The U.S. war in Iraq might lead observers to different conclusions on the strength of the nation-state. On the one hand, the U.S. decision to go to war was made domestically, which reinforces the view that the nation-state is the primary actor in world politics. The nation-state, in other words, is sovereign: no permission is needed to engage in major international conflicts. On the other hand, the U.S. invaded Iraq in consultation with the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), demonstrating that the U.S. would prefer to have UN approval. From this perspective, nation-state sovereignty may be on the decline: governments have some higher authorities which regulate their behavior.

Drawing on these websites, consider the questions below:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc7982.doc.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/19/international/worldspecial/19DIPL.html?scp=1&sq=Iraq%20UN%202003&st=cse&pagewanted=all

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64970/zbigniew-brzezinski/a-tale-of-two-wars?page=show

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=iraq&Body1=inspect

1. In your view, did the U.S. go to war in 2003 with "permission" from the UN?

2. Was permission necessary? Why?

3. Does the Iraq war provide any answers to questions on nation-state sovereignty?