Which of the following types of political boundaries best describe the border between the United States and Canada?

The Canadian–United States boundary formally referred to as the global border, is the greatest boundary in the world. The global border, consisting of small sections of marine borders on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic shorelines, over and above the Great Lakes is 8,891 kilometres in length, including 2,475 kilometres connecting with Alaska.

People from both states who own land neighbouring the boundary are obliged to inform the governments about any erection of physical boundary passing their land. The International border committee ensures that this is achieved. Where necessary, barriers or automobile barricades are utilized.

Each individual crossing the boundary is required to inform the relevant customs and migration bureaus in each state. In secluded regions where personnel boundary crossings are not accessible, there are secreted sensors on roads and placed in woody regions next to crossing terminals and on various trails and railways.

However, there are no sufficient boundary staffs on either side to authenticate and impede corresponding incursions. In recent years, Canadian bureaucrats have protested as regards to drug, cigarette and weaponry trafficking from the United States whereas the US administrators have criticized drug trafficking from Canada1.

In 2005 for instance, law implementation staff detained three people who had erected a 360-foot passageway under the boundary between British Columbia and Washington that they planned to utilize for smuggling marijuana.

Hypothesis

In the current international system, states exist according to the Hobbestian state of nature meaning that life is brutal, short-lived and anarchical. Each state is concerned about the national interests. In this case, the two states that is, the US and Canada are always playing a zero-sum game.

The US intends to benefit from the relationship whereas Canada wants to reap maximally from the relationship. It is not surprising that the two states would come up with foreign policies that try to outsmart those of the other.In other words, there is no Leviathan in the international system, which can guarantee peace and harmony. The existing body that is, the International border commission is too weak and it only exists as long as the states exist. This paper observes that the two states should abandon the strategies targeting a zero-sum game and adopt win-win strategies.

For this to happen, the US should think about the benefits of cooperation and suspend its national interest, which is related to border security. Strict measures at the border are not safe for trade. Free movement of goods and services should be enhanced to speed up the process of national development in both states2.

The main hypothesis would therefore be “Free movement of goods, services and people is beneficial to the US and Canada”. This hypothesis is reinforced by other premises arguing that border security is an expensive understanding that would cost the two states millions of dollars but national interests would not be achieved.

This paper seeks to refute the popular notion that maintaining a tight security at the border would benefit a state both economically and socio-politically. The paper observes that barring people from trading with the international community would be suicidal to the growth and development of the economy.

For the two states, it would be tragic since they are the centres of power in the global system, both politically and economically. Blocking the borders is therefore a defective policy for the two states in case their economies are to perform strongly in the global market.

the correct answer is “opportunity cost”. opportunity cost is what a company misses out because it decided in one option over another one. in this case, the company decided to invest in building a factory so it gave up another possible benefit or profit in order to achieve success with the factory.  

trade-off is not the correct answer since it is a situation in which you accept losing something in return for benefits in other areas.

and finally, consequence is a general term used to accept what it comes when you make a decision. it can be a positive or negative consequence depending if the decision you took was the correct one.  

america