I highly encourage those studying IR to read: de Carvalho, Benjamin, Halvard Leira, and John M. Hobson, 'The Big Bangs of IR': The myths that your teachers still tell you about 1648 and 1919', Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39 (3) (2011): 735-758
Dude. I love you. I have a final in International Relations tomorrow, and these cover all the material in my class. Along with the readings from class, I'm sure I will make an A! Again, love you.
thank you so much for this video!! im currently studying the international logistics but started to have huge interest in international relations. this video helps me to build the basic knowledge!
My lecturers constantly tell me it's a myth that the peace of Westphalia was responsible for the establishment of sovereignty but they have literally never explained why
So it would seem to me that World War 1 followed the pattern similar to the problem of sovereignty and escalation you've explained. Am I right in thinking that?
you explain stuff better than my professors in my universities, it's simple and yet educational about International Relations, my professors are not wrong at all at explaining IR but sometimes they use a difficult term, analogy, or language to understand.
We say we have a freedom of speech and expression in this global village. So could we just comment on internal affairs of some other country. Does it not violate the established norm of sovereignty. I have seen World leaders doing it...
@@adikharat9106 no commenting on their internal affairs doesn't mean you're threatening their sovereignty because your words have no value for their policies. But if you were able to manipulate their policies legislations then their sovereignty is threatened. Ex. The colonial empires British or france controlled what would happen in the colonies policy framing /taxation/ legislations and even princely states to an extent . In that colonies had no sovereignty.
I love this. I can't wait for the next one. Also, I don't care how long they are, as long as they are explained with ease and the information is legitimate.
What was your undergrad? Without knowing I would make sure you have good research and writing skills and understand they in most cases you won't be doing prescriptive or descriptive essays/papers but developing causal questions, explanations and understanding defining dependent and independent variables when writing research papers will be important. It is easy to make the mistake of writing a descriptive or prescriptive paper if you don't understand the right methods of research and writing.
Thank you william! International relations Sovereignty Who are the major actors? -International orgazinations -Domestic leaders -Non Government organizations -States States -USA -France -Japan -Georgia (Q. Why are France and Japan states?) Suggestions -Strong actors can violate sovereignty and get away with it. Why is there no punishment? - Difficult words Induce Preemptive war Asymmetric Tariffs Regime type Proliferation Legitimate use of force Delegate Meddle Sovereign entities International affairs Trivial analogy Minion Treaty of westphilia Actor
Thank you! A huge for my exams since I am currently studying International Studies. This makes more sense now for someone like me who isn't into Politics before and just started learning because I am taking a course with politics in it.
An other saying my prof uses to, not necessarly explain why, but is a good statement non the less, superpowers or hyperpowers are often permitted to break the rules "Major players get to write the rules" which ultimately allows them to break them... Something like the Non Proliferation treaty would not be worth much with out a major player, hence would not be taken seriously and would fade away to nothing. So the U.S. tells India OK no worries you don't have to join the NPT, but then harps on Iran or North Korea saying either you join the NPT or we will interpret your further dealings with nuclear power/weapons as an act of war...
thanks this video is helping. but I have a question. Can we say the international system is a total sovereignty and how relevant in sovereignty in the international system
I am having interest in IR and learning before i take this major in university and this video was very interesting and exciting to explore new knowledges about it.
This might sound silly and a bit naive, I’m new to all of this, but why couldn’t little a negotiate with little b as the first step? Like without immediately resorting to violence or going to big A? If little b doesn’t want this to turn into a wider conflict, the two could probably negotiate something by themselves. Of course, if negotiations don’t work, then little a would need to go to big A, but I’d say the first step would be for the two to try to negotiate amongst themselves, and try to take each other in consideration in the first place (like the entire conflict wouldn’t have started if little b took into consideration how little a would be affected by their pollution of the river, or even communicated with them when it comes to what they do with the river, as they both share and rely on it.)
