Why do states sometimes find it difficult to agree upon environmental issues?

Environmental Issues are considered to be global, largely due to the idea that it transcends borders and rely on transnational co-operation to tackle the challenges we face - particularly regarding climate change and energy insecurity. Evidence of a lack of consensus between states in relation to the environment are observed in the Kyoto Protocol, the UNFCCC and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

This can be connected to Garret Hardin's 'Tragedy of The Commons' article, written in 1968, which emphasized the economic theory that independently acting individuals, or, in this case, states in their own self interest will act contrarily to other groups or states best interests by exploiting resources or land e.g. overfishing or overgrazing. This idea relates heavily to the realist notion of state egoism, as states are constantly attempting to better themselves and increase supply to match their populations demand, this issue becoming even more prominent with an explosive population and growing middle class in rapidly developing countries such as the BRICS, largely due to India and China's growth in the pursuit of national interest.

This is where the 'free rider' problem comes into effect, whereby a nation will partake in the benefits of a group's environmental initiatives, without taking action themselves. This either undermines the work of these intergovernmental groups by lessening their success or acts as a disincentive for other nations as they fall into the categories of leaders, followers or free riders. Australia is an example of a nation criticized for not taking action against climate change as part of the Kyoto Protocol. The nation has been claimed to attempt to 'wreck' negotiations internationally, as Prime Minister Tony Abbott describes "Australia would not take action on climate change that clobbers our economy." The existence of 'rational free riders' has meant that countries are able to refuse contributing to environmental action if they are benefiting from the alternative. Previously, Australia has also introduced legislation to repeal carbon tax in favour of a capped 'Direct Action' of voluntary payments, which will be limited regardless of Australia's success in a 5% reduction of emissions. Still far from pulling it's weight, the 'Australia Clause' has allowed both Australia and Japan to increase emissions while others face international pressures. This can cause a dispute based on the accountability and responsibility of the nation states to take equal action on environmental issues.

The economic ramifications of a response to environmental issues is applicable to the US co-operation with the Kyoto Protocol, as they initially, in 1998, signed the treaty, only to disengage and not ratify the agreement since 2001. This has become further reason for other nations such as China, which is often caught in environmental disputes with the US, to reject the policies of intergovernmental organizations.
Nations at different stages of development tend to disagree on environmental issues, it is unfair to asks developing nations in Africa for instance to create policy to protect the environment when they do not possess the means and resources to implement them, nor have they largely contributed to the current state the planet is in.

In the last decade and dating back to the 1990s, however, there has been a growing consensus in terms of environmental concerns; particularly the attitudinal change of nations such as the United States and China. So ultimately, despite many adverse opinions on the importance of environmental issues in the 21st Century and how governments and intergovernmental groups should approach the subject, it is understood that environmental issues transcends borders and should be tackled in the same nature.

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.

Could Hillary Clinton be the next US President?

In light of recent news, Hillary Clinton declaring she will run as a Democratic candidate in the next US Presidential Elections in 2016, there has been discussion and debate over whether she can become the next US leader.

Hillary Clinton was a United States Senator from New York from 2001 to 2008, serving as Secretary of State under the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2013. As the only First Lady to have ever run for office, she's a political figurehead. Clinton has been central to the promoting of 'smart power', economic and military power in conjunction with diplomacy and soft power techniques in regards to foreign policy, and is outspoken about the empowerment of women. As a liberal politician, Clinton may draw large support from minority communities, due to her support of gay marriage and citizenship for illegal immigrants stands in stark contrast to traditional Republican views.

However, there is very little opposition to Hillary Clinton within the Democrat Party, which has become less divided during Barack Obama's administration since 2008. However, it has been rare throughout history for a new candidate to attain a third term for either Democrats or Republicans, examples being Al Gore in 2008 and John McCain in 2000, respectively. This could pose a problem for the Democrat Party generally, no matter who is in leadership of the party.

