Six forum responses 150 words each with works cited. The forum posts are listed below that need responses. Two topics: international negotiation and American government.

Topic International Negotiation

Post 1:

Because of the limitations of the default model of dispute settlement, there are bound to be inequalities among the WTO members. There are four limitations, the first of which is the “speed problem,” where dispute settlement under the default approach tends to take a long time to resolve disputes (Sanford and Maree, 2011, p. 5). The second is the “threshold problem,” which means that dispute settlement within government to government frameworks under trade agreements usually ends up being reserved for matters of high political importance or significant economic value (ibid). Not every situation is deemed important enough. Next is the “access problem.” This is instances when certain stakeholders, usually those in the private sector, have few opportunities to use these systems to address any problems they may encounter with governmental measures which affect their trade (ibid). And finally, there is the “enforcement problem.” This describes the phenomenon that remedies are prospective and do not compensate affected interests for any harm caused by wrongful acts or any omissions. There is no injunction to prevent the harm from being continued, even to the point where members are given a reasonable amount of time to address the measures that were found to be inconsistent with WTO obligations (ibid). All of these factors do not mean that the WTO dispute settlement system is totally defunct, but they do imply that all members are not treated equally.

One way to improve these proceedings is by the addition of arbitration to the dispute settlement arsenal, which has not yet caught on in the WTO (ibid). An example of the successful use of arbitration would be the instance of the US Section 110 of the US Copyright Act, which was a dispute that had been addressed by a panel (Sanford and Maree, 2011, p. 6). The Section 110 measure had been discovered to be inconsistent with US obligations, and with the ultimate intention of the US to comply, it was not possible to amend the measures within the period of time that had been deemed appropriate for implementation (ibid). Article 22.2 of the DSU required that the parties had to negotiate to develop a mutually acceptable compensation, and as opposed to going through the usual dispute process, the parties opted to use an arbitrator (ibid). The arbitrator awarded a monetary penalty in favor of the European right holders (Sanford and Maree, 2011, p.7). This demonstrates how the addition of arbitration could potentially mitigate some of the limiting factors the WTO dispute system currently has.

Post 2:

Few aspects of international relations can be considered as important to a nation as trade. The ability for states to trade with one another is what drives the success of industry, makes citizens more profitable, and demands that states cooperate within the international arena. Trade is the cornerstone of any successful nation, and as such, also serves as one of the largest catalysts for interstate conflict. Regardless of the true gravity the trade issue really commands, disputes over trade can quickly escalate to conflicts that can span generations and cost vast amounts of money if not handled by the proper authority.

In order to address issues that span two states borders and spill into the international arena, states often rely on third-party mediators who are tasked with finding peaceful solutions that are fair to both parties involved. Given the nuance of international trade and the necessity for these third-party actors to be skilled in the arena, the international community saw fit to invest in regulatory and conflict resolution agencies which make up the greater World Trade Organization (WTO). According to the WTO it has many roles within the international community to include: operating a global system of trade rules, acting as a forum for negotiating trade agreements, settling trade disputes between its members, and supporting the needs of developing countries. (WTO 2017, 1)

Given the wide reach that the WTO has within the international community, one must ask whether or not the policies that the WTO has in place to resolve issues between nations are effective and fair. If every nation conflicting with one another were of equal size and means, the issue of fairness would be more straightforward. However, since nations within the international arena are often vastly different, geographically separated, and motivated by different factors it’s critical that an international regulatory agency ensure it represents the issue fairly. The WTO’s response to this potential risk factor is the development of its Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM). The DSM was designed to prevent disagreements from degenerating into an unfettered trade war, and by implementing this process; proponents argue that the DSM serves the interest of weaker states within the international market. (Walters 2011, 173)

While the ability for states to utilize the DSM, which is essentially a series of investigative panels and judicial reviews, for conflict settlement between one another it’s not entirely clear if the process benefits smaller nations. As Jeffery Walters argues in his journal article, Power In WTO Dispute Settlement, the casual observer might assume that the ability to charge a hegemon like the United States with a violate of trade rules is success enough. What becomes clear overtime is that the legal process by which one conducts themselves within the WTO can be too costly for some nations to afford or even cost more than the contention is trying to recover. (Walters 2011, 175) Under this system the WTO is providing a valuable service, and one that must remain accessible to all members within the international arena; however, one must also understand that the process by which international organizations are created is designed to benefit those who create them.

Post 3

The World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute system was designed to equalize the power between weak and powerful states through an idealized perception that all nations would be equal in the eyes of the law and that law was impartial to level of strength. The system is set up so that each state has one equal vote and no on nation or even group of nations has veto power (which is unlike the process of the United Nations) (Walters 2011, 169). Another design feature of the WTO is the ability of any state to bring a dispute against any other member state, regardless of financial strength, type of government, or type of dispute. In other words, no one state is free from being brought to trial in the dispute resolution system.

Even if the sentiment is present for these ideals, they are unfortunately not fully realized in actual practice. The main hurdles to equality in the WTO dispute system are financial strength and legal capacity (Ibid. 176). First, although any state (financially weak or strong) may bring a dispute against another state, it is often the case that the weaker states lack the financial strength to maintain momentum throughout a dispute process and are often unable to continue through the appeals process. The entire process is long and can be drawn out, especially in the appeals portion (Sanford and TanKiang 2011, 480). Therefore, financially weak states may reach a point where they are financially unable to sustain the costs associated with the dispute settlement. In summary, a financially strong country may have the disposable revenue to draw out the process to a point where the other side must back down. For example, the ruling between between the United States and Brazil was announced in 2004, the US decided to continue the appeals process in 2008 and it continued even after that (Walters 2011, 175).

