Before you begin this assignment, please review the course materials from the first three weeks of class with a special focus on the three mainstream theoretical perspectives: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. Please pay particular attention to the definition of each and avoid pairing them with domestic perceptions of conservatives, liberals, etc. I also recommend reviewing the week 2 forum’s Wrap up.  While you may select an outside source to present a world event, it is important to study and incorporate the week 2 readings to explain IR theories. Outside sources on IR theories can be quite confusing for students new to International Relations.

For this assignment, you will choose a world event. You can choose one of the ones listed below or come up with your own. I suggest that you message me if you choose your own event.   Explain which states are involved, if there are any non-state actors, (for non-state actors’ definitions, see Week One Lessons), international governmental organizations, or non-governmental organizations involved in the conflict. Also, identify a few of the key individuals involved.  Then lastly, and here’s the tricky part, decide which theory would best explain the event and explain your choice. Be sure to define the theory.  Lastly, remember that IR theories are not characteristics or states, or processes. Think of them as guidelines that help leaders make foreign policy decisions. For example:  Instead of claiming that North Korea was a realist, think about its leader as a realist.

Your response should be 3 – 5 paragraphs. Remember that one paragraph is about a 1/2 of a page long.  Use 12 pitch.  The paper should not be more than 2 double-spaced pages, plus References.

Important: the US southern border wall or other immigration matters are domestic policies. We don’t cover them in this course. Please get in touch with me if you consider a topic other than the ones listed.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Terrorist attacks in France

The Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)

The Korean War

The Cold War

Please be sure to cite sources in the text with Turabian in-text citations, and write a Reference List at the end of your work. By this time, you should be familiar with the basics of the Turabian Reference and Citation Style. I do not expect perfection, but I would like to see your effort

you need to complete at least two responses (the “Final Posts”) of at least 200 words each to classmates

q1

In my opinion, the right to keep and bear arms is a vital element of the liberal order that our Founders handed down to us. They understood that those who hold political power will almost always strive to reduce the freedom of those they rule and that many of the ruled will always be tempted to trade their liberty for empty promises of security. The causes of these political phenomena are sown in man’s nature.

The U.S. Constitution, including the Second Amendment, is a device designed to frustrate the domineering tendencies of the politically ambitious. The Second Amendment also plays an important role in fostering the kind of civic virtue that resists the cowardly urge to trade liberty for an illusion of safety. Armed citizens take responsibility for their own security, thereby exhibiting and cultivating the self-reliance and vigorous spirit that are ultimately indispensable for genuine self-government.

While much has changed since the 18th century, for better and for worse, human nature has not changed. The problem is not owning a gun, but the main issue is on the person who is holding it, is he well formed? Does he know the laws about owning a gun and how to use it? The fundamental principles of our regime and the understanding of human nature on which those principles are based can still be grasped today. Once grasped, they can be defended. Such a defense, however, demands an appreciation of the right to arms that goes beyond the legalistic and narrowly political considerations that drive contemporary gun-control debates.

In some countries, guns are authorized because those countries are countries of war, so authorizing the use of guns is a way to allow people or citizens to be vigilant in case of attack, everybody is ready to defend himself until army takes control of the situation.

q2:

I am a person who comes from the country that doesn’t allow people to carry a gun. Even now I’m already an US citizen but I still keep my opinion about guns in US. I think we should have more rules about guns ownership to make everything’s safer.

What I means is gun-rights advocates and other extremists sometimes behave as if every attempt to create sane and logical regulations on guns is a fruitless, fascist assault on their freedom, but a quick look at the facts shows a chilling relationship between homicides and gun ownership that shouldn’t be so carelessly ignored. The more people that own guns in a region, the more firearm deaths that area will see.

According to a study on this very topic published in the American Journal of Public Health, “For each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%,” (Siegel 2013). This study, which looked at data from three decades for every U.S. state, strongly suggests that the more people that own guns, the more lives will be taken by guns.

Other countries that have implemented stricter gun ownership regulations than the U.S. have lower homicide rates, and this is no coincidence. Looking at the example that Japan, with its strict firearm control laws and its almost nonexistent national homicide rate, sets, it’s clear that fewer guns, not more guns, is the obvious answer (“Japan—Gun Facts, Figures and the Law”).

The Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago (2010), a case often cited by gun-rights advocates, that private citizens may own weapons for self-defense but are subject to restrictions on those weapons. Therefore, it’s not your right to build and own a nuclear or assault weapon, nor is toting a pistol in your pocket an unfettered natural right. Your right to bear arms is maintained by federal law, but it’s not as loose as you might think.

Minors can’t buy alcohol and we can’t purchase cold medicine right off the shelf because our society aims to protect citizens from drug abuse and trafficking. In the same way, we need to regulate guns even further in order to protect Americans from gun violence. It’s inaccurate to claim that unrestricted gun access and ownership is or ever was a constitutional right.

The American people should not have to live in fear every time they enter a public place, send their children to school, or sleep in their own beds at night, and this is ultimately the reason we need gun control. The time has come to let logic win and to bring common sense and compassion to the dialogue on guns.

Campaign consultants are skilled at packaging a candidate, highlighting those aspects of the candidate’s policy positions and personality that are thought most attractive to voters. Packaging is not new to politics. Andrew Jackson’s self-portrayal in the nineteenth century as “the champion of the people” is an image that any modern candidate could appreciate. What is new is the need to fit the image to the requirements of a world of sound bites, 30-second ads, televised debates and Internet messages.

Considering the current president of the United States, using terminology from the text, explain:

1. How you feel the current president was packaged
2. How effective, or ineffective, his campaign’s usage of “Air Wars” were
3. How effective, or ineffective, his campaign’s and his personal usage of “Web Wars” were and have been

1. Address the questions above in fully developed post (at least a 300 words)
2. Raise at least one interesting question for your classmates to answer

Please prepare a response to each of the attached documents for total of 2 responses. The responses need to be at least 150 words each. The responses should be as if you are talking directly to the person.

1. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was the most highly publicized and debated constitutional amendment before the United States for most of the 1970s and early 1980s. First submitted by Congress to the states for ratification on March 22, 1972, it failed to be ratified by its final deadline of June 30, 1982. If ratified, the ERA would have become the twenty-seventh amendment to the Constitution. The proposed addition would have read, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

–     West’s Encyclopedia of American Law

After reading the scenario, respond to A, B, and C below:

(A) Describe a power states can use to address the issue outlined in the scenario.

(B) In the context of the scenario, explain how the use of state power described in Part A can be affected by its interaction with the people.

(C) In the context of the scenario, explain how the interaction between states and the people can be affected by interest groups.