What is the the Kyoto Protocol? Is it successful?

The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty, signed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and put into effect in 2005, whereby the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) has recognised the threat posed by global warming, and is advocating a reduction in the emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect, noting the anthropogenic influence on climate change. On February 16th 2005, the treaty was made effective among 192 members (Figure 1) and 83 signatories (comprising of the UN members, excluding Andorra, Canada, South Sudan and The US (unratified), but including the EU, Cooke Islands and Niue).

Figure 1 shows the countries in varied stages of involvement within the Kyoto Protocol. It shows there is a general North-South Divide regarding the legally binding nature of nations targets, e.g. countries in Africa, which as underdeveloped states do not contribute largely to the world's carbon footprint, along with South America which already paves the way for an emission free model of development while Asian Tigers and India and China's industry is supported by a lack of binding targets as Non-Annex B nations. However, the most developed nations in the EU and Australia as well as the 'Stans' are bound by legal measures to adhere to the Protocol. However, leniency and bias is shown in regards to the most polluting nations in terms of Russia, who opted out for the second period of the binding targets, the non legally binding nature of agreements with the BRICS in general, the unratified nature of the US and the departure of Canada highlight the Protocol's initial criticism.

The aim of the Kyoto Protocol was to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride and other chemicals to a level which reflects a 5.2% drop from the 1990 standards between the years 2008 to 2012, putting a particular pressure on more developed, Annex 1 nations (the EU, US, Canada and the Russian Federation). In most countries, these adopted policies would include restrictions on their largest polluters, manage transportation in an effort to reduce vehicle emissions and restructure their energy mix to include more renewable energy sources, for instance, the UK has shifted towards offshore wind turbines and bio fuels.

Criticism of the Kyoto Protocol have been multifaceted:

• Firstly, those who prefer the use of carbon taxing to reduce greenhouse emissions are critical of the Kyoto Protocol. One of these critics, James Hansen has claimed that not only is the Kyoto "cap and trade" system ineffective as "the developed nations want to continue with business as usual so they are expected to purchase indulgences to give a small amount of money to developing countries" but the use of carbon offsetting is also debated and may not in the long term be effective in combating climate change. 
• Another issue with the Kyoto Protocol is that it has yet to be ratified in the US, which until 2006, was the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world before the acceleration in growth of China.  Issues were highlighted in a conference in Doha in 2012 that the two nations hold the key to our approach to climate change. Despite China being a member of the Protocol, they have no intention of slowing down their emissions. 
• Furthermore, the conditions of the Kyoto Protocol and it's targets for improvement were demanded to be immediate and put into action by 2008, this was not deemed to be realistic, as it can take a matter of decades to show a shift in energy economy, highlighting in the words of McElroy, "a power plant lifespan may be up to 30 years" or the "average vehicle in the US is on the road for 12 years", this may be detrimental to economies and the population would not adopt these new policies.
• The Protocol also struggles with policy regarding those with large populations or rapidly growing economies such as the BRICS, which is particularly applicable to both China and India. 
• Ultimately, it's also been predicted by Robert N. Stavins that by 2050, emissions under the Kyoto Protocol will have only been reduced by around 2 to 3 percent, which is not enough to withdraw the Earth from it's tipping point in terms of global warming, rather than a strategy of adaptation, there is a consensus on the need to mitigate the threat caused by emissions.
• While it's claimed there has been a 5% drop in emissions of the 40 most developed nations from the 1990 level, this is most likely not due to the UNFCCC climate policy but the collapse of the highly inefficient energy production of the Soviet Union.

However, the framework of the Kyoto Protocol has been widely accredited for its contributions to the future of the UNFCCC's Copenhagen Accord in terms of technology transfer and monitoring, carbon markets and funding projects. The success of the Kyoto ratification is that it's also legally binding for Annex 1 states, in comparison to the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, which bases it's success on the willingness and good nature of the developed world to comply. The protocol has also shown huge success in nations with a large Research and Development budget such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark (Scandinavian region) particularly Sweden, who by the year 2006 was beating it's emissions target, with a reduction of 12.7% since the Kyoto Protocol's conception, aiming to be the first completely "oil-free" nations by 2020 in 2013, with European success discussed in Figure 2. 

The graph in Figure 2 suggests, despite other regions shortcomings, that the legally binding targets of the Kyoto Protocol were successful within the EU and other European countries which show a stabilization after the 1990's as a possible result of the pressures of the UNFCCC This has only been furthered since the ratification of the Protocol as Europe has shown a 5% decrease in emissions, mostly due to resorting to the alternative of renewable energy. These patterns are not shared in other areas of the world, emphasizing a success in the developed world which is not reflected in the underdeveloped world.

