� ��
�
9.8 �H. GOV
The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization that aims to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, achieve international cooperation, and harmonizing the actions of nations.
The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were both created at an international conference in 1944. The goal is to establish a economic cooperation & development that leads to a more stable & prosperous global economy.
SKILL:�Claims & Evidence in Source
Explain how and why globalization changed international interactions among states.
What we will learn:
Examine global institutions created to create equity & peace between nations.
We will practice finding claims & evidence from two comparable secondary sources; one from Evan Luard, a politician & historian, and the other from Christina Gray, an international relations expert.
What we will do:
New International Organizations
The United Nations (U.N.), like many post-WWII organizations, had the stated goal of maintaining peace and equity between nations.
1918�WORLD WAR I
1919�LEAGUE OF NATIONS
1945�WORLD WAR II
1945�UNITED NATIONS
Global Peace �Organization
Let’s Practice: �Sourcing Historical Situation
Evan Luard
Secondary Source: Claims & Evidence
Let’s Practice: Sourcing Historical Situation
At the end of the First World War, the League of Nations had been designed to implement the principle of ‘collective security’. This was the principle that, wherever an act of aggression occurred, the whole international community would combine to defend the victim of the aggression. In doing so, the League would defend not only the particular country, but peace itself…
In the theory, this system should have been foolproof. If the League had been fully implemented, no nation would have ever taken action against peace because doing so would have united the world against them.
Japan would not have invaded China, Italy would not have invaded Ethiopia, Hitler would not have invaded Poland. The fact that these things did nonetheless happen suggests that there was something wrong with the theory and the League of Nations. One thing was clear however: nations will readily accept the theory of collective security and peace, but they would not willingly put out the needed effort, commitment and to undergo the strenuous sacrifices needed to avoid war.
Source: Evan Luard, “Lessons of the league of Nations”, 1982
Claim
Evidence
Let’s Practice: Sourcing Historical Situation
At the end of the First World War, the League of Nations had been designed to implement the principle of ‘collective security’. This was the principle that, wherever an act of aggression occurred, the whole international community would combine to defend the victim of the aggression. In doing so, the League would defend not only the particular country, but peace itself…
In the theory, this system should have been foolproof. If the League had been fully implemented, no nation would have ever taken action against peace because doing so would have united the world against them.
Japan would not have invaded China, Italy would not have invaded Ethiopia, Hitler would not have invaded Poland. The fact that these things did nonetheless happen suggests that there was something wrong with the theory and the League of Nations. One thing was clear however: nations will readily accept the theory of collective security and peace, but they would not willingly put out the needed effort, commitment and to undergo the strenuous sacrifices needed to avoid war.
Source: Evan Luard, “Lessons of the league of Nations”, 1982
Claim
Let’s Practice: Sourcing Historical Situation
At the end of the First World War, the League of Nations had been designed to implement the principle of ‘collective security’. This was the principle that, wherever an act of aggression occurred, the whole international community would combine to defend the victim of the aggression. In doing so, the League would defend not only the particular country, but peace itself…
In the theory, this system should have been foolproof. If the League had been fully implemented, no nation would have ever taken action against peace because doing so would have united the world against them.
Japan would not have invaded China, Italy would not have invaded Ethiopia, Hitler would not have invaded Poland. The fact that these things did nonetheless happen suggests that there was something wrong with the theory and the League of Nations. One thing was clear however: nations will readily accept the theory of collective security and peace, but they would not willingly put out the needed effort, commitment and to undergo the strenuous sacrifices needed to avoid war.