With the campaign line, "Everyday Americans need a champion. I want to be that Champion." Hillary Clinton appeals to the average citizen, as Bill Clinton did from 1993 to 2001. The legacy of her husbands Presidency can be construed as beneficial or detrimental to her campaign. Positively, Bill Clinton in responsible for achieving the largest budget surpluses and debt reduction in American history by 2000 using tax cuts on the wealthiest and spending cuts. Also developing the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement to allow free trade and cut down barriers between neighbouring states, Clinton also demanded welfare reforms as put in place by previous governments. His efforts to regulate gun control, equal rights somewhat reflect the policies of domestic policy, this consensus could give Hillary Clinton an advantage, particularly due to her experience in the White House. But their ideas differed in foreign affairs, claiming "We cannot, indeed, we should not, do everything or be everywhere." His approach to intervention has been less decided than Hillary's support for the 2003 Iraq War. This may be negative for her campaign, as this is a pivotal point for a large amount of the electorate. Furthermore, the links between scandals and the Clinton administration has made support of Hillary very much polarized. Alongside claims that American politics has become a Clinton-Bush game, with the possible candidacy of Jeb Bush for the Republican Party.

However, positively, the idea of Hillary Clinton being the US President has been an underlying theme of US politics for nearing on a decade as though her previous bid failed to Obama, it has been regarded by some as only a matter of time before she becomes to power with the Democrats. Furthermore, while a disillusionment of the population can cause a problem for long time political figures, Clinton seems to be a vote that furthers democratic and more modern values as US citizens perspective of politicians and political culture is changing in what some could say is general popular support of the Democrats. It has never been questioned legitimately whether Hillary Clinton could be the US first female President, following the election of Barack Obama.

Ultimately, the campaign in 2016 will be a difficult one for Hillary Clinton, but this could be said of any candidate at this point. She will struggle to convince some voters of her ability in terms of foreign policy and other policy concerns, it is clear that she is more likely than ever to become Democrats candidate and therefore win the election due to uncertainties with the Republican party, the legacy of the previous Clinton administration and the advocating of liberal policy.

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."

Should Iran be allowed Nuclear Weaponry?

Currently, there are nine states with nuclear weapons capabilities, those of which being the P5 of the UN Security Council (US, Russia, China, UK and France) as well as Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel. Iran is a nation that is currently known not to be possessing nuclear weapon capabilities or Weapons of Mass Destruction and has previously been a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Israel is a nation which has previously been in conflict with Iran and is currently engaging in political tensions with Iran regarding it's Nuclear Weapons Program, from the Israeli perspective, Republic of Iran is an aggressor which as a threat to Israel (particularly since the beginning of an indirect conflict or proxy war between the states in 2005) could use the Nuclear Weapons, although this is unlikely. There is debate over allowing nuclear weapons into the wrong hands, or even allowing two conflicting states to possess them. Not only is Israel in conflict with much of the Middle East due to religious and political reasons throughout much of it's history since 1948, but the concept of two opposing nations having nuclear weapons is dangerous. as the situation of stockpiling became an issue during the Cold War (even in 2002. Russia and the US still had the control of 98% of the Earth's nuclear weapon arsenal). This is evidence that a volatile country such as Iran is an example of how the gaining of nuclear weapons capabilties is seen as offensive rather than defensive, which could result in an impending security dilemma, whereby as we allow horizontal proliferation to take place, we are allowing a security risk and the possibility of Iran to grow in terms of vertical proliferation, provoking a conflict within the current state of an acknowledged Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) which has inadvertently created peace within our current system. This begs the question. are we allowing nuclear weapons into the wrong hands? By allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons, are we threatening the current system we have in place?

