Canada USA Relations

International Politics Expanding the United Nations' mandate The United Nations is a body that was formed after the WWII with the wider mandate of ensuring there is maintenance of peace globally. It is not partisan and non-political in nature hence geared towards making and maintaining peace across the world. The mandates of the UN as outlined in the United Nations (2014) website are; to stabilize conflict situations especially once a ceasefire has been agreed on and create an environment where the warring factions can achieve lasting peace.

They can also be deployed in order to prevent conflicts from breaking out or from spilling over across the borders. Their work is also to ensure that the implementation of peace agreements. The UN is also charged with leading territories and states as they transition to stable governments that value good governance, democratic principles as well as economic development.

However, the above functions have proven to be achievable in situations where the warring factions have the will and sense to bring the violent conflicts to an end to allow the UN to come in. The major historical happenings like the Rwanda massacre of 1994 and the recent ongoing Syrian war have pointed at the need for UN to be engaged in quelling the violent conflicts.

If the UN could have actively intervened in combating the aggressors in Rwanda, there could have been more averted killings than when they vacated the region waiting for the conditions to stabilize in order to implement their mandate. The UN needs to actively engage aggressors and the sovereignty of any country where the UN is involved needs to be compromised as long as the government of the day has been proven to be unable to contain the rebels, or is participating in the atrocities.

It also needs to be given the powers to intervene as long as the lives and the future of the unarmed citizens are seen to me in danger as was the case in Rwanda and in Syria. The other condition is that the UN needs to be temporary intervening body hence once the conditions stabilize, they have to return the mantle of leadership of that nation and their sovereignty to the people therein.

International politics In line with the normative traditions which is a philosophical approach to what should happen within their borders, the U.S. And Canada are world apart despite sharing a border. Their approaches to the foreign policies, quest for power, the nationalism approaches, organizations and international law differ in almost every aspect of it. Right from the systems of governance, Canada embraces the parliamentary system while the U.S. has the federal presidential constitutional republic. As the constitution of U.S.

is a single document, that of Canada consist of written elements from the Canadian and British statutes and the court judgments, and also the unwritten traditions, conventions and customs (Parliament of Canada, 2012). These major differences that are prescribed in the governance systems and the constitutions mean that they have significant differences in foreign policies. For instance it is easier for migrants to become U.S. citizens than it is to be Canada citizens.

Their politics is also more aligned to that of the British government bearing the influence in the constitution than it is aligned to the U.S. politics. The duties and responsibilities as well as the availability of the prime minister position makes the leadership roles of Canada to be more inclined.