Source: Evan Luard, “Lessons of the league of Nations”, 1982
Claim
Evidence
Let’s Practice: �Sourcing Historical Situation
Christina Gray
Secondary Source: Claims & Evidence
Source: Christina Gray, International Relations Expert, ‘The Charter Limitations of the Use of Force’, 2008
The founders of the U.N. created a system which theoretically prohibited any State from using force unilaterally [alone] other than in self-defense. Instead, the system aimed to centralize the use of force under the control of the United Nations Security Council. Under the UN Charter, the Security Council was to act in cases of breaches of peace and acts of aggression. It could take measures such as political & economic sanctions or measures involving the use of force. The Security Council was to have its own standing army and military staff committee …
However, the Charter’s collective security scheme did not operate as planned. Not surprisingly, the prohibition on the use of force did not stop States from using their Force. As a matter of fact there have been over 100 major conflicts since 1945. Especially during the Cold War, the veto by the Favre five permanent members--the US, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and China, obstructed the council's ability to act.
Nevertheless, the UN system proved sufficiently flexible. The U.N. did create an institution of peacekeeping, even though there was no express basis for it in the charter. The United Nations peacekeeping operations were to be conducted with the consent of the host state, to be impartial, and we're not to involve the use of force, except in self-defense. Despite these limitations, peacekeepers have been a relatively effective way of containing some international conflicts.
Evidence
Claim
Source: Christina Gray, International Relations Expert, ‘The Charter Limitations of the Use of Force’, 2008
The founders of the U.N. created a system which theoretically prohibited any State from using force unilaterally [alone] other than in self-defense. Instead, the system aimed to centralize the use of force under the control of the United Nations Security Council. Under the UN Charter, the Security Council was to act in cases of breaches of peace and acts of aggression. It could take measures such as political & economic sanctions or measures involving the use of force. The Security Council was to have its own standing army and military staff committee …
However, the Charter’s collective security scheme did not operate as planned. Not surprisingly, the prohibition on the use of force did not stop States from using their Force. As a matter of fact there have been over 100 major conflicts since 1945. Especially during the Cold War, the veto by the Favre five permanent members--the US, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and China, obstructed the council's ability to act.
Nevertheless, the UN system proved sufficiently flexible. The U.N. did create an institution of peacekeeping, even though there was no express basis for it in the charter. The United Nations peacekeeping operations were to be conducted with the consent of the host state, to be impartial, and we're not to involve the use of force, except in self-defense. Despite these limitations, peacekeepers have been a relatively effective way of containing some international conflicts.
Claim
Source: Christina Gray, International Relations Expert, ‘The Charter Limitations of the Use of Force’, 2008
The founders of the U.N. created a system which theoretically prohibited any State from using force unilaterally [alone] other than in self-defense. Instead, the system aimed to centralize the use of force under the control of the United Nations Security Council. Under the UN Charter, the Security Council was to act in cases of breaches of peace and acts of aggression. It could take measures such as political & economic sanctions or measures involving the use of force. The Security Council was to have its own standing army and military staff committee …
However, the Charter’s collective security scheme did not operate as planned. Not surprisingly, the prohibition on the use of force did not stop States from using their Force. As a matter of fact there have been over 100 major conflicts since 1945. Especially during the Cold War, the veto by the Favre five permanent members--the US, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and China, obstructed the council's ability to act.
Nevertheless, the UN system proved sufficiently flexible. The U.N. did create an institution of peacekeeping, even though there was no express basis for it in the charter. The United Nations peacekeeping operations were to be conducted with the consent of the host state, to be impartial, and we're not to involve the use of force, except in self-defense. Despite these limitations, peacekeepers have been a relatively effective way of containing some international conflicts.
Evidence
Let’s Practice: �Sourcing Historical Situation
COMPARING TWO SOURCES
SIMILARITIES
What are the similarities between to the arguments presented?
DIFFERENCES
What are the differences between to the arguments presented?
TAKEAWAYS
Learning Objective:
= Explain how and why globalization changed international interactions among states.
Claims & Evidence + Comparing Source
1. Secondary sources as used just as much as primary on the exam
2. Claims are not always at the beginning of a source��3. Historical Reasoning =
CCOT + Causes/Effects + Compare