Ultimately, it has been claimed that the major accomplishment of the Kyoto Protocol is it's raising of awareness towards climate change, which up until around a decade ago was largely disregarded in the face of economic growth and industrialisation caused by supply and demand. However, the Protocol has achieved something important, forcing governments to openly recognise the ramifications of anthropogenic damage to our planet's climate and the enhanced greenhouse effect, showing an enlightenment in previously un co-operative nations such as the US and China. It's conception has also been seen as an opportunity for the possible success of the Copenhagen Accord in relation to it's contribution to technology, carbon markets and funding. However, the UN supported agenda is also a platform for the key players in developed countries governments to dominate the global system in regard to the "cap and trade" method and advantage of Research and Development and investment in renewable evident in the UK, France and Scandinavia. Also, the Kyoto Protocol's heavy number of criticism and controversies far outweigh the positives, for example the varied involvement of key players such as the US, Canada and the BRICS costs the treaty a large portion of it's legitimacy as well as it's struggle to reach targets, it has emerged that most of the reductions in greenhouse gases have occurred independently from the agenda, e.g. the fall of the Soviet Union, or the growth of energy awareness and attitudinal change within nations, e.g. the Green Party in the UK have offered change in terms of emissions which undermine the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol.

Is Counter-Terrorism incompatible with Human Rights?

Counter Terrorism is the use of political or military activity with the motivation to prevent or thwart the threat of terrorism. This has been a mode of response adopted in the face of 'New Terrorism' in particular, as in the 21st Century we have seen an exponential growth in acts of terrorism in the Western World, from the 9/11 attacks, to the 7/7 London bombings, from the Madrid bombings in 2004, to the recent 2015 Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in France. The 'War on Terror' has significantly changed the way that democratic governments have responded to terrorist tactics, as we have extended beyond the boundaries of both state laws and international laws and committed acts against terror suspects that have been controversial in their breach of human rights and civil liberties.

Countering Terrorism has taken on many forms, taking a significant turn during the ongoing 'War on Terror' The United States government, under the Bush Administration, took action to eradicate the terrorist threat from Al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the Counter Terrorism techniques adopted were various; including the use of military force and presence in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) counter-insurgence in an attempt to diffuse the threat and stabilise the governments of these nations through hard power capabilities, in efforts to install a democratic and representative leader e.g. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai's election as President of Afghanistan in September 2014 as a consequence of overthrowing the Taliban before the withdrawal of troops from the nation, as well as the support of Nouri al-Maliki, the previous Shia Muslim Prime Minister of Iraq in a way that resembled soft power. However, this has created a backlash as any Western intervention in the Middle East has become one of the main concerns of these terrorist organizations that conform to 'global terrorism' in that they wish to damage the power or image of the United States and it's allies, therefore, in a sense these actions of counter-terrorism are seen as adding fuel to the fire. The strengthening of state security is also a measure taken by governments to decrease the terror threat level which has been adopted by nations such the UK, Spain, Sri Lanka and Israel, while political deals are also designed to create co-operation to reach a political end in a liberal form in place of conflict or resorting to terror tactics.

However, there are a number of ways in which we have exemplified a breach of human rights during the interrogation, detainment and punishment of terrorist suspects. A case study for this is the treatment of prisoners, at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the idea of 'extraordinary rendition' means that a government or intelligence agency such as the CIA, is able to transport a prisoner to another country that does not practice the same Human Rights laws as the United States, which allows these agencies to take part in torture techniques such as water boarding and mock executions, a breach of human rights as well as dismissing the right to a fair trial, detaining prisoners without charge, two prominent suspects being subjected to this were Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This is considered to be controversial due to this use of counter-terrorist techniques creating a slippery slope towards becoming an authoritarian state system, giving up the moral high ground and giving the enemy morale, despite the need for intelligence or the utilitarian idea of the greatest good for the greatest number in a 'Ticking Bomb Scenario'.

On the other hand, there is evidence that counter-terrorism is compatible with human rights, along with the use of soft power to influence the ideals of others, military involvement and political deals, there are examples of attempts to quash terrorism without compromising the moral high ground or depriving suspects of their human rights. If we are to maintain a liberal and democratic political system, we must look into the movement of work such as that of the "Human Rights and Terrorism Project" (2005-2008). During the project, seminars took place to develop an innovative, inclusive and just approach to the drafting of UK counter-terrorism legislation, this made steps towards an equilibrium between respect for human rights and the need for national security, which led to the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Bill which made sure that the interrogation and imprisonment of suspects did not infringe upon the rule of criminal procedure in the UK. The Bill was a success in relation to it's influence on post-charge questioning as well as prosecution and punishment. In 2009, it was claimed by David Miliband that "There is no military solution to terrorism." It is agreed that soft power could be significant in the issue of eliminating the terrorist threat, this has been achieved in smaller ways by establishing regional centres and forums in states such as Iraq and Afghanistan to focus on de-radicalization and the idea of 'winning hearts and minds'. In terms of highly capable terrorist groups such as ISIS, this could be important as it has emerged that most of the terror threats in the UK are from citizens which identify with the terrorist organization's ideology. When referring to groups such as ISIS, the severing of funding to the wealthy organization is vital, as they earn £28 million in ransom payments annually as of 2015. The co-operation of nations such as France with terrorist groups can encourage tactics such as hostage situations and beheadings, for this reason, another counter-terrorism strategy in the UK and US is the illegalization of funding ransom payments. This ends the dilemma of forced co-operations and funding.

