INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND RICH STATES INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND RICH STATES INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Introduction

The foreign policy of the United States pursues to influence the important United Nations vote counts, such that how the United States interrelates in this setting with other democracies may be revealed. Amid the 1980s to date, United States law and regulations have required the United States State Department to make a report on how countries do their votes in the United Nations concerning problems considered as vital to the United States welfares. Thus the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is required to use the countries’ records of votes on the current issues as a method for distributing support.

On the other hand, buying votes is official policy. The interpretation is dependable to elections and what contributes to the results.  When we observe this, it shows that democracies try to line with the United States on votes chosen by the State Department as it is significant to United Nations welfares more repeatedly than the autocracies. Therefore, for the explanation that democracies give support to the United States is because standard rules are shared and the interests of the community. The experience of collaborating on matters of mutual worry at the multinational level should ensure the norms implemented. Tension should not be there amid the involvement in a faithful representation of the multilateral cooperation liking of national components, and multilateral governance should be legitimately increasing as many of the participant governments convert to democrats.

Because the United States needs the market votes, interaction creates inference problems due to the strategic nature. Strategic votes show that both government preferences and threats used to make the votes influenced. Therefore, rather than explaining similar choices, democracies vote behaviour might reveal strategies of the United States. If the United States gives rewards systematically or disciplines the democracies way of voting contrarily than when voting by the autocracies, and help recipients are so keen on the incentives this provides. The difference between the democratic and autocratic way of voting in the United Nations represents the effect of coercion. It is crucial to account for the strategic incentives facing the voters and the vote buyers while trying to understand what the voting behaviour means..

Statistical techniques introduced to help unravel voting preferences, liability to influence by the United States, and the reliability of US influence attempts. A simple strategic mode is used to tap into strategic voting by taking advantage of the fact that all-important resolutions comfortably pass. Therefore, the US buys votes to look less isolated and to purchase legitimacy on critical foreign policy issues but not to guarantee or block the passage of the resolution. Consequently, strategic statistical model in which countries decide on how to vote for a theme selected by the State Department as essential to US interests is established. The United States then decides to either withhold a portion of committed aid to the country that has voted against its position or to reward the aid recipient with additional assistance, to the country that has voted in favour of its location. Since this model captures the strategic element of voting, we can distinguish the regimes most susceptible to influence and the most credible influence attempts.

During the early decades, the US was consistently supported by an influential bloc of votes, but by the mid-1970s it frequently found itself isolated, and by the 1980s, it was losing most elections. Cold War themes continued to command the allegiance of an extensive range of US democratic allies. Still, even its steadfast allies became more difficult for its positions on Central America, the Middle East, South Africa, and how best to promote human rights in the Soviet bloc. With the end of the Cold War, Some of these tactical differences resolved themselves, however, new disagreements over how to deal with nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and the dilemmas posed by Iraq, Iran, and North Korea arose. In the meantime, developing democracies in the world abraded under the Washington Consensus became restless under a global trade regime that was in favour of the interests of advanced economies. The international institutions in which the United States have legalities that are functional and have decisive impact came that comes in question and the reflection came in the global setting that United States finds it so hard to control, the UNGA.

Additionally, there is a reason to believe that democratic leaders have several benefits than autocrats by taking the stands that are symbolic and critical to the United States. Re-selection is also faced through influencing their term in office which is strictly connected to their reputation; the joining is vaguer for autocrats. For the democratic leaders, it is ordinarily expensive politically to vote to show favouritism to the United States if it only takes positions that are not popular in the electorate countries that are targeted. Additionally, domestic condemnation experienced by some leaders for collaborating in association with the United States. For example, the allowance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the economic policies protection by the collaboration of United States military, it’s functioning may find that is being used as an example in the UNGA as a chance for coming together to divert the demonstrative public opinion reproach. Generally, autocrats very minimal support from the elites to ensure their positions are held, and this makes them be widely separated for the adaption of public opinions by force.

Countries that are democrats vote more steadily with the United States because of the susceptible sway instead of just displaying on significant preferences. Many studies that show a connection of the United Nations voting and United States external help have found that it is very probable that the latter is openly applied to affect voting in the United States voting.

The critical legal instruments of international cooperation provided by multilateral treaties are used to resolve combined action difficulties among states. Some conventions can either create new multilateral institutions, contribute to existing international regimes or address more specific corporate purposes. Though treaties are not always valid, states sign and ratify them because of the belief that they can change collective behaviour in beneficial ways to both the international community and themselves. Since ratification is a legally binding commitment that entails both sovereignty and compliance costs obligations, states have individual incentives not to accept treaties. This action leads to a second-order collective action problem where countries prefer the free ride to ratify, but also the treaty process generates a joint commitment and assurance that helps overcome this. The logic where a sufficient number of cooperators can benefit from collective action by Schelling’s k-group is often reflected in treaty “entry into force” requirements and is aimed at guaranteeing adequate participation. However, this outcome remains vulnerable to defection, so support through exogenous factors as well as reputational, normative, and social incentives may be necessary.

There is increased demand for international rules and standards regulating state behaviour because of the growing state interdependence. Such rules and standards promulgated by global institutions or regimes may; induce a change in national policies and practices, manage foreign policies, lessen operation costs, promote norms and world views, and pool resources. Effectiveness in international institutions can only occur when states agree to implement the treaty provisions and submit to the regulations domestically. Therefore, for active participation in international institutions, the ratification of the treaty is a crucial step. A lot of research has explained why states ratify treaties. Based on the hegemonic stability notion, numerous academics have emphasized the role of the United States (US). In accordance to these studies, the United States has been a relatively benevolent hegemon that has formed institutions for cooperation with other states after World War II (Lake 1993; Ikenberry 2000; Simmons and Elkins 2004).  Current’s research on main focus on treaty ratification has, however, been the influence of domestic political factors, for they broadly vary considerably across.

Conclusion

Our central finding includes the link between democracy and support for US foreign policy. We began by observing that democratic countries vote with the United States more often than autocratic states on essential votes. From our findings on US participation, effects on multilateral cooperation suggest broader, national implications of fluctuating global power balances. While the United States has been commonly rendered as being necessary for international order, other sovereign and high states may provide the basis for continuing cooperation.

Though domestic preferences play a role in the decision about whether to ratify the treaty, their importance is to be partially mitigated by the third parties’ dependence on the two conflicting powers.

References

Alesina, Alberto, and Beatrice Weder. 2002. Do Corrupt Governments Receive Less Foreign Aid? American Economic Review 92 (4):1126–37.

Boone, Peter. 1996. Politics and the Effectiveness of Foreign Aid. European Economic Review 40 (2): 289–329.

American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court. 2008. A Campaign for US Immunity from the ICC. Available at <http://www.amicc.org/usicc/biacampaign>. It was accessed 13 April 2016.

Barbieri, Katherine. 1996. Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or a Source of International Conflict? Journal of Peace Research 33 (1):29–49.

Bechtel, Michael M., and Jale Tosun. (2009) Changing Economic Openness for Policy Convergence: When Can Trade Agreements Induce Convergence of Environmental Regulation? International Studies Quarterly 53 (4): 931–953.