Are Nation States still the most important/significant actors in global politics?

Nation State
A nation-state is an autonomous political community bound together by the overlapping bonds of citizenship and nationality, meaning that political and cultural identity coincide. Since the idea of a nation-state was first developed after the peace treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the state has been the most significant actor within global politics. Its roles and significance have included creating laws, economic management and national security. However it can now be argued that a states sovereignty has been eroded in these positions. This then meaning that the state is no longer the most important/significant actor within global politics.

Threat to a Nations importance/significance on the global stage
So why after so much dominance can the nation state now be seen as not the most important/significant actor on the world stage? One reason is due to the growing importance of international organizations such as the United Nations or the European Union. For example in the recent shock agreement between the UN security councils P-5 on the matter of fighting I.S.I.S. The UK can then be seen as being forced into having a vote over action in Syria which it voted for in the House of Commons just over a week ago. Although being a member of the UN does not actually erode any of a nations sovereignty. So a better example in this case I feel would be, when a nation is a member of the EU they do lose some of their sovereignty. For example with fishing regulations, Spanish vessels are able to fish in British Waters. This then shows that there is no doubting that the state has lost some of its significance.

Another way in which a nation state can now be seen as not the most important/significant actor on the World Stage is due to the growing size and nature of TNC's. There continual growth and dominance of many industry has led them to be able to inflict their will on some governments policies. This idea should come as no surprise as 51 out of the top 100 economies in the world are now TNC's. So if a company can have the same financial backing as a Nation then surely  they may be able to warrant the same amount of power? Not only this but a lot of major corporations base themselves in tax heavens and find loopholes to not pay tax in nations were they are present and earn millions of dollars. For example Amazon turned over 3.85 billion in 2011 and only paid 1.6 million in tax. This then shows the true extent of the power in which these corporations now have. Another example comes from the UEFA president Micheal Platini (French) who was told by the French president to vote for the 2020 World Cup to be in Qatar due to the french links with oil corporations.

Is the Nation state still the most important/significant actor?
Although there is a very valid argument for the fact that the nation state is no longer the most significant/important actor. For example international organisations are now being used a lot more as a means for international talks, rather than directly between the state. Not only this but there has been a continual rise of these giant corporations who do have a lot of pulling power worldwide not only because of there vast amount of profits but also because of the amount of people they now employ which then reduces the pressure on the government, for example Walmart employs 2.1 million people and McDonald's 1.7 million. However I do still believe that the state is still very much the most significant/important actor on the World stage. This is because they are the ones who create the laws and boundaries for the corporations to work in. Not only this but they can pack up and leave the international organizations when ever they like as they are not tied down to them in any shape or form.

Has an effective system of Global Governance now become a Reality?

Global Governance defined
In short global governance is a broad dynamic and complex process of interactive decision making at the global level that involves formal and informal mechanisms as well as governmental and non-governmental bodies. The main feature of global governance is, however that states do not lose their sovereignty. Were as in a global government system states do effectively lose there sovereignty. There are many different examples of current global governance systems such as; United Nations and the European Union. Of these two institutions the EU is closer to a World Government as it has some sovereign jurisdiction over its member states i.e. fishing regulations. Where as the UN is a global governance system as it has no real power and can only in fact make suggestions to states such as when the USA invaded Iraq in 2003 it stated that the invasion was illegal but nothing ever and has ever come out of stating this.

Arguments for and against Global Governance systems
There is no doubting that these systems are and can be used as a mechanism to help promote global peace and security. For example although there has been many failures regarding the UN. There have also been many peacekeeping successes such as East Timor. Even though this may only be a small nation as we have seen in Syria a small nation can quickly turn into an international conflict zone. Not only this but the growing interdependence of the worlds economy has led to the development of institutions such as the World Trade Organization, although this has been set up to help the process of globalization they can also be used as mechanism for world peace as the material costs of War are becoming more developed and particularly for developing nations. Both these factors above are therefore reasons for a global governance system.


On the other side of the argument however there is the fact that it can be said that these systems promote the neo-liberal ideology and will only benefit those states who have an impact on international affairs particularly when it comes to economic status. This is then an argument against a global governance system as it reduces the sovereignty of the state. Which is more importantly a fully elected body in most countries or even those nations that are not democratic it could be argued that the government has some consent from the people. As said above this systems will only have a benefit for those at the top and it will cause an even greater gap between the North and the South as if its not big enough already? This rising inequality can only then lead to increases in global tensions therefore making a system of global governance detrimental to the world and not a positive thing.