However, there are arguments for the state of Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, firstly there are states in history such as North Korea and Pakistan which have obtained access to nuclear weapons without the authority of the UN, before the Indo-Pakistan War in 1965, Bhutto claimed "If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass and leaves for a thousand years, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own. The Christians have the bomb, the Jews have the bomb and now the Hindus have the bomb. Why not the Muslims too have the bomb?" This highlights the issue that there is a power held by the current nuclear capable countries to give and take this power from other nations, under the Security Council's Permanent Five nations. However, there are nations that in the light of others military armament or the stockpiling of nuclear weapons, feel as though there is a right to protecting themselves against an external threat. Therefore, despite the belief that nuclear weapons are aggressive in their use, it is also noted that in modern history, there has been no event of nuclear weaponry used in warfare despite unstable countries or dictatorships having access to them. It can be seen that the point of nuclear destruction is a deterrent of war itself and is in a sense, a form of security or defense. For this reason, is it fair that other nations are undertaking nuclear proliferation, despite not being authorized with this power, while other nations are not allowed this security themselves.

This being said, the allowance of Iran to have nuclear weapons is a risk in itself due to Iran's standing in the Middle East. There is a possible domino effect of this horizontal proliferation and Iran is a nation at odds with much of the Middle Eastern nations, which themselves have proven to be a significant power in economy, resources and military, making the Middle East either an asset to the West, or a problem. As seen in the Iraq War or the threat of ISIS and Al Qaeda, the Arab nations are in a state of turmoil. Despite this not being an immediate threat to Iran, the mostly Shia state has had conflict in the 80% Sunni Middle East in the past, highlighted in the Gulf War (or the Iran-Iraq War) of 1980, or the oil war with Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations. This could lead to nuclear weapons becoming a demand of many Middle Eastern nations as this could be seen as an offensive act, further accentuating the risk of nuclear power falling into the wrong hands. Furthermore, Iran themselves have been anti-West, particularly since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, whereby the pro-Western Shah was forced to flee by rebels. This shows that the inclusion of Iran into the 'nuclear club' could result in a backlash or a wave of unforeseen nuclear proliferation demands that the UN could not predict. 

Ultimately, in my perspective Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, if not for the threat that Iran poses itself, but the backlash it may have for the West and the UN within the Middle East, allowing Iran into the 'nuclear club' could be a threat to an emerging multi-polar world' which has previously based it's co-operation on the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction, the threat of a nuclear winter and the downgrading and decreasing of nuclear weapon stockpiling since the end of the Cold War.

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.

Does the Bretton Woods Conference still provide stability for the World Economy?

The Bretton Woods Conference was a gathering of 44 nations in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, USA to agree to regulate and consolidate a new global financial order regarding the conclusion of the Second World War on 22nd July 1944. This conference set up three major global institutions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (formerly the IBRD) and later, the World Trade Organization (WTO). The main goals of these institutions was to set up a stable exchange rate, encourage international cooperation and trade liberalisation.

The Bretton Woods system was deemed successful for decades until it's eventual breakdown in 1971 after the Vietnam War and the US trade deficit, the US dollar became disengaged from the gold standard under Richard Nixon and the fixed exchange rates turned into floating rates where value of currency was determined by the success of trade. Ultimately, this led to the introduction of the Euro in Europe due to the belief that a universal monetary cooperation was important and the creation of the G7 formed of the world's leading economies in the 1980's. However, some argue that due to the remains of this system carrying on in terms of it's institutions and that it's core principles and the organizations it set up still provides the global economy with stability today.

After the global financial crisis of 2008, there were frequent talks on how the global economy must adapt to survive, with many economists calling for the reintroduction of the Bretton Woods system, supported by former French President Nicolas Sarkozy who claims "we must rethink the financial system from scratch, as at Bretton Woods." Furthermore, in the 2009 meeting of the G20, it was proposed that the establishment of realigned exchange rates be reintroduced to help devalue currencies in deficit bound nations and value surplus nations upward. This is evidence that the Bretton Woods system could still be effective and applicable to modern day economic issues.

Furthermore, the outcome of the Bretton Woods system resulted in heightened interdependence and international cooperation. This is still shown in the efforts of the United Nations today in terms of it's efforts in peacekeeping and ECOSOC's devotion to social and economic progression. Despite the reputations of IGO's such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as well as TNC's regarding neo-colonialism and exploitation of deficit and periphery nations, they also provide FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) in the form of short and long term loans to stabilise exhange rates, fund development projects and ultimately stimulate economies and encourage trade.