The States within America is not an "archaic" term. They are regular (formally sovereign) states who decided to unionize, via a federation, to delegate some duties to a central government. Not much different from the gulf nations, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in their current discussions to confederate.
Do you not think your definition of sovereignty is a little narrow? To me, sovereignty simply means the ability for a political entity to govern itself. Legal sovereignty means recognition of a states' right to govern itself. While I do agree that a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is key, I would expand the definition a little to mean having control of your domestic population. But even this definition ignores external, recognised sovereignty (Wendt) which also affects the ability of a state to remain de facto sovereign.
So, is sovereignty to a country more important than state sovereignty, where people of a state supposedly have direct right to input of that states sovereinty and rights ? Wouldn't people tend to choose to live in a state where the laws are more in line with their comfort zone. Does it seem like the national sovereignty seems to cause more conflicts between state sovereignty's? Wouldn't state on state disagreements be easier to resolve? If every person or state has a weapon, aren't they less likely to fight? Does nation sovereignty need the states sovereignty to cause more and bigger wars?
I’m looking forward to viewing these as a review of my long - neglected masters in IR. I’m a bit concerned by your examples in sovereignty though as you immediately presume a sovereign/ “sub-sovereign” relationship with both your comments and “big A, little a” example. The first rule of sovereignty is that all states are equally sovereign. That means China and Djibouti are equally sovereign. Your rule that no state can interfere with any other embodies this idea of equal sovereignty. States may choose to surrender some of their sovereignty to join alliances, international bodies, etc., and become a “little a” state but are always themselves “big A” sovereign. Looking forward to hearing about anarchy!
Have you explained different theories of world politics (realism, idealism, liberalism etc) in your videos? if yes, kindly show me the link. Thank you.
Something tangential here but Westphalian sovereignty came later to other parts of the world. Asia, until the 20th century had the concept of suzerainty, which made a sort of imperial control slightly more distant than a full colony, the Chinese empire had this relation witj many entities in its sphere of influence, Korea, Vietnam, Tibet etc. Indeed the issue of Tibet can be traced to the change of imperial suzerainty to the soveriegnty demamded by Westernised ideological actors like the KMT amd CCP. Indeed anarchy is demonstrated here - (Outer) Mongolia would had suffer such a fate but for the hard power of the USSR and its desire for a reasonae buffer. Taiwan still officially claims it.
Can't it exist on a spectrum? Your sub-states may have a monopoly of action on specific things if the larger state recognize them as genuine states in their own right as a governing body with very real territorial lines, in exchange for some of the sovereignty be shared by, and/or counterbalanced by the larger state.
States can violate sovereignty under international law when they have jurisdiction to do so, for instance the US getting Bin Laden, the US had jurisdiction because Bin Laden violated US security, states can also have the UN issue a resolution to violate sovereignty if its a violation of the big international norms like genocide, human rights, etc. If there is consensus of invading the state sovereignty for some horrible act, then they will team up to put that state in check, usually through military action. Like when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US got the UN security council to issue a resolution then used force with a coalition of forces to put Iraq in check. I did enjoy your presentation but felt it was not complete
States as in the United States are sovereign under your definition. Local police powers is granted by the States not the federal government. The United States federal government does not have sovereignty to enact force within a state. Most laws most Americans interact with are state laws not federal laws. States in the United States often have disputes of power with the federal governments and often win. States in the United States also reserve the right to posses military power. Many states decided to share power with the federal government ( they were enticed with funding) but it is not required and some wealthy states(California) funds a military which includes a sizable navy.
01:12 archaic term for how those guys were under the Articles of Confederation 01:53 _legitimate_ force within a territory (murders, gang violence are _illegitimate_ ) 02:51 are not supposed to meddle 03:32 your neighbor can't actually go and spank you 04:07 what a world looks like back before sovereignty existed en:they can go out and arrest people that wasn't always the case
I highly encourage those studying IR to read: de Carvalho, Benjamin, Halvard Leira, and John M. Hobson, 'The Big Bangs of IR': The myths that your teachers still tell you about 1648 and 1919', Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39 (3) (2011): 735-758
anyone else laughed at the notion of Lil B starting a war with Lil A?
protect the basedgod at all times
@@jodawgsup wow sorry for being 5-7 years late, but i am so glad to hear fellow based god enthusiasts are interested in IR
Boy I have news for y’all
@@spronga3305 BOR
Dude. I love you. I have a final in International Relations tomorrow, and these cover all the material in my class. Along with the readings from class, I'm sure I will make an A! Again, love you.