Is a global governance system now a reality?
In mind you cannot say that a global governance system is not in place in the modern era as there are many institutions that are used to create interaction between nation states in order to increase cooperation on a global level. However I do feel that in fact these organizations do not do that much regarding global issues and they are in fact used as a way for the dominate nations to continue in this way. Although to a certain extent a global governance system does bring nations closer together on a decision making level and therefore leading to peace between certain nations. I do feel that those smaller nations (West Africa) are being left out in the cold and in fact it is only causing more problems and tensions in these areas.

Has the United Nations been effective in its peacekeeping role?

United Nations brief outline
The United Nations (UN) currently has 193 member states with South Sudan being the most recent as of 2011. When the UN was formed after WW2 there were originally 52 members. The UN was formed due to the fact that the League of Nations was a complete failure after WW1 as the World was plunged back into War just 20 years later. The League of Nations failed in short because many states joined and then left and others such as the USA developed the idea but then never even joined. The UN was therefore set up for similar reasons however this time all of the Nations who were at the meeting joined and are still members to this day. Not only this but the UN has expanded and gained many members rather than lost members along the way just like the League of Nations did.

United Nations and its make up
The UN consists of four main areas and they are as follows; The Security Council (15 members of which 5 are permanent and have vetoing powers whilst the other 10 members are voted in on two year terms. Its main job is the maintenance of World peace and security). Then there is the General Assembly which is dubbed the parliament of nations as this is were all the representatives from each of the 193 member states sit and debate on any matter that is covered by the charter. Thirdly there is the Secretariat which has over 42,000 staff spread across the globe who administer the policies which are laid down by the UN. At the head of this is the Secretary General who at this moment in time is Ban Ki Moon and they are appointed on a 5 year term. Finally there is the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) this council has 54 members who are elected by the General Assembly. This coordinates the economic and social work performed by the UN and its family of organizations such as the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)




Has the UN been effective in its peacekeeping role?
One of the main reasons as to why the UN was set up was to maintain peace by both peacekeeping and peace building in all nation states throughout the World. There have been many both successful and unsuccessful actions that the UN has been involved in, in the last 60 years or so. But despite its effort have these missions been successful or not? There is no doubting the fact that the UN has carried out many successful peacekeeping missions such as in Cambodia, East Timor and Sierra Leone to name just a few. This missions no doubt saved thousands of lives. However as with everything you are remembered for the worst things that you do whilst everything good is forgotten about. This is no different for the UN who suffer from extreme criticism for the failures in which they have had. The UN has had three major peacekeeping roles since it was founded in 1945, namely Somalia, Bosnia and Rwanda. The Somalian failure did not result in as many deaths as the other two but it was just that the UN failed to enforce western values on the nation and the UN subsequently had to pull out in 1995 which led to the continual warlord like fighting. Not only this but it has far reaching consequences on people all around the World as Somalian pirates continued to take ships and there owners.

Then there is the Rwandan genocide which in my eyes is the biggest failure along with Bosnia in which the UN has faced. In this genocide 800,000 people were brutally murdered (UN  estimate) however recent searches show that the number may actually be closer to 2 million. During the 3 months of continual slaughter in 1994 6 people were killed every minute. Over a quarter of a million were raped during the genocide many then suffering from HIV/AIDS and over 20,000 then gave birth due to having been raped. Of the 400,000 survivors of the Genocide 75,000 were orphans and as of 2007 (13 years later) 40,000 survivors were still without shelter. This was a failure for the UN as they had deployed French and Belgium peacekeepers to Rwanda however they had no grant from the UN to stop the bloodshed. So they ultimately just stood by and watched the continuous 100 day slaughter. The Bosnian crisis was also a disaster for the UN when in 1995 Serbian forces invaded a Dutch help camp that was supposed to be a shelter for the Bosnian Muslims however the attack resulted in the brutal murder of over 8000 people.

