POLS 170 BLOG GROUP 0403

  Blog Post #5: How to define terrorism? I became more interested in the process behind classifying certain events as acts of ‘terrorism’ after our class lecture in which we compared complex and controversial scenarios. I read an article written by Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institute in which he provides his own definition of terrorism and applies it to scenarios similar to what we discussed in class. I agree with certain tenets of Byman’s definition of terrorism but disagree with his analysis concerning if states can commit such actions.   In my view, terrorism must involve violence or the threat of physical harm subjected upon non-violent actors. When designating something as an act of terrorism, I agree with Byman that a high level of violence should be the determining factor. Acts such as marches and stone throwing may be violent but would not constitute terrorism in my definition. Secondly, I argue that terrorism is inherently motivated by politics and is almost always eff

  Healthcare and International Law The interdependence and indivisibility of economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights, have been widely recognized since the conclusion of the Cold War (Yamin). The COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated a variety of structural inequalities within our healthcare system, as well as demonstrating “the gap” between developed and developing countries through resource allocation, research and development, and beliefs regarding the vaccine. However, through morality and equity dilemmas, we have found ourselves facing the question: who is responsible for healthcare? Is it the government, state, nation, or individual who should provide this right? Or is it a combination? Health policy decisions have been thrust into the realms of both domestic and international law, each of which has its own set of concerns, but for the sake of this piece, I'll concentrate on international law.  The United States is the “ only industrialized co

  With the COVID-19 pandemic still dominating the world, a recent class discussion about cosmopolitanism made me think about the pandemic and the unfair treatment that developing countries with a lack of medical infrastructure are having to deal with compared to first world countries. As human beings of the world, first world countries have the moral obligation to be providing vaccines, adequate testing, and other treatments for COVID-19 to countries that do not have the ability to obtain these things, yet for some reason, we are not doing it.  At this stage in the pandemic, every American citizen who is older than five years old can receive their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and anyone twelve years of age can receive a booster shot if they please. Due to ignorance, we believe that this is normal, but many other countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, have less than ten percent of their population vaccinated. This is not because the people of these countries do not want

Blog Post #4: Paris Climate Accord I read an article discussing the future of the Paris Climate Accord following our class discussions regarding the successes and failures of global environmental agreements such as the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols. Initially completed in 2015, the article assessed how the agreement had fared five years after its inception. The author believes the accord is working and will continue to yield positive results for the future. After conducting my own close analysis, I disagree with the author’s argument regarding the accord.  In my view, the agreement is a respectable yet timid attempt to coordinate all global actors and encourage them to take steps to keep global temperature increases "well below" 2°C by 2100. However, I argue the treaty itself is weak because it does not have any binding limits on emissions. In fact, the treaty gives each respective country the authority to craft its own climate plan. I assert that this is a major risk and a pr

  It has now been two long years since the COVID-19 pandemic uprooted our lives as we knew it. We were forced to adapt to the ever-changing mandates and lockdowns that were implemented to keep everyone safe. Recently in class, we talked about the idea of globalization and how some people believe that it can be beneficial or not. The more I think about the pandemic, the more it feels like it spread as fast as it did because of globalization. My belief is that being dependent on globalization is terrible for countries because if another pandemic arises in the future, the same kind of suffering will take place. Prior to the pandemic, economies all over the world were dependent on globalization. Some were dependent on tourists visiting their countries, while others were reliant on foreign trade and investments. When the pandemic struck, it was clear that this kind of dependency was not healthy as economies all over the world suffered terribly. International travel declined by around 74

Climate Change and the Paris Agreement           This past summer I was walking with friends around New York City and I remember we were in a small park-like area of the city, I am not certain where, and I looked up at one of the imposing buildings looming overhead and saw a clock that was counting down. At that point in time I think the clock read something like 6 years, 107 days, and some hours:minutes:seconds. I remember being slightly confused on what the clock was counting down to, until later I researched it and found out it was known as the Climate Clock. It was made possible by scientists, artists, educators, and activists across the world to remind everyone walking past just how much longer we have until it is too late to fix the damage we have done to our planet and climate change becomes irreversible. Not all hope is lost yet, however. In December of 2015, 192 countries and the European Union joined the Paris Agreement to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses and prevent