What is China's role in a multipolar world, especially in reference to Russia?

The United States, after World War II, became a hegemon and the primary superpower in a uni-polar world. However, in recent decades there has been a challenge to the uni-polar global order in the form of China. Multipolarity means that there are multiple influential powers in the world, rather than uni polarity or bi polarity.

China is growing to be an economic superpower as the rise of the BRICS has meant that economic power is 'transitioning' from West to East according to theorist Joseph Nye.  With China's economy set to overtake the USA's in 2016 as researched by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), growth is seemingly exponential in most of the BRICS. The establishment of a 'new development bank' is a way for the countries promoting multipolarity to build upon infrastructure, fund projects and distribute resources as the efforts of China and Russia strive for a multilateral global order. Multilateral being the "international governance of the many." as defined by Miles Kahler.

Graph showing China's economic growth in comparison to the United
States between 1980 and 2030

In reference to Russia, the China - Russia Constructive Partnership Agreement of 1994 (China - Russia Strategic Agreement of 1996) promoted the belief of both countries not only in terms of a partnership between nations, but the importance of the presence of multipolarity in a world to achieve a fair and just society which was at that time uni-polar - and is still considered to be led by the United States in the current decade.

Overall, China is in a position to overtake the United States and other global actors in terms of hard power such as economy, however, it fails to establish itself in other ways which make it difficult for the nation to become a global superpower rather than a regional one. For instance, it lacks the influence of human rights, prominent allies, acts of diplomacy and the use of 'soft' power or 'smart' power.

How did US involvement with the creation of the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and World Bank lead to it becoming a global hegemon?

A global hegemon is a supreme leader of world order emphasizing leadership and dominance over other nations. The United States is the most current and prime example of a global hegemon today. Mostly using techniques of 'hard power' through dominance of global economies and military power. Some of these hegemonic qualities can be related to the nations involvement with Intergovernmental Organizations such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Firstly, one of the most important relationships in answering this question is between the US and the United Nations. The UN was set up after the victory of World War II by the US and European states and agreements were signed by 51 states including China, UK, India, USSR etc. This was set up with the aim of maintaining peacekeeping, now with 193 member states. US involvement in the UN is also what makes it controversial, with the UN headquarters located in Manhattan. For instance, the US has one of the five permanent seats on the Security Council, which means it has phenomenal power in terms of international decision making and vetoing decisions made against their national interest. This IGO is considered the creation of the US, with then President claiming "Roosevelt saw the United Nations as his crowning achievement of his political career." The Bretton Woods Conference was also held in 1944 to establish a monetary and trade regime which was stable and predictable, upholding Western values of opening world markets, providing liberal economy and privatization which are principle factors of the IMF and World Bank.

The International Monetary Fund is an organization of 188 countries which contribute funds to a global banking system with the ability to then borrow money and other resources. Despite evidence of aiding economic stability and reducing poverty, the IMF has been controversial due to it's biased nature towards rich core countries such as the US, UK, Germany, France and Japan, with these countries holding most of the voting power, with the US voting share being at almost 18% while other countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and South Africa all possessing less than 1%. This means that the IMF is set up to further the ideas and values of countries like the US. This also furthers it's status as a global hegemon, promoting Neoliberalism. This allows the US and other developed nations to have a dominance over other less developed countries, IGO's such as the IMF can be criticized for furthering elements of Neo-Colonialism.

In terms of the World Bank, there are striking similarities to the biased nature of the World Bank, with the US leading international decision making as they have the largest percentage of voting power, followed once again by countries such as the UK, Germany, France and Japan. The World Bank has been highly criticized by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) arguing that the system was set up promoting inflation and a world in which international trade is state dominated, with the free market ideology possibly leading to policies which are damaging to the weaker global economies which is seen as a way in which the US holds powers over other nations via. exploitation of economies. The introduction of the conditional loaning system offers loans to less developed nations on the basis of high interest rates, opening up trade and privatizing businesses to global TNC's (often those of the United States). The interest of the World Bank is dominated by a small group of the most economically powerful nations.