In my view the UN has obviously suffered from mass failures through the years however it has prevented many thousands more from dying. But I cannot look past the UN's failure in Rwanda which led to an unthinkable amount of deaths and the UN just stood by and watched this happen. So in my view the UN has not been effective in its peacekeeping role as it has been in certain nations in which it has just been there as an onlooker and almost just there to please the western world but in fact no action has been performed.

To what extent did the War on Terror affect the U.S hegemony?

What does the term Hegemony mean and how does it relate to the USA?
The true definition of a Hegemon is a leading or paramount power. Examples in this current day and age include the USA,China and Russia. However in the eyes of many their is only one hegemon and that is the USA. The US has been referred to as the global hegemon or even hyperpower in some cases since the end of the Cold War in 1991. The US however began its rise to the hyperpower that it is today right from the word get go as a Nation state. When it became independent from the British rule in 1776. Due it then being such a large nation (California is around 3 times bigger than the UK alone), it was then able to internally expand rather than externally. This then led to it being able to overtake the UK in most industrial methods just 100 hundred years after it had formed in the 1880's. Also the USA continues to be a receiver not a sender of people this therefore meaning that their population continues to grow as it always has done when everyone originally arrived on the east coast over 300 years ago. Which means their work force continues to grow and they can then grow economically. Also they can have the potential to grow an already large arm forces. The USA has tended to be the first or leading Nation in the last 100 years or so. For example first man on moon (American) first atomic bomb (American) and the leading military and economic power (America). It has however not been all plain sailing for the U.S.A in it continual place at the top of the hegemony tree. Not only were overseas problems a major factor in the weaking of the US's hegemony dip between the 60's and 80's but was experiencing major problems at home for the first time. For example the Civil rights movement and the continual rise of the anti establishment youth culture. This was only added to by the shock resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974 after the Watergate scandal. As for the overseas events the list is rather long so I have picked two. The US's defeat in the Vietnam War (1955-1975) in which 58 thousand US troops lost there lives. The other is the holding of 66 US personnel in the US embassy in Tehran, Iran for 444 days. However as we know the U.S.A has remained as a hegemon and this is mainly down to Ronald Reagan coming in as President during the 80's and he then adopted an even more anti-communist policy which ultimately lead to the demise of the USA's main rival in the Soviet Union.

How has the War on Terror affected the U.S hegemony?
Before the September 11 attacks on the twin towers the USA was seen as this "indispensable nation". However the attacks showed that it was in fact able to be touched and threatened in a way no one had ever managed to do before. There are many different reasons and explanations for these attacks however Samuel Huntington's theory of a 'clash of civilizations' gives the best explanation. This then meaning that due to globalisation and therefore cultural homogenization there will inevitably be a back lash from groups of people who do not want to be the same as the rest of the world. So in this case it was and still is West vs Islam. After the attacks on September the 11th this subsequently lead to George Bush Jnr announcing the U.S war on terror. This then lead to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. However both these Wars lead to a reduction in U.S hegemony as it was again proved that the use of Guerrilla tactics and suicide bombs could be a match for any military force now matter how large and how good there equipment is. Not only did the War on terror affect the U.S hegemony in terms of hard power but it also affected it in terms of soft power. This is due to the fact that it showed that in some cases the U.S and the west (lead by the USA) were not willing to use diplomatic measures to solve a problem this then showing the world that maybe they hadn't changed and that global politics was still based around military power. Due to the US showing that in some cases it was unwilling to use its soft power it lost a lot of respect from the middle east and the Muslim community in particular. This loss of respect is only just be reducing reduced today if at all and it has been 14 years since the first invasion of Afghanistan. Overall I believe that the War on Terror did affect the US hegemony to quite a large extent. This is because due to it focusing most of its efforts on these events other nations such as China have been able to catch up both economically and militarily therefore closing the gap on the US. Also due the the embarrassment of not doing that well in both Iraq and Afghanistan and finding it very difficult to implement democracy in both nations. This then showed that the USA could be defeated and that it could not just implement democracy on who ever it wanted to.

Is America the most powerful Nation in the State System?

What is the State System?
The true definition of the state system is as follows; A pattern of relationships between and amongst states that establishes a measure of order and predictability. This idea of a so called state system was originally laid out in the Peace Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. These Westphalia state system was based on two key points:

1. States have independent control as to what goes on inside their borders (internal sovereignty) and every other group or Nation state is therefore a subordinate to the state.

