World Politics section 081 ("blue team") blog question #2

In the light of our discussion today about various aspects of sovereignty, and in the light of the fact that the history related by Opello and Rosow pretty clearly demonstrates that the connection between sovereignty and the modern state is more historically contingent than absolute or categorical, I would like you to wrestle with the following question:

Are there entities in the contemporary world that are not sovereign, but should be sovereign? Should sovereignty be the exclusive province of what Opello and Rosow call "nation-states"?


World Politics section 080 ("red team") blog question #2

As I tossed out in class today, ably recorded by G├╝nperi:

"Should the world be organized into sovereign territorial nation-states?"

In thinking about your answer to this question: a) use the definition of "nation-state" from the Opello and Rosow book; b) feel free to presume that the world is at present organized along these lines, even though this is an assumption that we will come to question later in the semester; and c) consider various issues in world politics and how the organizational principles of the international system impact the ability of various societies to deal with them. Also, feel free to move the argument into a more normative plane, and to deal less with practical consequences and more with categorical issues of morality, if you are so inclined.


World Politics blog question #1

For both sections this week.

What is the most important issue in world politics? Why?


And we're coming to the restart

New academic year, new commitment to actually updating this blog from time to time. Besides the fact that I use this blog for my World Politics class' blog questions, other things also find their way here . . . like this link to the text of my remarks at the UC opening reception -- "A Rock in the River." I did not actually deliver all of this talk on that occasion, but this is in fact where the sentiments that I did express then come from.