How did the final go?
@@PunmasterSTPbro asking it when this guy probably got wife and childrens
@@whatslove8200 That’s just what I do. Some people have actually gotten back to me after a decade, and I think it’s wild when they do!
THANK YOU. I’ve watched so many videos covering this topic and still had so many unanswered questions. you answered all of them. THANK YOU!!!!
thank you so much for this video!! im currently studying the international logistics but started to have huge interest in international relations. this video helps me to build the basic knowledge!
How have your studies been going?
Thanks William, this is really helpful. I'm currently studying crashcourses to refresh my memory. Thank you so much :)
My lecturers constantly tell me it's a myth that the peace of Westphalia was responsible for the establishment of sovereignty but they have literally never explained why
This is outstanding. Well done, William. I am looking forward to watching this whole series.
So it would seem to me that World War 1 followed the pattern similar to the problem of sovereignty and escalation you've explained. Am I right in thinking that?
you explain stuff better than my professors in my universities, it's simple and yet educational about International Relations, my professors are not wrong at all at explaining IR but sometimes they use a difficult term, analogy, or language to understand.
This video is dedicated to Katy Perry.
We say we have a freedom of speech and expression in this global village. So could we just comment on internal affairs of some other country. Does it not violate the established norm of sovereignty. I have seen World leaders doing it...
@@adikharat9106 no commenting on their internal affairs doesn't mean you're threatening their sovereignty because your words have no value for their policies. But if you were able to manipulate their policies legislations then their sovereignty is threatened. Ex. The colonial empires British or france controlled what would happen in the colonies policy framing /taxation/ legislations and even princely states to an extent . In that colonies had no sovereignty.
Spaniel you want inside her 😅😅😅😅😂😂😂
ugh. Can't stand Katy Perry.
I love this. I can't wait for the next one. Also, I don't care how long they are, as long as they are explained with ease and the information is legitimate.
I want to pursue Master’s in Ir. What should I do to get myself well prepared and cope with the course
What was your undergrad? Without knowing I would make sure you have good research and writing skills and understand they in most cases you won't be doing prescriptive or descriptive essays/papers but developing causal questions, explanations and understanding defining dependent and independent variables when writing research papers will be important. It is easy to make the mistake of writing a descriptive or prescriptive paper if you don't understand the right methods of research and writing.
Thank you william!
International relations
Sovereignty
Who are the major actors?
-International orgazinations
-Domestic leaders
-Non Government organizations
-States
States
-USA
-France
-Japan
-Georgia
(Q. Why are France and Japan states?)
Suggestions
-Strong actors can violate sovereignty and get away with it.
Why is there no punishment?
-
Difficult words
Induce
Preemptive war
Asymmetric
Tariffs
Regime type
Proliferation
Legitimate use of force
Delegate
Meddle
Sovereign entities
International affairs
Trivial analogy
Minion
Treaty of westphilia
Actor
When is the use of violence legitimate? Only when responding to aggression.
What if one group is in control of all those international actors though?
little a and little b just makes so much sense! loved it thankyou !!!
Thank you! A huge for my exams since I am currently studying International Studies. This makes more sense now for someone like me who isn't into Politics before and just started learning because I am taking a course with politics in it.
An other saying my prof uses to, not necessarly explain why, but is a good statement non the less, superpowers or hyperpowers are often permitted to break the rules "Major players get to write the rules" which ultimately allows them to break them... Something like the Non Proliferation treaty would not be worth much with out a major player, hence would not be taken seriously and would fade away to nothing. So the U.S. tells India OK no worries you don't have to join the NPT, but then harps on Iran or North Korea saying either you join the NPT or we will interpret your further dealings with nuclear power/weapons as an act of war...
