Global quick notes III Flashcards
(38 cards)
1
Q
5
Enforcement Challenges & Sovereignty
Cultural Traditions:
A
- No universal human rights standard; Western liberal values differ from other cultural/religious traditions.
- Many countries criminalize homosexuality, contrasting with Western equality rights.
- Asian values emphasize social duty over individual rights.
- Muslim countries follow Islamic law, often conflicting with Universal Declaration principles.
- Russia’s Orthodox Christian influence shapes conservative policies on human rights.
2
Q
5
Enforcement Challenges & Sovereignty
State Sovereignty
A
- Universal Declaration is “soft law” without enforcement power.
- States decide whether to accept external jurisdiction.
- Example: UK breaches European Convention by denying prisoner voting rights.
- ICC unpopular in Africa, seen as biased and neo-colonial.
- UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings are non-binding, respecting sovereignty.
3
Q
5
Powerful States and Accountability
A
- Powerful states often ignore international human rights law when inconvenient.
- Russia refuses cooperation on MH17 investigation; US resists closing Guantanamo Bay. Drone strikes causing civilian deaths highlight lack of accountability.
- Post-9/11 US counterterrorism involved human rights abuses (torture, indefinite detention).
- Political leaders (e.g., Cheney, Trump) have justified controversial tactics.
- Powerful states undermine universal application of human rights through selective enforcement.
3
Q
2
United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
A
- Lack of condemnation on Crimea:
Russia’s annexation of Crimea violated Ukraine’s sovereignty. However, Russia, as a permanent UNSC member, vetoed condemnation efforts. - General Assembly vs Security Council:
While the UN General Assembly condemned the annexation, its resolutions are non-binding, limiting real impact.
4
Q
2
UN War Crimes Tribunals
A
- 1990s context:
With the Cold War over, the UNSC supported creating war crimes tribunals to address genocide and crimes against humanity. - Successes:
Countries’ cooperation enabled these tribunals to achieve significant convictions.
5
Q
5
Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
A
- Impact:
The ICTY has convicted many individuals for war crimes in the 1990s Balkan conflicts, advancing international accountability. - Justice for victims:
The tribunal claims to have given a voice to victims and reinforced that individuals can be held internationally accountable. - Notable trials:
Radovan Karadzic (40 years) and Ratko Mladic (life) convicted for Srebrenica massacre. - Criticism:
Accused of bias as most convicted are Serbs and Croats. Russia alleges Western bias, but tribunal responds that these groups committed most crimes. - Reconciliation:
While the tribunal achieved justice, it has struggled to foster reconciliation between ethnic communities.
6
Q
2
Rwanda Tribunal (ICTR)
A
- Work:
Convicted 55 individuals including former Hutu PM Jean Kambanda for 1994 genocide (around 1 million Tutsi victims). - Criticism:
Did not prosecute alleged Tutsi atrocities after the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front took power.
7
Q
3
Achievements of UN War Crime Tribunals
A
- Provided retribution for crimes.
- Laid a basis for reconciliation (though limited).
- Established that heads of government can be tried internationally.
8
Q
4
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
A
- Role:
Established 1951, it adjudicates cases under the European Convention on Human Rights. - Limitations:
Relies on states’ cooperation; countries can defy rulings without direct consequences. - Examples:
UK derogated from Article 5 after 9/11, allowing indefinite detention of foreign terrorist suspects.
UK currently defies ECHR by denying prisoner voting rights and allowing life imprisonment considered inhuman treatment.
Russia’s 2015 law prioritizes national law over ECHR rulings.
- Nature of power:
ECHR has “soft persuasive power” rather than coercive force.
9
Q
3
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
A
- Function:
Mediates disputes between states. - Challenges:
Rulings are advisory, not binding; states can ignore them (e.g., Israel ignoring ruling on West Bank wall; China ignoring South China Sea ruling).
Lacks enforcement powers unlike WTO sanctions.
- Successes:
Maintains international prestige, influencing states to comply (e.g., Japan and whaling ruling).
9
Q
4
Environmental Philosophy: Shallow vs Deep Ecology (Arne Naess)
Deep/Radical Ecology:
A
- Calls for substantial emission reductions.
- Rejects industrialism and capitalism.
- Emphasizes biocentric equality and ecological consciousness.
- Advocates for zero growth and small, self-sufficient communities.
9
Q
3
Environmental Philosophy: Shallow vs Deep Ecology (Arne Naess)
Shallow/Reformist Ecology:
A
- Accepts modest greenhouse gas targets.
- Supports economic growth with “green capitalism” and technology.