Ultimately, the strategies used since 2001 by the United States in particular have been in violation of human rights and civil liberties that are not part of the claimed liberal democracies highlighted as a Western model of social framework. However, there has been movement concerning the need to limit counter-terrorism tactics to a more compatible format to create an aforementioned equilibrium between the "respect to human rights while maintaining national security."

Is Identity Politics a liberating or oppressive force?

Identity Politics are the political arguments that focus on the interest and perspectives of the groups with which people identify. Therefore, this can be a way of shaping aspects of people's identity by relating to a social organization. Social organizations of this kind can be based on race, gender, religious beliefs, culture, sexual orientation etc. This has traditionally been considered as liberating to social groupings that are often at a disadvantage and introduce social change, however, more recently, belief has grown that identity politics can become an oppressive force.

Identity Politics is commonly seen as a liberating idea that can free social organizations from oppression, a positive example of this is feminism, which has for the most part, brought about gender equality in the 21st Century. For example, First-wave feminism in the 19th and 20th focused upon and succeeded in gaining the right to vote for women, which did not disadvantage men, but liberated women as equals. Second-wave feminism was based on bringing other aspects of feminism to worldwide attention, particularly in terms of sexuality and equality in the workplace which furthered liberation of women in parts of Europe and Asia. While third wave feminism is focused on the abolishment of gender roles and stereotyping, proving the liberating qualities of identity politics.

It has been described by political journalist that "Identity politics is spreading, filling the chasm where the politics of ideas used to be. Even the general election looks to be a festival of identity... ...Politicos rarely speak of the 'electorate' any more. Instead they prefer to change their message based on the ethnicity, gender or generalisation pocket they're talking to." claims Brendan O'Neill of The Spectator. This shows a recognition of the issues that can be brought about by the aspiration of gender politics and the negative effects it can have on other members of a community which do not identify with the policies of a minority, which in reaction, oppresses the majority.

The rise of nationalism throughout Europe since 2009, highlighted in the popularity of far-right movements and parties such as the UK Independence Party, is an example of how identity can be oppressive towards other social groupings. In this case, the oppressed are the immigrants from within the EU currently residing in the UK. This shows how identity politics can create a parallel negative force for other communities.
Ultimately, it is clear that Identity Politics can both liberate and oppress social organizations, more commonly, the differentiation can be found in how these social groups pressure governments and populations. If a group resorts to counter-oppression and violence to gain recognition, it can become the oppressor in itself, while the diplomatic approach and suffrage for example can reach a liberal outcome.

Will there ever be another European War?

Since the events of World War II (1939-1945) there has been very little prevalence of war between the borders of Europe. Complete Introduction

To begin, the devastation of the Second World War has led to measures being taken by nation states to prevent the occurrence of war within Europe. This was mostly achieved by the creation of Inter Governmental Organizations (IGO's), mostly regarding The United Nations (UN). However, there can also be seen to be tactics to combat conflict between states in institutions such as the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which through both trade agreements and military alliances help to further the liberal approach to negotiating peace through cooperation, For instance, the United Nations was set up in October 1945 to promote international peacekeeping and collective security, At it's conception, the UN has a total of 51 member states, which in 2014 has risen to 193 member states with 2 observer nations. This body comprises of four major organs; The General Assembly; The Security Council; The Secretariat and The Social and Economic Council (ECOSOC) which collectively ensure; international peacekeeping, social and economic development around the world, the value of fundamental human rights and create a platform for international cooperation. This has evidently been a much greater success than the failed League of Nations established after World War I, which failed at preventing the following World War in 1939. This, I believe has prevented tensions in Europe as the nations develop a harmony of interests and therefore gain a common ideology based on the need for democracy and capitalism.

Furthermore, the idea of trade liberalism to ensure peace and stability between nations has resulted in the creation of the EU, the replacement of the EEC (European Economic Community)  formed in November 1993. The EU bases it's operations on the deterritorialization of borders between European states, now complete with 28 member nations. The most prominent policies of the European Union include free trade with no taxes or tariffs on imported goods, furthered through the free movement of labour and people. This means migration between the states has some of the highest rates in the world. Finally, the common international laws provide a basis for legal justice, for instance, 50% of UK laws stem from the EU while Germany's laws are 70% derived from the trade bloc. This shows the political stronghold of the European Union's power over European countries.

