Various factors have made it essential to evaluate state systems. Numerous state systems have been reorganized in order to make them capable of handling new challenges brought on by globalization in order to better and stay competitive. Global interactions in which numerous nations participate call for the systems to operate in accordance with a predetermined set of guidelines in order for the interaction to serve its intended purpose. To stay relevant in the contemporary world, many countries are auditing their systems and making the necessary changes. Second, the need to better pay the operations managers serves as the impetus for conducting a state systems review. The management team of any national system needs to be remunerated well to make them loyal to the state and work better for the system. The four variables considered while assessing state systems are as discussed below.
According to Kaplan and Katzenbach, the financial performance of any public system is critical in assessing its viability and ability to meet its desired objectives. A good public system should be able to meet its overhead expenditure. A self-sustaining system can achieve its obligations and grow as desired while adapting to the various changes in the state. Good state systems should be able to use all resources available at its disposal in the best way possible. Better utilization of available resources will mean that the government system can perform in future and it does not create challenges in the course of carrying out its activities (Dixon 2013). State systems utilize public resources to conduct their functions. It is, therefore, good that when evaluating such systems, proper use of available funds in serving the people.
The second variable in the evaluation of state systems is innovation and learning. A good public system should allow for continuous improvement. The system should also present its operators with various valuable learning opportunities. The person using the system should continuously be able to learn something new about the system as well as the purpose the system is serving. If the system has room for continuous improvement, it will mean the system can well be adjusted to adapt to new issues in the course of being used by the state. Innovation will also lead to better delivery of services to the people (Cartwright and Rex 1997). A public system should be able to be renovated to accommodate various new issues with ease without affecting service delivery. Renovation of a state system allows the organization to be made more responsive to emerging needs in the nation. International organizations are having a significant impact on the organization of national regimes. The only system that allows for continuous improvement need to match the global systems available. By improving a system, it gives its users the opportunity to learn from it and be able to perform better in future. Innovation and learning make the system more stable by coming up with a new measure to strengthen the system while allowing those in charge develop better approaches to problems affecting the system (Kaplan 1959).
Thirdly, Kaplan and Katzenbach propose that in assessing a state system one examines the way the system carries out its private business. The interior of the scheme should be conducted in the best ways possible in order to allow the system work as desired. A good system should have an internal quality mechanism that checks how services are offered and determine how the services of the system will be in times to come (Cartwright and Rex 1997). In many occasions, the internal business of a system affects customers’ interaction with the system. A sound system ensures that its domestic business is carried out in a professional way to meet the desired objectives of the system. Internal affairs of the system should also allow for transparency and accountability. There should never be suspicious activities taking place in any state system as it will erode the publics’ confidence in the system. The performance of internal operations is critical in helping the system remain stable solving issues affecting it as well as identifying areas that need to be corrected to cushion the system from failing.
Lastly, Kaplan and Katzenbach mention customers’ perspective as the fourth variable to assessing a state system. A good system is one that has a good name among its clients (Kaplan 1959). Differentiating a sound system from the bad ones by their customers is something that consumers of a service always do. State system should strive at all times to have a good reputation. Quality service and products delivered by state system should be of the accepted standards. A public system should develop its internal quality control mechanism that will help it having a right image to its clients (Dixon 2013). State system are also for the benefit of the people they should, therefore, be well structured to ensure that they serve people to their satisfaction. Good customer perspective provides that the system is supported by a majority of individuals in the state (Dixon 2013). A system with a good reputation makes the people like the system more, and in the process, the system can be supported to grow and become better in performing its activities.
Kaplan and Katzenbach believed that the above four discussed variable are essential in evaluating a state system. When carrying out an evaluation, the above issues. Various variables unique depending on the system or the state (Kaplan 1959).
How international law functions in the current organization to provide stability?
International laws promote and provide stability in the present structure of government by advocating for the voluntary observance of the provisions of the international law. No international law compels a state to follow its rules. Nations are required to choice by themselves whether they will cooperate and follow the rules or not. No country is subjected to any amount of coercion to implement intentional laws. Internal laws regard governments as sovereign and respect the independence of the countries at all cost. International laws only create a framework within which countries can choose to follow and have their activities carried in the various ways are the internal code expects (Dixon 2013). To a major extent, the private law creates an expectation which sovereign states are required to adhere. The adherence is voluntary. A country is always given the free will to choose whether to implement the international laws within their boundaries or remain independent and impellent their laws. States choose by themselves to follow the provisions of internal laws. In many occasions when coming up with international laws, many countries factors are put into consideration. Independent nations have opportunities to present their take on various policies before becoming law. By considering the opinions of the independent nation, the nations can feel that their views are taken into account and in the process follow the rules willingly. Similarly, countries are allowed to withdraw the implementation of international legislation in the nations at will. When a country feels like international laws are not in line with their wishes or system, they suspend their enforcement, and no internal body will question their action (Kaplan 1959). The good will and term of engagement that governs how a country implements international laws never create friction between nations and the laws. In the process, the goodwill among nations makes them to voluntarily follow international laws. In this way, stability is achieved in the country as the international laws do not coerce the laws or make them feel short changed while implementing the requirements. International laws functions in consideration of national legislation of various countries. Thus, international laws are never in conflict with federal statutes to create friction in their implementation.
The relationship between power and morality in the current international system, applying Thucydides analysis.
Power remains one of the most coveted things in the world today. Power has influenced how nations relate to each other and how the enforce international laws. Thucydides argued that powerful nations influence the formulation and implementation of international laws. The argument remains relevant even in the modern global system (Kaplan 1959). Powerful states dictate the application of international laws in most cases they consider themselves more than they deem other nations. What the powerful nations think is moral is what the weaker countries will follow. Sometimes the mighty stated make errors in the formulation of laws to govern international bodies, but the poorer countries have no choice but to follow. Morality in international systems seems to be defined the dominant states. In the modern world, the most powerful countries have a less questioning process even when they fail to carry out their obligations as desired by the international bodies. Sometimes, powerful nations involve themselves in immoral acts but go without questioning. Whenever a weak state defies the international laws, they are intimidated and sometimes punished. The definition of morals occurs through powerful states which develop the values based on their personal interests. In the process, the international systems become corrupted as they favor the powerful states more than the weaker countries. The constitution of internal systems seems to lack equality and transparency and the dominant states take advantage of the power states to win more representation that more vulnerable countries. Powerful states influence most of the times, the organization of internal streams. Sometimes people who head international systems are not of the required standards but manage to get the positions because they come from certain powerful states which influence their choice.
References
Cartwright, David, and Rex Warner. A historical commentary on Thucydides: a Companion to Rex Warner's Penguin Translation. University of Michigan Press, 1997.
Dixon, Martin. Textbook on International Law. Oxford University Press, 2013.
Kaplan, Morton A. "The Patterns of International Politics and International Law." American Political Science Review 53, no. 03 (1959): 693-712.
