our land, We shall never fail when called to sacrifice. Whether braving death, hardship or pain, We give our lives as the price of glory.” (Sudan) Nationalism will continue to serve as a means of the state and the global elite to divide and conquer, and foster unity within a nation for the purpose of maintaining their power.Observable events will carry on dominating headlines, providing empirical evidence of the negative effects of nationalism for human rights. The most recent example, as reported by Isabel Hilton of The Guardian, are the demonstrations which occurred in China this year, where nationalism was and continues to be used by the ruling Communist party to divert the frustration of Chinese on to Japanese in order to maintain power. As a result of its many applications for the benefit of the global elite or those in power, it is fair to predict nationalism will persist well into the future, and thus the human rights movement will remain as a weak force in world politics. In conclusion, until we seize to allow nationalism to be the scoundrel of our hearts and minds, nationalism will continue to be the scoundrel of human rights.The international order of states is an explicitly anti-cosmopolitan order – this order solidifies a constant state of warCronin 9(Colin, Bachelor in Political Science, Associate of a Law Firm, April 18, “The Dilemma of Cosmopolitanism and State Sovereignty,” -cosmopolitanism-and-state-sovereignty/)The second position, the morality of states, is derived from the conceptualization of international relations as a Hobbesian state of nature. International morality is impossible because of the constant state of war in the absence of a common coercive power. What we have is a collection of different moralities whose source lies in the state. Beitz engages this argument by disputing theclaim that international relations is analogous to Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature. He posits that the international system fulfills none of the criteria necessary to be classified as a Hobbesian state of nature. From here, Beitz introduces his idea of international morality. Without specifying its precise content, he argues that there is a standard which imposes requirements on the actions of states without necessarily linking to self-interest. This is the opposite of political realists like Hans Morgenthau, who argued that morality was one thing to be weighed in relation to the greater goal of interest. For Beitz, interest is one thing to be weighed in relation to the greater idea of morality. The basis for a cosmopolitan ideal also conflicts with the way Hedley Bull viewed the international system, as a society of states (or international society). Such a
society exists when a group of states are aware of common interests and values, work through common institutions, and “conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another.” While Bull’s conception of international politics is a far cry from the
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 56 pages?