According to Samuel P. Huntington, there is an emergence of a new scale of conflict centred around the world's primary civilizations. In his book "The Clash of Civilizations", published in 1993, Huntington claims that wars were no longer based on regional powers but fought over society, culture and religion. By this understanding, it can be surmised that wars between less powerful states are considered historical or as proxy wars with the rise in ideological conflict; for instance, the Iraq War (2003-2011) can be seen as a struggle between the USA and the Middle East, while the Cold War has been the only conflict in recent decades that has torn the composition of Europe by Eastern Bloc and the West. This shows how wars are not fought on a regional scale any more, but on a global scale. Furthermore, Europe is a group of solely democratic nations in past decades which align with conditions of the "Democratic Peace Thesis" that state that two democratic countries have never been to war. This further emphasises the unlikelihood that there will ever be tensions among Europe that will ever again result in war.

Ultimately, there are strong conclusions to be drawn that indicate that the nation states of Europe will never go to war again, at least on the scale that was the World Wars, if not due to wars between civilization, the spread of democracy and the fall of communism and IGO's furthering of international cooperation, then also due to the changing nature of war which dictates an escalation in weapons and terms of warfare, meaning that wars do not evolve to the point of "mutually assured destruction" any more. This leaves us with the idea of peace among European states for now, if not the long term.

Is the UN an outdated body?

The United Nations is an Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) set up in 1945 to maintain international peace and security after World War II (1939-1945) and was committed to by 51 countries to promote social progress, human rights and higher living standards, which has gradually evolved into a political forum of 193 member nation states in 2014. The UN was founded on the basis of the outdated and unsuccessful League of Nations in 1920 after the events of World War I, the goal being the same as that of the United Nations.

The United Nations logo, based on the Olive Branch which
represents the co-operation of member states in terms of its
security and peacekeeping around the globe.

There are 5 current components of the United Nations; the General Assembly is a proactive deliberative organ, being the only body of the organization whereby every member state has equal representation; the Security Council is made up of 19 members with 5 permanent members (US, France, China, Russia and the UK) which formulate resolutions to peace and security issues, international sanction and military force, a problem being the permanent members ability to veto any resolution; ECOSOC or the Economic and Social Council which co-ordinates the management and activity of the 14 UN socio-economic agencies; the Secreteriat provides results to the UN based on research, studies, information and facilities and the International Court of Justice - the primary judiciary body responsible for the trial of war criminals.

The effectiveness of the UN is frequently called into question by critics, but is the United Nations outdated? Firstly, with a emphasis on the spread of democracy, and more countries embracing the ideology, it's become ever apparent that the United Nations do not operate to reflect this form of co-operation. An example being Jacob Zuma's claims that the IGO is "undemocratic" and might have "by now outlived it's usefulness." There is also significant evidence supporting it's undemocratic nature in the modern day, post World War II. For instance, the only democratic organ of the UN being the General Assembly, all other parts of the organization are based on an unfair voting and power system, mostly criticizing the powerful role role of the US in decision making to flex it's muscles, taking a vitally important stance on international decision making.

On the other hand, the United Nations has been successful in it's contribution to humanitarian aid and initiatives providing help for those in countries with high rates of poverty and struck by disaster with the help of ECOSOC and the World Food Organization (WFO) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) this is a way in which the UN is still effective in solidifying the interdependence and co-operation of it's member states, as it promises to provide help to any country within it's sovereignty. Also, the 'Millennium Development Goals' look to help the population and peoples of individual states rather than maintaining power and influence with all countries agreeing to achieve goals by 2015 of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability and ensure a global partnership for development. This helps to further develop the support network for the rise of human rights in countries suffering from humanitarian issues, poverty and civil war, spreading the ideology of democracy.

An image showing tents provided by the United Nations to Syrian Refugees in 2013, as they described humanitarian aid
is required for over 7,000,000 people who were under threat by the Al-Assad regime.

 Furthermore, the undemocratic nature of the UN extends into the vetoing power of permanent states on the Security Council. This means that France, UK, China, Russia and the US have the power to dismiss any of the other proposals made by the other 10 members. This is made even more problematic as the permanent members of the council are polarized in their ideologies and their stances on global affairs. For instance, when the Security Council led by the United States was voting on the decision of intervention in Syria during the 2013 Civil War, the opposition was led by China and Russia against the proposal. This meant that ideas that may be important to the security of the countries within  the United Nations cannot be upheld with a veto from only one country. This causes a deadlock in decision making which means that motions are difficult to put forward without rejection.

The United Nations is also a basis for which all countries are interconnected and still interdependent with other countries emphasized by the Cobweb Model, and from a Liberalism viewpoint, this can help to create a harmony of interests within a global scale and reduce the risk of war and conflict, instead looking to negotiations, debates, discussions and sanctions. The UN also benefits from it's status of extraterritoriality which means it's exempt from any local laws which makes for an ease of decision making in some respects and the judiciary of war criminals means that this body works in a way that can help, where local laws cannot.

