Bring together as much of what you have learned in the previous three modules, the continuing saga of the Covid-19 global health emergency and all the creative thought you can muster in explaining why the concept/scenario you have selected is likely to prevail as a way of influencing the challenges of the MSS and the states within the system.

Rahm Emmanuel, the former mayor of Chicago, has said: a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. If we can characterize the current global pandemic as a crisis, we have before us a political space that provides opportunities for adjustment, change, reform or perhaps rethinking. Use this vision to frame your response to Brief Essay #4.

Before you begin this essay, please ensure you have read the three, short articles in the list of readings for Module 4: World Order 2.0 by Richard Haass, The Paradox of International Action by Frances Fukuyama and Will Covid-19 Remake the World? by Dani Rodrik. The first article discusses sovereign obligation as a new organizing principle for the Modern State System (MSS). The second article discusses shared sovereignty as another possible organizing principle for the MSS. Each of these modified operating principles can be thought of as new tools for statecraft. The third article simply states that when it comes to the Covid-19 challenge, much like climate change, nothing is going to change and the basic, Westphalian organizing principle known as sovereignty will remain intact. This means that the rule of self-help, the anarchical nature of the system and the incentive for non-cooperation will not change.

Pick one of these three scenarios/organizing principles and tell the reader in your own words why the concept you have picked holds the potential to serve as an operating principle for a MSS challenged by pandemics, climate change, food security or terrorism. If you choose the no change scenario (meaning the original organizing principle of sovereignty will survive), you must explain to the reader why this is your choice. There is no right or wrong answer and the no change scenario is perfectly plausible. Your challenge is to convince the essay reader why sovereign obligation, shared sovereignty or no change is the likely future of the system.

Bring together as much of what you have learned in the previous three modules, the continuing saga of the Covid-19 global health emergency and all the creative thought you can muster in explaining why the concept/scenario you have selected is likely to prevail as a way of influencing the challenges of the MSS and the states within the system.

Again, the better answers will be well-organized, delivered in a clear and comprehensible manner, contain documented points (with statistics, references to authority, examples, etc.) and make only substantive/accurate claims.