecting human rights based on health issues. The reason The World Health Organization needs the United States is primarily due to the funding that they provide the organization. The United States annually contrib...

     Given the serious issues of climate change and disease in our world today, humans have never been more connected. At this time, the biggest threats to the way of life of people from all across the world are ones that affect all of us, climate change and disease. People need to adopt a more cosmopolitan ideology because it would allow for more empathy and cooperation when addressing the shared problems of our modern world like climate change and disease.      Cosmopolitanist ideology emphasizes becoming a citizen of the world, rather than aligning with your nation or ethnicity, which often causes disputes and conflicts. If people replaced their fiery nationalist and patriotic ideologies with an empathetic and considerate cosmopolitan mindset, this could, with no doubt, serve as a way to preserve human way of life and better our world. One tremendous issue that is shared by every citizen of the world, regardless of skin color, religion, nationality, gend...

Environmental Politics are directed and organized through International Regimes established by multiple states cooperating in order to combat a similar issue among actors. But what exactly are International Regimes and what do they do? International Regimes are a system of principles, norms, rules, operating procedures, and institutions that actors create or accept to regulate and coordinate action in a particular issue area of international relations. For example, a prime exemplar of the layering within international regimes is as follows, a regime would be an issue of concern such as changing climate, dissipation of the ozone layer, forest fires, etc. A treaty or protocol references a specific plan put in place to tackle these issues such as the Kyoto Protocol, and these plans are conducted by organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  So why the need for International Regimes? It all comes down to the nature of the problem. All-natural resources...

  Within Garrett Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons , he discusses how there is no technical solution to the problem of population growth and eventual overpopulation. Instead, he concludes that the population must be controlled through possible solutions that he provides while dismissing other illogical solutions such as advancing food production technology to allow continued population growth. He conveys his message critically through the metaphor of The Tragedy of the Commons, where he argues that people must stop producing offspring in excess. They see the world as a “common” resource as they are inevitably overloading the Earth’s ecosystems, and they will destroy the common good (Earth). However, Hardin’s argument that the relationship between people and the Earth represents the dilemma of The Tragedy of the Commons can be applied not only to population growth but also to climate change.  Although regulating population growth and climate change are very similar and interc...

  The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy writes in brief the philosophical values and traditions regarding global justice, how it is defined by their standards, and how it is played out within other nation states. I will be focusing mainly on section 2.3, which discusses the duties of compatriots versus non-compatriots, and goes on to further understand the differences between the two, such as how state actors and non-state actors view one another and potentially interact. While most have viewed nationalism in a positive light, nationalism goes beyond respect for national sovereignty, this ideology can perpetuate negative attitudes towards other countries and sometimes even make one states citizens seem morally superior than another citizen who is belonging to another state (Gillian, 2015). There is a debate among egalitarian theorists discussing whether or not concerns with equality should be confined to state members or be granted to every individually globally (Gillian, 2015). ...

  In Terror and Abolition , Atiya Husain addressed how for much of history, the United States has painted any anticolonial efforts or efforts to bring communism to a nation with a broad stroke of terrorism.  Terrorism itself is not a substantial things, but instead it is a label that people put on violence as a way to solicit a response.   Husain also explains how there is a racial component to terrorism that plays a major part.  This racial component is usually seen through a domestic lense, as Husain writes, “ if a white man and a brown man do the same thing, the former is explained away as an individual aberration due to mental illness while the latter is a terrorist” (Husain).  The idea of terrorism only being applied to non-white people does not only occur within the United States, but it also exists in the way that Americans view anticolonial efforts around the world.  The most obvious way that this can be seen it through the response to resistance ...