Have international organisations transformed the nature of sovereignty?

Have international organisations transformed the nature of sovereignty?

Since the end of the Second World War? the international system has seen the multiplication of international organizations that have made inter-state cooperation a sustainable reality. In doing so states have agreed to give up part of their decision-making authority to international organizations leading to a growing concern that in the process states are losing their sovereignty? namely their right to make decisions on behalf of their people. (Krasner? 1999? 33-41) Krasner received his bachelor's degree from the Department of History at Cornell University in 1963? where he was a member of the Quill and Dagger society. He then earned his master's degree from Columbia University? and his PhD from Harvard University. Krasner is the author of six books and over ninety articles. He has taught courses on international relations? international political economy? international relations theory? policy making? and state-building at Stanford University. He received a dean's award for excellence in teaching in 1999.

One of his most famous accomplishments in the realm of political science was defining "international regimes" as? "implicit or explicit principles? norms? rules and decision-making procedures around which actors' expectations converge in a given area of international relations?" (Krasner? 1999? 33-41) in a special issue of the journal International Organization in 1982. He has also written extensively about statehood and sovereignty.

Stephen Krasner is what political scientists define as a neorealist. He writes about the United States as being threatened by weakened nations in the increasingly interconnected international system in his article? Addressing State Failure (2005). Krasner believes in conflict prevention? in which he believes the United States and NGO's (non governmental organizations) should make it clear that stabilizing weak states in the world is high on the policy agenda. (Krasner? 1999? 33-41) Krasner lays out three steps to what he believes are the main goals in managing weak post conflict states successfully: (for example the United States rebuilding of Iraq)

Stephen Krasner also argues that bureaucratic procedures and bureaucratic politics are not what shape American foreign policy. Instead? he states that the undisputed power of the President is what ultimately leads to the foreign policy decisions Are Bureaucracies Important? (1972). He also states that bureaucratic politics are dangerous and misleading? “because it undermines the assumptions of democratic politics by relieving high ranking officials of responsibility” (1972). Bureaucratic theorists see the collective decisions of smaller actors in the bureaucratic procedure as what influences the foreign policy? not the decisions of the high ranking executive officials. Yet? Krasner argues that it is a dangerous theory because it gives leaders excuses for their foreign policy failures? and it gives the public a skewed view of the ultimate power that the President possesses. (Krasner? 1999? 33-41) He defines states political objectives as a direct reflection of the President's national interest goals and beliefs of what he thinks society should be.

Understanding Sovereignty and its four areas

Sovereignty is the central organizing principle of the system of ...