Ultimately, the United States involvement in the creation and agendas set by these Intergovernmental Organizations such as the UN, IMF and WB  is very strong, it's emphasis on the United States role in international decision making and the dominance of global economy consolidating the nation's role on the world stage as the most influential global hegemon, furthering their status as a uni polar superpower.

Is conflict between Islam and the West inevitable?

The realist view that war is inevitable is difficult to deny when applied to the relationship between Islam and the West. The conflict can be traced back to it's origins in the thesis of Samuel P. Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" in 1993. The causes of past conflicts in the Middle East can be surmised as caused by the United Nation's support of a right wing Israel established by the Western World, The West's insatiable thirst for dominance of resources in an opportune area of the world cementing itself in neo-colonialism in other corners of the planet or the responsibilities of developed core countries to help those in less fortunate places in terms of human rights and humanitarian aid.

"Clash of Civilizations" by Samuel P. Huntington
looks at the relationship between the contrasting
civilizations, particularly Islam and the West.

In the four to five centuries, Islam has found itself in disrepair, once being the center of civilization for around 800 years in regards to philosophy, arts, medicine and technology it's a culture shock for the Middle East to find itself dominated and exploited by a unbeatable Western Civilization and left behind by the 16th Century. This is most likely the origin of the Muslim or Arab animosity towards the West.
In the post-Ottoman Empire age beginning after the events of 1918. The drawing borders between states by the victors of World War I has been considered a mistake made by England and France. Prior to World War I, the Middle East operated as a whole, but after the drawing of international borders of Mesopotamia, Palestine, Syria  between states conflict and domination have been rife in these areas.

A reason for the inevitable conflict between Islam and the West is ideological based, lying in religion. This creates a global culture in which Christianity or Atheism cannot co-exist with Islam without the prevalence of conflict. For centuries, this has been the reason behind wars, executions etc. This inevitability of conflict results in "Holy Wars" - a war declared or waged in support of a religious cause. These can be discovered and tracked back to the Crusades. The spread of these two religions has caused a clash that reaches to one another's borders.

Western support of Israel is also an important factor in the fractured relationship between the Middle East and the West. An example of how this can cause conflict is the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Due to the US support of Israel in this Middle Eastern conflict, helping by supplying weapons to the IDF (Israel Defence Force) spurring the OPEC countries to slow their oil production in an attempt to raise prices to countries in the West on the side of Israel, despite production only decreasing by 4% this caused panic buying of oil and the skyrocketing of oil prices which in effect caused tensions between the civilizations once again. However, could the oil industry be preventing an inevitable conflict between the West and Islam? despite oil production being the primary reason that the Middle East is able to compete with Western powers economically, it could be considered as a catalyst for treaties - if not peace.

Culture and customs of the two civilizations also do not mix, the values held by the West are not upheld in the Middle East which will never improve while the Middle East is not embracing a more democratic policy focused on human rights, equality (particularly that of women), freedom of both speech and religion etc. However, due to religious differences, this is feared not to be occurring anytime in the near future. Furthermore, there is a lack of willingness, almost a rebellion against the neo-colonialism of the US and other nations as their influence of capitalism and democracy is rejected in reaction to "Westernization" that can be seen in the Far East particularly. However, this is contradictory of the many Islamic or Muslim people which move to UK etc. which despite racial and cultural tensions, for the most part are encouraged to live in harmony with natives in these countries. Not only does this promote the ethnic mixing of varying cultures, it means that we are now more able to understand the more non-radical views and values that go against the stereotype of culture and religion in the Middle East.