2. The Relations between and among states are structured by the acceptance of the Sovereign independence in which all states enjoy due to the first point. This then implies that all states are legally equal. However I will discuss below that this is clearly not the state.

The idea of a State System being eroded?
During the early era of the state system (after the peace Treaty of Westphalia). State sovereignty was the primary organizing principle of International Politics. However in recent years this state system which can also be known as a state centric approach (the state is at the center of everything) has become more and more difficult to sustain. This is mainly due to the continued growth in Transnational Corporations (General Motors), Non-Governmental organisations (Oxfam) and other Non state actors such as I.S.I.S (They are currently worth $2 billion dollars and they make around $3 million a day). All three can be seen as profit organisations although Oxfam looks to make a profit to help others. Due to this they can all have a massive impact on not merely regional but global policies to do with anything they have an interest in. For example General Motors will push for less tax on cars and Oxfam will push for more help to Third World Nations whilst ISIS will aim to attack the Western world in order to scare people and get further interest from possible recruits for example putting the beheading s of western journalists on YouTube, for the World to then see. This has then led to the development of the mixed actor model. This means that international politics is now shaped by a much broader range of interests and groups. Therefore allowing for the state to be practically by passed in certain areas of decision making. This then means that the state has then lost some of its Sovereignty. Due to it being no longer able to make all the decisions within its own borders, also states may now hugely be effected by decisions that are made in other nation states. For example the current idea of TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) which is being negotiate between the U.S and EU is being brought together simply just to help the TNC's. This then shows a huge erosion of some of the EU states sovereignty. The fact that 20 councils in the UK have declared themselves as TTIP free zones in recent weeks just shows how much the general population do not want the TTIP agreement to come into place. You could also say that state system has not been eroded as the states still get the ultimate choice as to what goes on inside their borders.


Is America now the most powerful within the state system?
If you were to look at the facts then their is no doubt that the U.S.A has the greatest financial and military power. For example the current GDP of the U.S is 16.77 trillion this is only 7 trillion more than second place (China). Its so called superpower rival Russia has a GDP of only 3.3 trillion. Also when it come to military prowess USA rank only behind China with available soldiers ( China with 2.3 million, U.S with 1.4 million and Russia in 4th place with 776 thousand). Also when it comes to diplomatic factors the U.S.A is always their heading the discussions and making sure that its view point is heard loud and clear. For example with the on going crisis in Syria, the U.S.A were the first to take military action and to perform air strikes. Since then France and the U.K as well as Russia have all joined the party. This then shows the power in which the U.S has over other nation states. The spread of globalization has also been called Americanization, this has then led to the further spreading of Western ideologies and therefore creating further peace zones and allies for the U.S to then spread further influence throughout the World. This process will therefore only increase the Americans power within the state system and reduce other nation states power within the system. For these reasons alone it leaves me in No doubt that America is the most powerful nation within the state system currently. However I do feel that they are not as dominant as they were say 10 years ago this is due to the return of Russia under Putin (for example they should their true military prowess with cruise missiles being fired from 900 miles away from Syria on board a warship) and the continual rise of China and its economy at a rate of 7% or more compared to the U.S 3.9% (the U.K with a massive 0.7%).

Is Globalisation merely Americanisation in disguise?

What is Globalisation?
The true definition of globalisation is as follows; 'The emergence of a complex web of interconnectedness that means our lives are increasingly shaped by events that occur, and decisions that are made, at a great distance from us.' To sum this definition up I see globalisation as the merging of countries through Trans National Co operations and International Organisations. For example McDonald's has a restaurant in 119 countries. This then allows all these countries to experience what once was original American food (now factory made). This is therefore known as cultural Globalisation as every one of these 119 states shares something similar and can then be linked through this. Moving on to the International Organisations, these create what is known as Political globalisation. This refers to the fact that these international organisations are rapidly growing in importance and they are beginning to have more power than some Third World Nation states. An example of an International Organisation is the United Nations (UN), the UN however differs from certain other international organisations such as the European Union. This is because the UN keeps the sovereignty within the Nation state and this is then known as Intergovernmentalism. Were as joining the EU means that the Nation State will subsequently lose some of its sovereignty as in certain areas the EU has sovereignty. An example of this is with Fishing regulations and the fact that Spanish ships are allowed to fish in British waters. Not only this but the free movement agreement has significantly reduced a states sovereignty and this can also be linked back to the Peace Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 as in this agreement state borders were laid out. However due to the EU's free movement agreement this has been infringed. This is then known as Supranationalism; which implies that states will lose some of their sovereignty by joining particular bodies and not only this but these organisations are able to impose their will on member states.

