Carlos Moya: Paper Analysis' Outline

Professor: Mark Shirk

Introduction:

Thesis – Why is sovereignty not compromised and overridden in countries such as Mexico and China but is compromised in countries such as Kosovo and Rwaranda?

-Introduce Mexico’s violent history with the war against the drug cartels along with an estimated toll of deaths of civilians up to today.

-Introduce Kosovo’s historic violence, its intervention (occurrence, trigger), and death toll count

-Introduce Rwanda’s violent history, death toll count and why intervention did not occur.

- Introduce and mention China’s high level of death penalty due to minor offenses and how this affect sovereignty and how is it different to countries such as Mexico, Kosovo and Rwanda.

Body/Argument:

What does it take for intervention to occur?

 A. Genocide, large number of killings, massive natural disasters, uncontrollable social disruptions that may spill over to neighboring countries.

B. Examples (advantage and disadvantage)– foreign humanitarian and military aid, attention from the international community, dissemination of a country’s internal problems through media channels, intricate politics, sensitive information may be disclosed, unwanted publicity.

C. Counter argument(s) – It is not in the best interest to intervene, internal problems must be dealt by the sovereignty country, humanitarianism supersedes sovereignty.

E. Connection to the next concept or question

How come a country with similar death tolls does not experience intervention, while on the other hand other countries do?

A. In Mexico as of today, there is an approximate death toll of 50,000 people. In China due to death penalty, accused of minor offenses is unknown but it can range from 5,000 to 40,000 deaths a year. In Rwanda, the approximate death toll during the genocide was 800,000 and in Kosovo, the approximate death toll was between 150,000-200,000 people dead. How much is enough in order for and intervention to be ordered?

B. Examples – death toll figures, and the political relationship Mexico, Kosovo and China have with the United States.

C. Counter argument(s) – Each country has a different relationship with the United States at different periods.

D. Connection to the next concept or question

How is intervention decided?

A. Political, strategic, power and economical interests are all important reasons that can cause intervention in foreign countries such as Mexico, Kosovo, China, and Rwanda.

B. Examples – advantage and disadvantage: A supporting country like the U.S may or may not enhance its reputation. A country such as Mexico would not approve of U.S intervention. China on the other hand would not approve of a U.S intervention either. In contrast, Kosovo would be much more receptive to have an intervention from the U.S if necessary and show much less resistance than China and Mexico.

C. Counter argument(s) – A strong resistance from the public and government from countries such as China and Mexico.

D. Connection to the next concept or question

What are the way in which sovereignty can be affected?

A.    Argument and counter argument(s)

Compare all the countries in terms of death tolls, triggers, consequences, levels of sovereignty, developed/developing country, what country can defend sovereignty, what country is more vulnerable, alternative solutions.

A. Provide examples for each element – advantage and disadvantage

B. Argument in favor

C. Counter argument(s)

Conclusion:

A.    Summary of point 1

B.    Summary of point 2

C.     Summary of point 3

D.    Conclusion and final thoughts

E.     References in alphabetical order

REFERENCES

1.     Shirk, David. The Drug War in Mexico: Confronting a Shared Threat. Diss. Web. <http://books.google.com/books?

2.     Walker, Brent. "Amnesty International." Death penalty 2012: Despite setbacks, a death penalty-free world came closer. Amnesty International, 110 04 2013. Web. 19 Nov 2013. <http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/death-penalty-2012-despite-setbacks-death-penalty-free-world-came-closer-2013-04-10-0>.

3.     Henkin, Louis. Kosovo and the Law of "Humanitarian Intervention". Diss. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2555346.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true>.

4.     Staub, Ervin. Healing, reconciliation, forgiving and the prevention of violence after genocide or mass killing: An intervention and its experimental evaluation in Rwanda. Diss. Web.

5.     Stanton, Gregory. COULD THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE HAVE BEEN PREVENTED?. Diss. Web.