Ultimately, it is evident that in most instances the United Nations has been unsuccessful or not fulfilled it's goals, clear in the ever increasing prevalence of wars between both civilizations and member states, showing that the main goal of peacekeeping is largely ineffective as involvement in conflict is based on realist ideas of egoism, selfishness and nationalism. However, it could be argued that the UN is still a significant power and constantly evolving in terms of it's regards to soft power and how we must adapt with the rise of globalization and democratization. For instance, the success of the body in terms of it's humanitarian aid, efforts in human rights, equality, education, world hunger and poverty cannot be denied. Based on these aspects is could be surmised that the importance of the hard power of the UN has been taken away by military alliances such as NATO but left a platform for human development.

In what ways has Globalization created the recent war against Islamic State?

Islamic State is a Sunni Jihadist extremist militant group who are currently attempting to establish a 'caliphate' in the Middle East, most recently in Iraq and Syria. A 'caliphate' is a state of Islam led by a supreme political and religious leader known as the 'caliph', thought to be a direct descendant of Muhammad. The brewing war in the Middle East is once again a fight initiated by radicalized Muslims to gain state sovereignty and rise to power. However, the United Nations has categorized ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization to countries including the US, UK, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Turkey and Indonesia. IS is led by 'caliph' Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi who is the forefront of the group which began in 1999 using an array of names linked to the organization and is forcing the implementation of Shariah Law along with the ethnic cleansing of different races including that of Kurdish, Yazidis and Christian population.

October 2014: Current extent of Islamic State's occupation of
Iraqi and Syrian cities.

Globalization is often blamed as the reason for the allowance of the rise of the Islamic State in the Middle East and around the world. ISIL are seen as a unique threat to other nations worldwide as they grow in power exponentially with a large pool of resources, weapons and wealth and well as western influences which help to raise the profile and further the Radical Islamist cause. However, is globalisation the real cause for the threat posed by Islamic State?

Firstly, Colonialism is an important term used in reference to the Middle East in past centuries, as great powers in history have moved to colonize and exploit the Middle East for it's opportunities, one of these being the British Empire after the events of World War I left Europe devastated, constant rule over Middle Eastern partitioned states had left the nations to implode and caused resentment of the Middle East upon the Western World. Furthermore, after the ruin caused by three Gulf Wars in the region, Neo-Colonialism was established by the United States and other nations. Neo-Colonialism is an important means of globalisation as it spreads influence and demonstrate power while attempting to exploit a country for it's resources or workers for instance. In the modern day, neo-colonialism is carried out by TNC's and the movement of settlers within an area. This related to Islamic State, as our actions in Iraq, for instance the war in 2003, was largely seen as not to help the Iraqi people from the regime of Saddam Hussein's oppression, but to exploit the country for our own means. Reasons for intervention in the Middle East, when encompassed in terms of realism sees invasion of Iraq as a selfish action only in Western national interest such as the enormous reserves of oil in Iraq known as the 5th largest in the world or as a method of controlling the volatile country. These events in history have caused a stigma for the United States as well as the UK as the world now questions motives for Western democracies going to war in the Middle East, which is often a considerable topic to extremists in Iraq and Syria who threaten US intervention with acts of violence.

ISIS Fighter flying the Islamic State Flag, the "Black Standard"
which claims "There is no God but God, Muhammad is the
Messenger of God."

Secondly, the Islamic State have been seen as revolutionary in how they spread propaganda and encourage recruitment which has been unseen before even in the largest terror groups in the world including Al-Qaeda who  despite having a large amount of wealth were very much out of touch with Western communications. IS have been reported to use social networking and the internet as a platform to spread their message. For example, part of the reason for the abrupt rise of ISIL is down to it's ability to reach all corners of the globe, using YouTube videos featuring beheading to spread fear among the West, war glorifying propaganda to lure Muslims from around the world to the cause and the use of twitter accounts and other forms of computer technology to further spread the message of IS. This is caused by the advancements in technology and the way it has changed the way we communicate both in local terms and internationally. Also, this problem is furthered by the laws and regulations that communications are bound to in relation to freedom of speech and an uncontrolled forum for a population to voice their opinion and impose their views on others. This technology has been used both to recruit and encourage people towards the agenda as well as instilling shock and horror among democratic, peaceful communities.

Immigration and the prevalence of permeable borders around the world has allowed the free movement of people around the world, from different walks of life to migrate across the planet. Although a major part of globalization in recent decades, particularly following the year 2004, including the boosting of economies, multiculturalism and refuge, there are also significant negative impacts caused by the change in demographic around the world in terms of ethnicity. On a smaller scale, migration can cause a change in cultural identity, ethnic tensions and violence. But on a larger scale, immigration has caused problems in history. For instance, in recent years, young people may go abroad as a tourist or a migrant and while in other nations, is radicalized, an example of this being the perpetrators of the London 7/7 bombings who had recently returned to the UK after being sheltered by groups such as Al-Qaeda and Islamic State. This is a common way in which terrorists are able to carry out threats thousands of miles away. Examples of this within Islamic State include the attempted beheading on an Australian Citizen, a threat to the United States Subway System and Street violence in the UK. This works in line with known Islamic extremists working within the states such as the UK. An example being the Cleric Anjem Choudary arrested recently who appeared to be radicalizing Muslims within the UK borders. This shows that there are issues as permeable borders means that ethnic mixing can cause issues along with the unknown origins of the people entering countries of the coalition, the current Islamic State population in the UK is thought to be around 2,500.