Second is the low legal capacity of smaller and less developed states. From the start, WTO law is very complex and oftentimes exceeds the knowledge and personnel capacity of most developing nations (Bown and Reynolds 2015, 149). The WTO does have an advisory counsel available to nations seeking assistance on the legal aspects of dealing at the WTO dispute system – the Advisory Center on WTO Law (ACWL); however, the services provided by ACWL do not equal the quality and quantity of that which the more developed states can provide from their own ranks (Walters 2011, 177).

In order to improve the first situation, it would be recommended that the WTO impose fines on states that engage in lengthy appeals processes. As an example, the appeals process could be capped at three months without a fine, and then a fine incurred for every month past the first three. Although the wealthy states may be able to afford this as well, the more sanctions that are placed on slow-moving states, the more likely they are to complete their appeals process. It is at least a step in the right direction.

In order to improve the second situation, one recommendation is for the WTO could be to establish an intergovernmental counsel or panel of experts in order to enhance the advisory nature of the ACWL (Suzuki 1999). Perhaps there could be a neutral auditor of sorts to ensure that the legal counsel provided to all parties involved has the appropriate information and legal capacity. This counsel should be subsidized by the member states so that all members are committed to the fair legal playing ground for all states.

Topic American government

Post 1

When looking at national security, economy, and health care issues that are a constant ongoing problem people are always asking what the government is truly doing in order to take care of the problems instead of constantly tip toeing around the issue and having nothing be done. Well the first is with national security, the largest threat we currently have is the issue with North Korea and on June 13th 2017 a suspected North Korean drone flew over a United States missile defense site and was shot down. It is suspected to have been taking pictures of the US missile site. The US believes that the North Korean drone ran short on fuel upon its return to the base and they are going to observe the photos taken and this can be seen as an act of war depending on how the US, Japan, and South Korea takes this. But there will be ramifications taken once the sony made camera images have been processed. The next issue is the health care, today governor John Kasich stated him and others would be more in support of the Medicaid rollback instead of the expansion under Obama care if the government provides more income to each individual state for better health programs for the poor because Governor Kasich and others want there people provided for first. The last is the economy, now the plan is supposed to be set to reduce the total debt income but the issue that is currently going on is President Donald Trumps deduction plan will actually increase the debt by 5.3 trillion dollars and so the plan is being revised in order to fix the issue not make things worse because if they get much worse it will lead to a total government shut down and it will force individual states to rely upon themselves for everything. Trump has multiple plans to potentially reduce the problem but figuring out which one will work and wont is the issue.

Post 2

One of the issues that should be further debated and needs a permanent solution form the policymakers in the United States is that of Climate Change. It has just recently been brought back into the public spotlight due to the US backing out of the Paris agreement. An article written just last week by Robert Stavins of the magazine Foreign Affairs gives insight on why President Trump lead the US away from the environmentally conscious standpoint in an effort to bolster the US economy. While the article seems a bit biased against the president and uses a good amount of emotional persuasion to convince the reader to think a certain way, it does bring a few good points to the table. The United States is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses at about 14% of the global output. Having that large of an impact should warrant taking precautions to limit that output (Stavins, 2017).

There have already been an array of scientific studies on climate change and global warming, and while scientists are not unanimous on the results, it is overwhelmingly concluded that humanity is causing the atmospheric changes that are slowly and gradually causing average global temperatures to rise. The split is substantial; 98% of scientists have agreed that humanity is causing global warming (National Geographic, 2016). In addition to this, there have also been documented changes in wildlife areas of habitation as well as the extinction of a small species of rodent that dwelled on a low lying island due to the rise in sea level (National Geographic, 2016).

The biggest threat of Climate Change if it is to continue down the path it is currently on will be the gradual rising of sea levels. They have been rising; about 3 millimeters per year on average (NASA.gov, 2017). It is projected by 2100 that sea levels will rise as much as 3 feet and that will be catastrophic for humanity (NASA.gov, 2017). Approximately 4% of the world population would lose their homes due to the oceans creeping inland (Chin, 2016). That is roughly 288,000,000 people…

It may seem a distant thought, but it is absolutely an issue that needs to be addressed in a very serious manner. The US Government is currently reassessing the deal and looking for a future replacement for the Paris Agreement, but there is no sign of movement in the near future.

Post 3

One of the biggest issues in my opinion are the proposed budget cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Though this is currently just a proposition for 2018, the severity of this situation is serious as it will ultimately affect the environment and human health. President Trump’s fiscal 2018 budget proposal would cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Science and Technology nearly in half, while paring by 40 percent funding for E.P.A. employees who oversee and put in place environmental regulations (Davenport, 2017).

These cuts essentially remove all of the funding for the research on renewable energies such as wind and solar power. The department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), which funds research on advanced vehicles as well as other aspects of clean energy, would face a roughly 70 percent cut in 2018, carving about $ 1.45 billion from its $2.09 billion 2017 budget (Mooney, 2017).

As I stated earlier, these are just proposed budget cuts by the Trump administration and getting these plans implemented will be quite challenging. Most expect that the arguments over regulations will ultimately end up in court. Groups like the National Resources Defense Council plan to fight back through a range of tools including legal measures, legislative action and public opposition (Green, 2017). “As we expected, the Trump administration has launched an unprecedented set of attacks on a wide range of environmental protections on air, water and land. But in most cases, because he has been constrained by law, he hasn’t actually been able to effect much so far,” said David Goldston, director of government affairs at NRDC. “We think we will be able to successfully block much of what he’s trying to do.”

Many believe that once these propositions get to court the government will put a halt to much of what Trump is trying to accomplish. Presidents are limited by law in what they can do regarding the health and safety of the humanity and environment

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.