Love the story of A and B Kingdoms!
Amazing explanations! I'm hoping your other videos are as clear cut as this one.
I hope so too...
Aha:p I'm sure it's great
@@Kat-wr8dm I've checked out William's game theory and logic courses as well as some game theory puzzles, and I can definitely vouch for them!
1one:51 state of matter, still the question is “to be or not to be;” quantum solace existence to be being.
Sovereignty? More like "I'm watching with glee", because all of these videos are amazing!
Clear and to the point! Great video.
thanks this video is helping. but I have a question. Can we say the international system is a total sovereignty and how relevant in sovereignty in the international system
Amazing explanation. I was always baffled by the use of this term and no dictionary explained it well. Now I know what it means.
Thanks a lot for this explanation.
I am having interest in IR and learning before i take this major in university and this video was very interesting and exciting to explore new knowledges about it.
good and to the point, thank u for the simplification of work for us
Thank You Sir, Helped alot.
This might sound silly and a bit naive, I’m new to all of this, but why couldn’t little a negotiate with little b as the first step? Like without immediately resorting to violence or going to big A? If little b doesn’t want this to turn into a wider conflict, the two could probably negotiate something by themselves. Of course, if negotiations don’t work, then little a would need to go to big A, but I’d say the first step would be for the two to try to negotiate amongst themselves, and try to take each other in consideration in the first place (like the entire conflict wouldn’t have started if little b took into consideration how little a would be affected by their pollution of the river, or even communicated with them when it comes to what they do with the river, as they both share and rely on it.)
It also means that one State willl not interfere in the internal or international matters of other state. Am I right?
Great content. Thanks.
Woah. You should re-issue these. So many people haven’t seen them and you’re so big now!
The States within America is not an "archaic" term. They are regular (formally sovereign) states who decided to unionize, via a federation, to delegate some duties to a central government. Not much different from the gulf nations, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in their current discussions to confederate.
Do you not think your definition of sovereignty is a little narrow? To me, sovereignty simply means the ability for a political entity to govern itself. Legal sovereignty means recognition of a states' right to govern itself. While I do agree that a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is key, I would expand the definition a little to mean having control of your domestic population. But even this definition ignores external, recognised sovereignty (Wendt) which also affects the ability of a state to remain de facto sovereign.
Thanks for posting this, very clear, informative and easy to follow.
Thanks for the explanations, really do help.
great video and explanations, i enjoyed it very much!
Thankyou for course
So, is sovereignty to a country more important than state sovereignty, where people of a state supposedly have direct right to input of that states sovereinty and rights ? Wouldn't people tend to choose to live in a state where the laws are more in line with their comfort zone. Does it seem like the national sovereignty seems to cause more conflicts between state sovereignty's? Wouldn't state on state disagreements be easier to resolve? If every person or state has a weapon, aren't they less likely to fight? Does nation sovereignty need the states sovereignty to cause more and bigger wars?
thanks for make it easier! even it's my very first time involved in
thanks for the video, this really have a great quality. Hope you always share. :)
I love your videos! Good job!! Keep em' coming!
What a legend you are man 👌👌
I’m looking forward to viewing these as a review of my long - neglected masters in IR. I’m a bit concerned by your examples in sovereignty though as you immediately presume a sovereign/ “sub-sovereign” relationship with both your comments and “big A, little a” example. The first rule of sovereignty is that all states are equally sovereign. That means China and Djibouti are equally sovereign. Your rule that no state can interfere with any other embodies this idea of equal sovereignty. States may choose to surrender some of their sovereignty to join alliances, international bodies, etc., and become a “little a” state but are always themselves “big A” sovereign. Looking forward to hearing about anarchy!
Thank you for this informative video it really helps me with my studies.
How have your studies been going?