October 2014: Where are Islamic State Fighters coming from?

Finally, the spread of democracy over past decades has seemingly gone hand in hand with the spread of globalization, as countries are developing and consolidating their own sovereignty the domination of democratic power has spread with increasing numbers of switched on countries and influencing the public to push for 'people power'. The ideological sectarianism within borders is often detrimental and an instigator of an unstable government. An unrelated example of this is evident in the city of Hong Kong as students protest for introduction of a democratic vote for their leader, this is relevant as it demonstrates how the exposure of the public of an oppressed country are fighting for liberalisation and while they fight for a more fair political system this can cause governmental issues. In the context of the country where IS consolidated it's control in Iraq, the unstable political system faults could be used in the militants' favor. Prime Minister Maliki, the former leader of Iraq is a Shia Muslim who was biased and rewarded the Shia population while pushing down the influence of Sunni Muslims who were favored during Saddam Hussein's rule. Most Sunni's wished for a more balanced cabinet in Iraq, while disenfranchised Sunni fighters became 'freedom fighter rebels' or 'militants'. However, when new Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi took office, the government was unstable and unable to fight off the Islamic State fighters. Furthermore, there are also issues in Syria where the Western countries are unwilling to work with President Al-Assad's regime due to recent tensions caused by his dictatorship style of leadership. This shows how the tensions between democratic states, dictatorships and unstable governments are unable to work together due to the gaps in development of their political systems highlighting a deep running disparity.

In conclusion, the rise of Islamic State has empirical evidence that leads us to the idea that globalisation is the key to their success as a foreign terror organization and their current influence over global politics and worldwide issues regarding communications and technology, spread of democracy, impacts of immigration and neo-colonialism which is drawing attention to the problems in the Middle East once again, for possibly the fourth Gulf War in the past century.

Realist and Liberal Approaches to International Politics

Realist and Liberal approaches to international politics, although the most prominent views on global politics, are conflicting in their ideologies. Realism in politics is the assumption that human nature is ultimately based on selfishness and on international terms, state-egoism leading to a potential for international anarchy. However, Liberalism although recognizing there is a development of selfishness, believes there is generally a basis for which harmony is found in common interests and cooperation rather than conflict.

Firstly, Realism can be related to the Billiard Ball Model as it demonstrates how nation-states collide and cause conflicts with one another rather than relying on interdependence. It is the belief or realists that international anarchy would ensue leading to bloodshed, conflict and open violence if not for the balance of power. The realist view, theorized by Thomas Hobbes is followed by theorists such as Kenneth Waltz (1924-2013) and Hans Morgenthau (1904-1980) describing the "political man as ultimately selfish, wishing to dominate others" and advocating the pursuit of national interest above moral values internationally. Realists believe state sovereignty should lie within the head of state.

Liberals, however, is a philosophy that promotes the idea of liberty and equality among nations closely linked to the Cobweb Model which illustrates how nation-states are connected and interdependent, this is the Liberal idea that is key to peacekeeping on a global level. Although since stripping the 'idealist' qualities since the 1970's, the Liberal approach is reliant on co-operation among states, using discussion, debate and negotiations with war only being the last resort. Theorists such as Thomas Paine (1737-1809) believed that "Government, in it's best state, is but a necessary evil" and promote the spread and influence of democratic power. Liberals believe that sovereignty should lie within IGO's or Intergovernmental Organizations as this is a way of ensuring interdependence and co-operations between nations and furthering liberal approaches such as collective security of global groupings such as NATO, and commercial liberalism in Trade Blocs such as the EU. Liberals believe in free trade and an open market as a "means of united and shared values among a common commerce culture." Furthermore, liberals also believe that democracy is key to peacekeeping as "two democratic states have never gone to war." (outlined in the Democratic Peace Thesis).

In comparison, there is an agreement between liberals and realists revolving around the values of mainstream politics, concerning that there is always an element of competition between states implying that sovereignty must always remain decentralized.

Ultimately, Liberal and Realist views are in stark contrast to one another, although there is a distinct idea that in modern politics, Liberalism is becoming very indistinct from Realism as the ideology evolves, the beliefs are still differing in their views on human nature, interdependence and global politics.

What is the political status of Palestine? (The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict)

Gaza has been a popular topic in recent news regarding the conflict between Palestine and Israel, this is a long standing fight based on religion and territories, particularly since the creation of Israel and has been a global political issue for on and off for decades.