Who heads these bodies and is is just Americanisation in disguise?
Before I begin to talk about whether Globalisation is Americanisation in disguise, I would like to discuss who actually is the head of these international bodies and therefore the ones heading this so called 'Globalisation'. I say so called as I don't really think it exists. In the case of talking about who heads these international organisations I am going to ignore the EU as it is not World Wide. I have picked out 4 World Wide organisations (1. UN    2. World Bank   3. IMF   4. World Trade Organisation) the leaders of these four organisations come from South Korea (Heavily supported by the US), U.S.A, France and Brazil. So surely these so called international organisations, decisions will therefore only help the Nation states who do something in return for the leaders nation or if they grant them a certain fund for example it will make the leaders nation better off in some shape or form? Although I do understand that you can not have someone from a totally neutral nation as they will always have certain links or favour particular nation states. Therefore I believe that if these organisation were to truly push forward globalisation and really help everyone not just those at the top then they should not have a leader, instead have a board of people from every member nation state.Then just have someone who referees if you like the discussions but even then you could argue it would create favoritism.

Now on to the main point, is this Globalisation just Americanisation in disguise? In mind my their is no doubt that it is Americanisation in disguise. However I do not think it comes from what the government or the current President (Obama) are pushing forward. In fact I believe that their hands are tied by the transnational corporations and corruption that comes with these and their billionaire owners. I suppose you could argue that the government is also corrupt but I don't think this is true. For example Shell have a GDP the same as Iran so if you think how significant Iran is within Global Politics then you just don't know what Shell are doing or saying behind closed doors. The main reason I have highlighted Shell is that when it comes to the UN and their environmental policies. In my opinion they are never quite good enough and nothing still seems to be happening about the development of Cars and their efficiency especially electric cars when their are perfectly good ones out their i.e Tesla. This is because these transnational corporations have to much power and are only interested in making money. This interest then links to the American policy of every man for himself (Capitalism). Their is no doubt that they are trying to spread this World Wide. One in order to increase their global power and remain as the greatest super power and the other to increase their own nation states profit through the use of cheap labour abroad.

So why would the U.S do this? Going back to the above paragraph and the leaders of the four highlighted World organisations. One leader is directly from the US the other is from South Korea which has received masses of support from the U.S down the years i.e foe example the US helped establish the nation as it is seen today in 1950. The other two leaders are from Brazil and France. So it can therefore be argued that the US has a certain hand in two and has close links with the other two nation states. This then means that they will almost certainly get decisions in their favour and then not in favour of its opponents or third world nations who are willing to ignore the US led Globalisation. The US may go about taking control of these organisations as it may feel a threat from other nations. However in my eyes i don't think they feel threatened at all. I believe that it is simply down to corruption and that those at the top are getting richer and more powerful and those at the bottom and getting poorer and weaker. This is therefore precisely what these billionaire owners want. Not only that but if they can hied what they are doing and put a good spin on it at the same time, known as 'Globalisation' then it looks even better on these people and it makes America particularly look like the savior of the planet. But as you can see from the following photo is it really doing enough?

So yes Globalisation does look like Americanisation in my view. However I do also believe that they are not the only ones putting this false front forward (Globalisation). For example the U.K and most of Europe also promote it. This can especially be seen in the case of Indonesia in the 60s when over a million Indonesians were brutally murdered by General Suharto and his men who had the full support of the US and UK governments and even the Queen. This was simply because he was willing to open up Indonesia rich resources to the World and also allow them to use the countries cheap Labour possibilities to the world (Globalisation). Also not only the US is guilty of buying cheap clothes that are made in these sweat shops. The whole of Europe does it and nearly every high street in the UK has a Primark which is renowned for its use of sweat shops in Third World nation states. So is Globalisation real? I believe not. But are the Americans trying to promote their policies thorough this? Almost Certainly.