Have you explained different theories of world politics (realism, idealism, liberalism etc) in your videos? if yes, kindly show me the link. Thank you.
I think he mentions he has the liberal outlook in one video, also searching for it right now.
The way you explain is cute and helpful
Where is the explanation of the Major Actors ????
Thanks for this, William
So who won? "big A or big B"?
thanks a lot!
Thank you for your contribution. It is really helpful. CHeers !
This video aged very well.
helped so much, thanks a lot
Something tangential here but Westphalian sovereignty came later to other parts of the world. Asia, until the 20th century had the concept of suzerainty, which made a sort of imperial control slightly more distant than a full colony, the Chinese empire had this relation witj many entities in its sphere of influence, Korea, Vietnam, Tibet etc. Indeed the issue of Tibet can be traced to the change of imperial suzerainty to the soveriegnty demamded by Westernised ideological actors like the KMT amd CCP.
Indeed anarchy is demonstrated here - (Outer) Mongolia would had suffer such a fate but for the hard power of the USSR and its desire for a reasonae buffer. Taiwan still officially claims it.
I'm Native American and I have sovereignty I'm curious to the Cherokee Nation and the Bia
Great stuff, thanks for these videos
Can't it exist on a spectrum? Your sub-states may have a monopoly of action on specific things if the larger state recognize them as genuine states in their own right as a governing body with very real territorial lines, in exchange for some of the sovereignty be shared by, and/or counterbalanced by the larger state.
I like the subject and the way he presents it. My only complaint is he speaks too fast and the voice is not very clear.
Can you please show China and Japan (and Pakistahn and India, and everyone in the middle east) this video (6:00)
lol i start to disagree at the end. If you don’t have the means to defend your country then it’s not sovereign
States can violate sovereignty under international law when they have jurisdiction to do so, for instance the US getting Bin Laden, the US had jurisdiction because Bin Laden violated US security, states can also have the UN issue a resolution to violate sovereignty if its a violation of the big international norms like genocide, human rights, etc. If there is consensus of invading the state sovereignty for some horrible act, then they will team up to put that state in check, usually through military action. Like when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US got the UN security council to issue a resolution then used force with a coalition of forces to put Iraq in check. I did enjoy your presentation but felt it was not complete
Tysm
New subscriber
I am an Indian belongs in a below literacy area. so ,I cannot understand so fast English
thank you!
States as in the United States are sovereign under your definition. Local police powers is granted by the States not the federal government.
The United States federal government does not have sovereignty to enact force within a state. Most laws most Americans interact with are state laws not federal laws.
States in the United States often have disputes of power with the federal governments and often win.
States in the United States also reserve the right to posses military power. Many states decided to share power with the federal government ( they were enticed with funding) but it is not required and some wealthy states(California) funds a military which includes a sizable navy.
Thanks
01:12 archaic term for how those guys
were under the Articles of Confederation
01:53 _legitimate_ force within a territory (murders, gang violence are _illegitimate_ )
02:51 are not supposed to meddle
03:32 your neighbor can't actually go and spank you
04:07 what a world looks like back before sovereignty existed
en:they can go out and arrest people
that wasn't always the case
eurgh why pollute water? no point
We learned about sovereignty
Cheers :)
Everything is good about ur video, except speed.. hard to follow
Might be worth mentioning that the Pakistani Govt wouldn’t hand over Bin Laden..??
Why are all the A’s and Bs men? Smh :(
Russia protecting South Ossetia from Georgia? - Where's the logic in here?
Who gives sovereignty to a country???
No one can give sovereignty but peaple of this country are take by sovereignty like usa get independence in UK sovereignty means independence
US in Libya is not the violation of sovereignty?
But Russia in Georgia is violation of sovereignty?
✌💛💡🙏
Your first video on war in Ukraine was much better these are boring and not interested
The treaty of westphalia ended eighty years of war not thirty
It did end the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648).
oh yea my bad. no wonder I got it wrong in my test.
Pakistan is Best and Safe Country for Investment 🇵🇰