Palestine has been a part of global political history as a place of conflict and turmoil, being the birthplace multiple conflicting religions, cultures and political ideologies over recent years and past centuries. The region has been in a tug of war of control since it' conception. In most recent times, the territory has been controlled by Israel and Judaism. Israel was created in May 1948 as a home place for the Jewish settlers, but was not internationally recognized until 1st May 1949.

The United Nations, dominated by the United States is responsible for the establishment of the state of Israel and came up with the original partition plan that separated Israel from the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank. In the past, before World War I, the Turkish Ottoman Empire had control of Palestine which was eventually taken over by the British Empire, however, this caused problems due to the ongoing conflict between the Jewish and the Arabs. Eventually, it was decided by the United Nations after World War II against the condemnation of the Arab leaders, that Palestine would be split between the two factions, with Jordan occupying the West Bank and Egypt in Gaza, this caused the original declaration of war.

After the Six Day War in 1967, Palestine lost it's political status even further as Israel gained both the West Bank and Gaza. In 1987, uprisings began once again in the Palestinian areas in response to Israeli occupation and attacks. But as an effect of international efforts in the early 1990's, agreements were made in co-operation leading to the Oslo Accords of 1993. This was successful as it allowed the birth of the Palestinian National Authority which meant that Palestine had gained a certain amount of sovereignty over it's own population.

However, in the year 2000, conflict began between the Israel Defense Force and the Palestine National Authority due to rising tensions and the increase of radicalism on both sides, this lasted around 5 years and caused thousands of fatalities. The Hamas leadership in Gaza since 2006 after the 2005 disengagement caused sanctions against Gaza, eventually leading to rocket attacks and violence on the ground using tunneling.

The recent Gaza-Israel conflict broke out on the 8th July 2014, sparking bombardments and attacks between the states which resulted in over 2000 deaths, mostly that of Palestinians. The war was based around an Israeli crackdown on Hamas, attempting to destroy the underground system connecting the countries with an eventual ceasefire on 26th August 2014.

To conclude, it is evident that despite it's Observer Nation status to the UN, Palestine is very much subject to discrimination as a nation-state and has very little political influence or sovereignty anymore, Israel being favored on an international scale and in terms of political status.

Rise of The State and the Nature of State Centric International Politics

The Rise of the State is a development of the world that has taken centuries and is still a concern in modern politics. However, the beginning of this concept started back in the 1500's. To set the scene, life and politics in the 16th Century would be very different. There were no boundaries or maps drawn up and people were less connected and knew less about the outside world, it was not a matter of concern. The development of the State could said to be a result of globalisation and the issues it creates. But, in the 1500's there was less structure to a country, with no governments, the country relied on both the Feudal Lords and the Monarchy which led to major differences in practice of laws etc. throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

Firstly, a state is described as "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." while a nation state is of a similar description but emphasizes the "unity of the population by factors of the nation, for instance language or descent." The former began specifically in Europe where Henry VII was a notable figure in English history. His victory at the War of The Roses in 1485 and his role as King resulted in a development of the nation state as he looked towards the beginning of foreign policies and alliances, trade, and the separations of power so beginning the rise of the English nation state and changed the way states began and interacted. Furthermore, 7 years later in 1492 it followed that Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain expelled the Muslim's from the country and consolidated Spain as a state. The first Russian nation state was created by Ivan The Terrible by 1584, when an absolute monarchy was created in France in the late 17th to early 18th Century, a 'dominant power' was founded in Europe. By the late 19th Century, the states of both Italy and Germany emerged as new nation states.

In 1648, The Treaty of Westphalia was established developing one of the first maps of Europe, emphasizing the importance of sovereignty of state over internal affairs legally. This Treaty not only ended the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) within the Holy Roman Empire and the Eighty Years War (1568-1648) between the Dutch Republic and Spain. Held in Osnabruck and Munster (modern day Germany) the treaty involved around 194 states including Kingdoms of France, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and many other territories. As well as allowing the independence of Sweden from Austria and the Netherlands from Spain, the Treaty also noted the importance of a states authority and sovereignty over it's own territory and disallowed the interference of other states in internal matters, therefore, strengthening the idea of the nation state and propelling state centrality further towards the modern day.

A Treaty of Westphalia era map of Europe as sovereign
 states are created in 1648.

 This is the point where State-Centric Politics come into action as it is decided that a state has the ability to govern it's own people with legitimacy without state intervention from other nations. The term 'state centric' is based on an approach that identifies "International relations that the main participants in the international arena are states and that decision making processes are done by the states as the active actors."