The last point leads on to the current situation regarding ISIS and the prevalence of other Jihad extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. These reactionary movements in reaction to Western intervention in the Middle East are only gaining momentum and are leading towards a situation which inevitably will end in war. Terrorist organizations, often looking to provoke nations into intervention cause tensions between states. ISIS is an example of how radicalism resorts to war crimes and killing of innocent people which coaxes the West and Islam into war time and time again - examples of this also lie in the war in Afghanistan as Taliban harboring of Al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks resulted in an all out war in 2001, which only ended in October 2014. This is also a way in which the civilizations are mixing with negative consequences, with Western countries seeing thousands of their populations disappearing to fight for Islamic State. This shows how conflicting ideologies are propelling us towards conflict not only in the Middle East but in countries around the world including up to 2000 fighters from the UK, 493 from Chechnya, 3000+ from Tunisia, 930 from France and 1500 from Morocco.

The origins and targets of Terrorism map showing the countries where
terrorism effects most, particularly in the Middle East; Lebanon, Syria,
Iraq and Libya as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan where influence is
spreading.

Exploitation and Neo-Colonialism of the Middle East is seen in the way that the West attempts to side with and exploit countries such as Iraq and Saudi-Arabia due to their vast oil reserves by which OPEC produces oil for 60% of the globe's consumption. This is a reason for NATO and UN interest in aiding the Middle East. 61% of Americans agree at an ever increasing rate, that US intervention in the Middle East was a mistake, and most believe there was no clear plan to the 2003 War in Iraq. Questions have also been raised particularly since the US left Iraq in early 2014 and the emergence of Islamic State on the effectiveness of the US intervention. It has been theorized by realists that the war Iraq was very little about the protection of the Iraqi people and more about the protection of US national interest, primarily being the overseeing of oil production and installing a democratic government which has recently happened in Afghanistan. By intervening, the West keeps up the appearance of an increased relationship in the Middle East. However, as these terrorist organizations previously mentioned grow in power and influence, the need for them to be removed grows stronger alongside the relationships between Western and Middle Eastern countries. The coalition to remove Islamic State has seen a new found diplomacy between rich core countries such as the US, UK and Australia and Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Syria (previously in political tensions with the West under the civil war led by Al-Assad's corrupt regime) the West supports countries which puts an emphasis on the proverb "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Although the coalition with these countries is unstable and the countries themselves do not support Western values, is this not a promising expression of peace?


Ultimately, the belief in who is to blame for the inevitable conflicts fought in the Middle East by the West is shifting from the stereotype of Islamic causes to the issues of US foreign policy. It explains the idea of the United States acting as the "global police" to protect national interest and finite resources which are rich in the Middle East. To answer the question "Is war between Islam and the West inevitable?" liberals would argue that with co-operation and the promotion of a harmony of interests we could end all war and conflict with the Middle East, however, in Western terms, the distance from democracy and equality in the Middle East is still too far to be embraced. In realist terms, they would argue that Islam and the West will always be heading towards a "Clash of Civilizations" and that cannot be changed while the world still maintains the same contrasts in values and culture, believing that any peace is only temporary and treaties or coalitions between these states will be illusionary and not long lasting.

Is the US in decline as a global hegemon?

A hegemon is a leader of imperial dominance, exerting it's power geopolitically. The United States, for decades, particularly since World War II, has been regarded as the ultimate global hegemon, relying on it's vast economic and military power to exert it's influence over other nation states and global groupings. However, the USA now has unprecedented competitors that have not followed the transitional model of development. For instance, the United States is being caught up by emerging economies, e.g. the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). The US has also been vulnerable to rises in 'smart' and 'soft' power of other states attempting to exert their own influence.

Firstly, China is considered to be the nation catching up with the USA, mostly on an economic basis. This is partially due to the 'transition' of power shifting from the West to the East, which India is also benefiting from. As theorist Joseph Nye has highlighted, China has recovered since it's setback after the Western led Industrial Revolution, their level of production is exponentially rising. It is estimated that by the year 2021, China's GDP will exceed the United States, could this cause the decline of the US as a global hegemon? It appears that alongside economy, the US' hegemonic powers may also diminish as the world's uni polar superpower. On the other hand, this prediction by Goldman Sachs  is very much relative, undertaking a linear approach which doesn't account for issues and bumps in China's growth or the nature of it's economy, meaning that despite it's industrial growth, China is not as likely to exceed the US as predicted.