Are Liberal and Realist Views of International Politics Still Applicable?

What are Liberal and Realist Views?

Liberal views or Liberalism as its commonly known is based around the idea that Humans will help each other and that war is the last resort. They therefore believe in the idea of universal and perceptual peace. Although they do agree that states will pursue activities for their own interest a natural equilibrium will always assert itself and a balance of interests will also appear and therefore create this universal peace. Their are also three key themes relating to Liberalism; Interdependence and Republican Liberalism and finally Liberal Institutionalism. On the other hand their is Realism which claims a more 'realistic view' on global politics and how states treat each other. Therefore they see global politics being about power and self-interest and Realists also state that Liberal view's are deluded and are for a World that does not exist (perfect and happy). Realism just like Liberalism also has key themes however their are four rather than three. They are as follows; State egoism, state craft and national interest, International anarchy and the balance of power.

Ups and Downs of Realism and Liberalism
Since the invention of both theory's they have both been in the minds of many and then in the minds of a few at some point. Liberalism first took shape during the end of World War 1 however original Liberal views can be dated back to the middle ages. Liberal views were very much in the minds of those who created the Treaty of Versailles. However due to this being seen as a failure as the World was plunged into War just 20 years later and not only that but their was the rise of radicalism in Germany and therefore Hitler. This failure then led to the marginalization of Liberalism after 1945. During this period of Liberal failure Realism was in the forefront of everyone's mind as Liberal views faced more and more criticism as they were seen as views that were for another World. During the Cold War Realism continued to be the leading theory however in the 1970's Liberal views gained momentum once more this time mainly in the form of neoliberal institutionalism. When the Cold War finally ended in 1991 this was seen as the Liberal moment in World affairs as states views were competing but they were able to find a solution to this in order to bring peace and harmony to the World just like Liberals see it. Not only that but Liberalism gained even further momentum due to the growing impact of globalization. As Liberalism returned in new forms so did Realism in the 1970's. The two theories then became more and more similar and the distinction between the two has now become blurred, more than ever before.

So were are they today and can they still apply?
First of all Realism is very much still alive and kicking. One of the reasons for this is that, international anarchy (discussed above as being one of the key themes of Realism) remains a basic feature of global politics. Also Realism and its consequences continue to be discussed about when governments decide to make actions the world over. A very recent example of this is with the US and their foreign policy. Mainly when talking about the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. This is because the US just ignored all other countries and their opinion on the invasion and just thought about themselves (state egoism). So what about Liberalism? Liberalism is also flourishing in today's World and it can be argued that it is doing even better than Realism. The reasons for this are as follows; The European free trade and movement agreement is based on interdependence Liberalism. A very recent and on going example of this is Germany letting in thousands of migrants for nothing in return. Although ironically they have now taken back control of their borders and have said "no more". This can then be linked back to Realism. However their have been some recent divisions within the Liberal thinkers inner circle as, Republican Liberalists believe that Globalization and the growing power and integration of transnational cooperation's has undermined the quality of domestic democracy. With regard to what I believe; I think that Realism is now more suited to today's World. This is because more than ever we are seeing tensions build up around the World as Nation states try to build up their statue i.e North Korea and its attempts at a Nuclear Weapon's programme. Not only that but I do feel very strongly that states only act in their self interest and their are very few that discuss with others, how a certain action will effect other States. For example you can argue that the recent migrant crisis has in part been caused by the U.K and other nations as they persist on bombing the middle east and Syria in order avoid a potential terrorist attack or even just to make themselves look dominant on the World stage (state egoism). So in answer to the title of this blog. I very much think that Realist and Liberal views are still applicable.

What is the importance of Palestine when debating Sovereignty?

What and were is Palestine?
First off we need to have a basic understanding of what Palestine actually is. Palestine is a region in Western Asia between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river. At the this current moment it is made up of Israel and Palestine the state. Palestine is currently one of a few observer states to the UN. This meaning that it does not have the rights of UN nations such as voting. However on September 14th 2015 136 UN members recognized Palestine as a state. Palestine currently has a population of around 4.4 million spread across the two areas of land in which it claims. I say claims as Israel will argue that Palestine does not own any area and Egypt as well will try and claim the Gaza strip. The Gaza strip is one of the areas of land in which Palestine claims along with the so called west bank.

