Global governance institutions

 

In an essay of at least 1,000 words, respond directly and completely to the following question:

Should an alliance structure like NATO be seen as an alternative to global governance institutions like the UN? Or do alliances perhaps work well when they are situated within broader frameworks like the UN to help coordinate global responses to emerging security challenges?

Sample Solution

Global governance institutions

Global governance is a movement towards political cooperation among transnational actors, aimed at negotiating responses problems that affect more than one state or region. Institutions of global governance include: United Nations, the International Criminal court, and the World Bank. NATO transition in responsibilities and tasks since the early 1990s has led to extensive cooperation with the UN, EU, and many others. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] is perhaps half-way through a transition from its cold war posture to one adapted to current and emerging security requirements. The fact that international organizations have differing strengths and mandates has often helped in working out a sensible division of labor. NATO most obvious comparative advantage is in its military capabilities, including its expertise in planning, organizing and conducting operations involving the armed forces of the allies and security partners.

only be valid if it is express or implied directly to the offeror. It must fall within the prescribed time constraints, and acceptance must be absolute and unconditional. Making a counter offer automatically rejects the prior offer, and requires an acceptance under the terms of the counter offer or there is no contract. On October 1, Finerty responded to Skjonsby’s proposed form contract with a counter offer, stating that “three changed need to be made” and he will sign the contract. This signified a rejection to the original offer. Two of the changes were resolved, and on October 17, Dataserv offered a remedy to the final change. Technology did not respond. On November 8, Dataserv offered to remove the clause that was causing the delay, and Technology responded by revoking their intent to purchase the “features.” Finerty never accepted the terms to the proposed contract, therefore there was never an acceptance.

Dataserv and Technology Enforceability

Whether or not Technology is liable for the difference between the sale price of the features and the contract price depends on if a contract was ever formed for which they would be responsible for payment. A valid contract is formed when one party, the offeror, makes an offer that is accepted by the other party the offeree. The offeror is free to revoke the offer at any point before the offeror accepts. Making a counter offer automatically rejects the prior offer, and requires an acceptance under the terms of the counter offer or there is no contract. Dataserv offered certain IBM computer “features” for the price of $100,000 to Technology on August 29. On September 6, Dataserv sent a proposed contract for this sale, and after over a month of back and forth, the two parties did not come to an agreement. On November 8, Technology communicated to Dataserv that “the deal was not going to get done…” At this point, any possibility of an agreement was dismissed. A contract was never formed between the two parties. Technology cannot be held liable for the difference between the sale price of the features and the contract price.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.