Line Chart showing the growth of China's economy in relation to the
US based on GDP, overtaking in around the year 2020.

Secondly, the type of power used by the United States is important to it's hegemony of the world. The US is based primarily on the use of 'hard power' or the sticks and carrot approach based on punishment and reward, this focuses mostly on utilizing economic and military leadership, for instance, economically, the US has the power to impose sanctions, take out patents and copyrights and give funding and on a military basis, is able to not only protect itself and threaten other countries with military intervention but can act as a type of global police. However, in recent years, as the distribution of power and global priorities have changed with the importance of individualism, human rights, climate change and energy etc. it is clear that 'soft power' is increasingly vital. 'Soft power' is the use of attempting to co-operate and influence other countries ideas and policies without the use of the carrot and stick idea. This is a type of power prominently demonstrated in Brazil (an emerging economy) where the World Cup put Rio de Janeiro on a global level, also basing it's power on it's primary agricultural industry and it's conservation of the environment. Furthermore, it's evident that the UK has topped the global 'soft power' list in it's capitalizing from the Olympics, Paralympics and success of the arts. This shows how the US has abandoned other forms of power for 'hard power' which could lead to the nation's hegemonic demise. However, is 'soft power' really the way to impose imperial dominance over countries? or should hegemony be based more on the use of 'hard' and 'smart' power? Smart power being the dilution of hard power with elements of 'soft power' promoted by Hillary Clinton. Possibly, the US will suffer from decline if it doesn't begin to introduce more policies based on diplomacy and culture based 'soft power'. The use of the term 'soft power' could be coined with 'Americanization' if it were not for the underlying elements of Neo-Colonialism and the monopolizing of global economies using TNC's etc, although this is still a legitimate approach to holding on to it's power as a global hegemon.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, is a supporter of 'smart power' and
campaigns against the use of only 'hard power' in the United States.

Also, the power of the United States has been criticized and questioned for decades based on it's resistance to global events etc. This has been further documented by Joseph Nye who claims that around every 15 years the decline of the United States has been predicted, but has never been proven as true. The nation has strongly withstood multiple economic crashes and debt crisis, terrorist attacks, long lasting wars but has remained the long running global hegemon despite these factors which have threatened in most it's strength regarding it's hard power. Despite being a country that is highly unsustainable in nature, there is no question over the United States durability and adaptation to change, which is essential in holding onto power in the 21st Century.

Finally, the emergence of the power lying behind the co-operation of global groupings must be assessed in the ways in which global distributions of power are changing through 'diffusion'. Economic Trade Blocs such as the EU or NAFTA and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO's) e.g. NATO or the United Nations, which are an attempt at spreading and sharing power equally among states, economic interdependence and military alliances. The organizations aim to provide a better platform for global relationships and development. Over time, these global groupings have grown into the main International Decision Making powers, which often are made to promote the hegemonic power of certain parts of the world, an example being the European Union, effectively separating their power from global hegemonic states such as the United States. However, the US is still dominant in most global groupings as they use these relationships and alliances as a forum for flexing their muscles in a geopolitical sense and could be seen as another way that America can elevate it's hegemony.

Ultimately, The United States by it's critics is always going to be proposed as flawed in terms of it's geopolitical power and it's relationship with other nations and global powers. But, in my opinion, it is important to remember that the US has never diminished in it's strength of hard power despite predictions that the country will decline or be overtaken by China re-emerging every 15 years. However, it should also be noted that to stay one step ahead of other leading global hegemonic powers, the nation must embrace the common values of 'soft power' that may lead to a higher level of co-operations on a global level, meaning it must enhance it's dependence on culture, environment and diplomacy rather than resorting to it's military and economics.

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.

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.