Were has Palestine's State Sovereignty gone?  
As we know from the previous blog state sovereignty was originally laid out in the Peace Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. A state is therefore able to control fully what goes on inside their borders due to internal sovereignty. However within Palestine this internal sovereignty has been eroded in the last 65 years or so up until today were they are only a tiny state. As you can see from the image above it was once a large state in 1946 however in 1947 the UN voted in favor of splitting up Palestine into two states, the other being Israel. Surprisingly both the U.S and the Soviet Union voted in favor. The Soviets especially voted in order to reduce British Influence in the region. Then in 1967 Israel sent troops into the West Bank and the Gaza strip in order to finally get rid of Palestine. However they were really doing this in order to be recognized as a state from the Arab nations around them such as Egypt. During the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip 4.6 million Palestine's left and became refugees in states such as Syria and Jordan. Israel occupied these two regions up until 2005 when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to take troops out of the two regions and peace talks began. However Israel only gave little bits of the West Bank back and the whole of the Gaza strip as you can see from the fourth image above. Although Palestine owns the Gaza strip and bits of the West bank its internal sovereignty is all but eroded. This is because Israel has a blockade around Gaza which controls who goes in and out. You can also argue that Palestine's external sovereignty has gone also as, when Hamas took over in 2005 they stated that they will not recognize Israel as a state and wants Palestinians to return to their rightful homes (Israel). However as soon as this was stated Israel blockade the Gaza strip. This then shows Palestine are viewed as a weak state and other nations i.e Israel are not afraid to perform actions that may cause a conflict.

Palestine's importance when debating Sovereignty
A state is defined in four ways; 1.Defined territory 2. Permanent Population 3. Effective Government 4. Capacity to enter relations with other states. Palestine has just two of these and it can be argued that they may have three. They certainly have a permanent population and as small as it is a defined territory. However both regions are controlled by two different bodies. Gaza by Hamas (which a lot of states consider a terrorist organization) and then the West Bank by the Palestine Liberation Organization Although it could be argued but both these rune their region relatively well under the circumstances. Then finally do they have the capacity to enter into relations with other counties? Well after 2011 when Palestine were accepted as a non-member observer state to the UN and 132 states now recognizing Palestine as a nation state. It can now be said that Palestine does have some external sovereignty due to states now noticing them. However the major factor in this argument is that Israels external sovereignty is stronger than Palestine's internal sovereignty this then shows that other states do not view Palestine as one with its own sovereignty so they can do what they would like to and it will not effect Palestine as they cant react in the same way other states can. This is only highlighted by the blockade of Gaza by Israel. So when looking at the importance of Palestine when debating sovereignty you could argue that they have hardly any and that it is all taken away by an external state. In this modern era should this really be happening? I think not.

What was the Treaty of Westphalia and why was is so important?

Pre Treaty
In order to know why the Treaty of Westphalia came about and why it is so important you first need to outline what happened before the treaty. The answer to this question is the thirty year war. The thirty year war began in 1618 when Roman emperor Ferdinand II attempted to curtail the religious activities of his subjects. However this sparked a rebellion from the protestants. Ferdinand II Roman Catholic army which was commanded by Albrecht Von Wallenstein  began to try and take command of major protestant regions. However the protestants called for aid from the rest of the protestants in the Roman Catholic Empire. However it did not really help and by 1629 Ferdinand II and his Roman Catholic army had overrun most of Protestant Germany and most of Denmark. Subsequently later on in 1629 Ferdinand then created the Edict of Restitution this therefore reclaiming even more land that hand been owned by the protestants but would now be owned by the Roman Catholic Empire. This now meant that the Holy Roman Empire now stretched across from the edge of France to Poland and from the tip of Denmark down to the very bottom of Italy. However not all of Germany was taken as yet and their was one big turning point that would go onto to save the Protestants. This turning point came from the Swedish army. So in 1930 the Swedish army landed in Germany led by King Gustavus Adolphus and with the help of a subsidy from the French were able to drive the Roman Catholics out of much of Germany by 1931. The protestant revival continued well into 1934 by which time the war had now been taking place for 16 years. However the Spanish stepped in and stopped this semi-revival by the protestants and subsequently pushed them back, as they were a major Allie of Franz II. This then pushed the Protestants out of southern Germany. However this then had consequences elsewhere as France felt threatened, of being encircled by the Catholic movement so they then declared war on Spain in 1935 and then Ferdinand II in 1936. For the next twelve years the war was largely fought on German soil as Armies just maneuvered around in order to try and run each other down. This subsequent wearing down of each other eventually led to the end of the War as armies struggled to relocate and feed their troops.

