According to Freeman, states compete or cooperate to realize the interest and aspirations of those who create them. National interest and National concerns are structured into national goals and strategies, to fulfil, first at a lesser cost, if that option exist, the interests and aspiration of the state. Whereas states have legal personality, such personality, though strategic; at least, in my view, in the sense that it may protect the human errors, the abhorrent decisions and actions of men and women in leadership, in the name of state action to which atrocities and crimes are often committed in the name of maintaining security, welfare and tranquility. The artificial personality of states, should embrace the human beings who make up states,
…show more content…
The sharp ideological distinctions between East and West began to fade. In the 1990s, Multilateralism was strong, in that almost unanimously the UN resolutions against Iraq inversion of Kuwait, Angola, Haiti, Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, were handled through multilateral efforts. But that period is behind us. There has been a steady rise of new economic powers, and expansion of nuclear club member states, the growing role of regional integrations in combating regional economic development and conflicts, a shift from inter-state to largely intra-state conflicts, intensification of globalization, terrorism, humanitarian emergency, and human rights abuses, have all pre-occupied the multilateral system at the end of Cold War period, and USA was a stronger partner, at least until September 11, 2001. USA become the world hegemony. It no longer became attractive for USA to enter into and commit itself to any structured or institutionalized multilateralism. Why would USA be bothered when there was no equal threat, and her interests and survival were protected? Why would it even lower itself from the most powerful nation under the sky to commit itself to the shared values and norms and rules of the International Criminal Court? Yes, there is decline of American multilateralism, but it is not a weakness but rather a strategic and rational one. The Emerging economic powers such as Germany, Japan and China, have often shied away from taking pivotal roles in the world stage on multilateral humanitarian concerns. Just a month ago, we witnesses Germany admitting the highest number of Syrian refugees, than any other country, which in my view, is purely strategic than humanitarian. Perhaps the same reason why China has agree to allow her citizens to bear two Children or why Scandinavian countries are worried of their future
The sharp ideological distinctions between East and West began to fade. In the 1990s, Multilateralism was strong, in that almost unanimously the UN resolutions against Iraq inversion of Kuwait, Angola, Haiti, Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, were handled through multilateral efforts. But that period is behind us. There has been a steady rise of new economic powers, and expansion of nuclear club member states, the growing role of regional integrations in combating regional economic development and conflicts, a shift from inter-state to largely intra-state conflicts, intensification of globalization, terrorism, humanitarian emergency, and human rights abuses, have all pre-occupied the multilateral system at the end of Cold War period, and USA was a stronger partner, at least until September 11, 2001. USA become the world hegemony. It no longer became attractive for USA to enter into and commit itself to any structured or institutionalized multilateralism. Why would USA be bothered when there was no equal threat, and her interests and survival were protected? Why would it even lower itself from the most powerful nation under the sky to commit itself to the shared values and norms and rules of the International Criminal Court? Yes, there is decline of American multilateralism, but it is not a weakness but rather a strategic and rational one. The Emerging economic powers such as Germany, Japan and China, have often shied away from taking pivotal roles in the world stage on multilateral humanitarian concerns. Just a month ago, we witnesses Germany admitting the highest number of Syrian refugees, than any other country, which in my view, is purely strategic than humanitarian. Perhaps the same reason why China has agree to allow her citizens to bear two Children or why Scandinavian countries are worried of their future