As study of modern Politics became more established a number of theories and models were created to record and exemplify how states interact as they develop and grow as powers and nation states. For example, the 'Billiard Ball Model' founded in the 20th Century is supportive of 'global interdependence' and is a realist theory, it determines that the distribution of power among states is relative to a pattern of conflict and cooperation between nation states. The Billiard Balls translate as hard shells that do interlink only touching each other, with only leaders and officials as points of relation and contact. Despite there being common legalities and formalities between states, it has been noticed that some states are simply more powerful than others. This is called the billiard ball model due to the fact that balls collide and deflect with different effects. However, this idea is under pressure and is debated with the emergence of superpowers and globalisation, interdependence is prevalent as states begin to rely on each other increasingly, based on the influences of economic power and trade, nuclear weapons and military and the introduction of deadly diseases and sources of non-renewable energy in some cases.

The idea of interdependence and global groupings has also been highlighted as a viable and increasing approach to global politics, the 'Cobweb Model' is an important development that has put the 'Billiard Ball Model' on the back burner as outdated. The metaphorical cobweb indicated that nation states are closely connected and rely on links to one another to establish strength and power as a nation state. This is evident through global groupings, particularly that of the relationship between the state and intergovernmental organizations (IGO's)  and non-governmental organizations (NGO's) such as the UN, G7, EU, NATO which often revolve around international decision making and distribution of global wealth and power, this has becoming very important in a constantly developing world that changes in patterns of both these factors.



The evidence shown based on approach to global politics models and nation states and treaties throughout history are all contributing factors to how the world has moved forward politically and globally and how the development of nation states, leading up to how the interconnected states work today, is an engine for the globalized world we live in today. This is clear in the links between global powers, global patterns of co-operations and conflicts and the global ties and groupings affected by this.

How were the 9/11 attacks a major turning point in Global Political History?

The events of September 11th 2001 had a number of consequences both within America and internationally in both long and short term consequences, the attacks on the World Trade Center were undoubtedly a point at which the political landscape began to change regarding foreign policy, anti-terrorist legislation and social change.

The 9/11 attacks were carried out on four American Airliners which are known to have been hijacked by the Islamic terrorist group, Al-Qaeda, killing at least 3,000 people and causing $10 billion worth of damage to property and infrastructure. The devastation the attacks caused was quickly met by the American government with aggression that resulted in what George.W. Bush described as the "War on Terror", however, in recent years under the pressure of a public that no longer support the war in the Middle East, the government under President Obama has tried to stop intervention in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the US, the immediate response to the attacks was to prevent further occurrences, causing a major turning point in terms of US security measures. For instance, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was set up to protect the territory and airspace of the United Space as well as response to disasters, it is responsible for the screening of cargo and baggage, preventing terrorist threats, screening passengers etc. Furthermore, The USA Patriot Act was signed by George. W. Bush and passed by Congress to change the terms of a number of laws to make it easier for the US in their counter-terrorism effort, e.g. allowing a court order to gain information on suspected criminals, helping law enforcement to track the terrorist without a tip-off as well as the use of technology and further surveillance to detect crimes of terror. Ultimately, the US undertook a tough anti-terrorism legislation to prevent further terrorist attacks, which although effective has changed political history in terms of security and surveillance.

The aftermath of the 9/11 attacks has been of global influence, particularly resulting in conflict within the Middle East. The War in Afghanistan was sparked by the belief that Afghanistan was harboring Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden under the Taliban militant group. Quickly gaining the support of UK in a bombing campaign, future support is also given by Canada, Australia, Germany and France. However, the war began to be critiqued when the US did not take an active enough role in a battle resulting in the escape of Al-Qaeda, the war has now been ongoing for 13 years and although there is a withdrawal of US and UK troops, Afghanistan is still a heavily unstable country with little reliance on government despite attempts at implementing democracy.

Since the 2001 attacks, Public trust in Government has severely declined, as seen in the Line Graph it is shown that during the Bush administration and the years following which highlight the public's doubt in the credibility of the war in the Middle East, which is still not recovering in 2014 as a permanent solution to the conflict and terrorism across the world is not eradicated with the rise of groups such as Islamic State and Al-Shabaab the effects of the terrorism can be seen to reach a tipping point in the September 11th Attacks with an increasing number of countries being targeted particularly in the West, Middle East and Africa.

In societies all over the world, attitudes have changed in regards to immigration, multiculturalism and diversity. The 9/11 attacks have ignited further issues in many countries which record more violence, hate crimes and racial profiling. For instance in the US anti-Muslim hate crimes increased by 1600%, similarly, rising by around 60% in the UK. This is important in global political history as it is a measure of the public's opinion on the events and how the political implications have affected the population.

However, media has played a major part in the turning point occurring on September 11th with news articles for the past 13 years, internet and television, the influence of the attacks would inevitably be worldwide. This has both caused an awareness of the threat that terrorism of this scale poses to the rest of the globe, but it also has been shown to aid the growth of terrorist organizations in the past such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and most recently ISIS as it spreads there propaganda and widens the sphere of influence.

To conclude, the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath have been extremely influential to Global Political History and as highlighted, the consequences of the disaster are still being felt now as a tipping point at which the War in the Middle East, Global Terrorism and Social Changes based on race, religion and immigration are all contingent to bringing the effects into the modern day.