When  did the treaty begin to be laid out?
Now that we have a greater knowledge of the thirty year war and why this took place. It is now the appropriate time to begin talking about the treaty. The peace conference to end the war began in the December of 1644 and it involved 194 states. These 194 states were represented by 176 representatives but their were also thousands of supporting staff who had to be sheltered and given food and water. The main point that comes from supporting these thousands of supporting staff is that the rest of the country was suffering from mass famine and in some cases this led to Cannibalism. Not only that but the first 6 months of the were spent arguing as to who was to sit were and who should enter room in front of whom. This sounds and is unbelievable as the war was still taking place at this time and populations were starving yet 176 people took 6 months to decided who should sit were. Although this is ridiculous you do also have to bear in mind that this is 1644 so it took over 20 days to send a communication from say Stockholm to Madrid which is a distance of 3,136 km were as now you can catch a flight and be their in just under 4 hours. So this fact that it took so long for the representatives to reach agreements as to who should sit were is partly due to how long it took to travel long distances.

Who benefited from the treaty?
4 years after the original discussions had began the treaty was finally signed from 14:00 on wards on the 24th October 1648. The reason why I have stated the time at which the signing ceremony started is because it took three weeks to organize the ceremony to then start at the set time of 14:00. This then further, supports my point that travel in the 16th century was difficult over long distances and this is why it took 4 years for this treaty to be finally signed by all 194 states. So back to answering the subtitle question who benefited? Well everyone other than the Roman Catholic empire you could say. The treaty gave independence to Switzerland and the Netherlands from Austria and Spain respectively. Sweden gained territory and cash, France also gained the territory of Alsace-Lorraine which is a large strip of land along the border with Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg (5,597 square miles). However one of the major impacts in which the treaty had was that the prospect of a conquest of Europe by the Roman Catholic Empire vanished for ever and Protestantism was in the world to stay.

Why was the treaty so important?
The first reason as to why the Treaty of Westphalia was so important is that it laid down the foundations for the political system of Europe. It did this due to the territorial and geographical arrangements that were laid out within the Treaty for example Switzerland gaining independence. These policy's that were laid out continued to be the basis of the state system up until the French Revolution of 1789. Now that states had their borders now laid out international law came about because of the Treaty. As states began to create their own laws and laws that effected any number of the states were made such as the fact that the problem of war could now be prevented by negotiations. Also the Treaty got rid of the era of religious wars. However it can be argued that it led to some of the bloodiest wars in human history such as World war 1. This reason for this is now that states had set borders they could not longer just take land. This then led to the rivalry between Germany and France over the Rhine land. Germany would go onto occupy much of this land during World War 1. Their is no doubt that the Treaty of Westphalia was a great success and it has outlined states as we know them today. But it has caused some further problems down the line.

Global Politics

The definition of Global Politics is; "Names both the discipline that studies the political and economical patterns of the world and the field that is being studied. At the centre of that field are the different processes of political globalization in relation to social power."

Global Politics is also to do with the whole world and their are many different factors that affect the global political situation such as conflicts through out the world i.e Ukraine and Russia has had a very large impact on international relations and it can be argued that that this had made the world a lot wider apart rather than closer together as globalization suggests. Not only that but poverty. the environment and how the world should go about producing energy in replacement for oil which is due to run out in 40 years time. Also how should all nations go about dealing with climate change and the problems that this presents. Finally how can all countries produce the same level of Human Rights and whether or not they are a stable enough country to have human rights in place.

The second part of the definition of global politics is to to with globalization. Globalization is the fact that the public's lives are more and more shaped by events and decisions that are made a great distance away from them. This basically meaning that decisions are made in different countries and by leaders who were not elected by all those who the decision concerns. An example of this is the EU were decisions are made in Brussels that may concern the UK fishing industry but the people who the decisions will affect are hundreds of miles away from the decision makers.