- Values environment instrumentally, aiming for sustainability within current systems.
10
Q
3
Environmental Challenges: Free Riders & Negotiations
A
- Free rider problem:
Some actors pollute but avoid paying cleanup costs, undermining global efforts. - Reciprocity principle:
Progress requires all countries to participate, but costs borne now benefit future generations, making compliance hard. - Example:
Kyoto Protocol failed partly due to US non-participation and China’s free-riding.
11
Q
3
Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons”
A
- Concept:
Common resources are overused because individuals act in self-interest without bearing full costs, causing depletion. - Implications:
Explains why environmental problems are hard to solve. - Solutions suggested:
Exploit and move on: no longer viable due to lack of new resources.
Privatization: assigning property rights so owners manage resources sustainably.
Norms, rules, regulations: controversial but necessary to limit overuse, though enforcement and fairness remain issues.
12
Q
4
Environmental Issues and Climate Change:
A
- Environmental problems include acid rain, fish stock depletion, but climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions has recently gained the most international attention.
- The IPCC, established in 1988, confirms global warming is happening, with serious consequences like rising sea levels and droughts expected.
- This creates tensions between developed and developing countries:
- Developed nations historically emit the most greenhouse gases. Developing countries suffer the worst effects, such as flooding in Bangladesh and water stress in Africa.
Developing countries demand compensation; developed countries have promised some funds but avoid legal liability.
12
Q
4
Developing Countries’ Perspective:
A
- Countries like China and India argue it’s unfair to limit their emissions because their per capita emissions are still low compared to developed countries.
- This stance has slowed progress on binding emission cuts (e.g., Kyoto Protocol excluded developing countries).
- The US used this as a reason not to act, fearing economic disadvantage.
- Recently, some developing countries acknowledge climate risks, e.g., China’s smog problem has forced environmental attention.
13
Q
3
Scientific Views on Global Warming:
A
- Until the 1970s, scientists worried about global cooling, but since the 1980s, consensus shifted toward global warming.
- Debate remains over causes, severity, and consequences of warming.
- Climate change is complicated by the state-centric nature of international relations and involvement of non-state actors like corporations.
14
Q
3
Environmental Pessimists vs. Optimists:
A
- Pessimists: Warn of significant warming (1–5°C by 2100), melting ice caps, rising seas, and more extreme weather.
- Optimists: Argue Earth has natural climate cycles; some areas (e.g., northern Britain, Canada) may benefit from warming; some question CO2’s impact.
- Varied scientific opinion has hampered global agreement, though awareness and action have increased (e.g., bans on incandescent bulbs).
15
Q
5
Challenges in Global Cooperation:
A
- Tragedy of the Commons: Shared resources (oceans, air) are overused since no global agency enforces limits.
Example: Collapse of North Atlantic fishery; Amazon deforestation due to national economic interests.
- Free Rider Problem: Some countries benefit from others’ climate efforts without contributing (e.g., US, China).
- Economic growth pressures make governments reluctant to impose costly climate measures, especially near elections.
- Lack of grassroots understanding and engagement, especially in developing countries, limits political will.
- NGOs have limited influence; global society remains nation-state focused, complicating unified action.
16
Q
4
Views on Radical Action to Solve Climate Change:
Arguments against radical action:
A
- Environmentalism sometimes seen as hysteria fueled by media.
- Radical policies may serve political show rather than effective solutions.
- Reformist ecologists advocate adaptation over mitigation, pointing to opportunities in climate change (e.g., new habitable lands).
- Capitalism could evolve (“Capitalism 2.0”) to foster green innovation, with market forces driving renewable energy and sustainability.
17
Q
4
Views on Radical Action to Solve Climate Change:
Arguments for radical action:
A
- Radical ecologists warn current international efforts (Kyoto, Copenhagen, etc.) are insufficient.
- Temperature rises beyond 2–3°C risk catastrophic impacts; predicted rises could reach 6.4°C.
- Technological fixes and market solutions are often inadequate or costly.
- Weak emission reduction commitments and ineffective carbon trading show need for stronger measures.
18
Q
4
Conclusion: ecology
A
- The divide between radical and reformist ecologists centers on how severe the climate problem is and the best solutions.
- Radical ecologists demand fundamental economic and ideological change.
- Reformists prefer pragmatic adaptation, technological innovation, and market-based approaches.
- Many radical solutions seem impractical; reformist strategies offer realistic paths forward by balancing human ingenuity and environmental care.
19
Q
2
Globalisation and Regionalism
A
- Globalisation: Increasing interconnectedness of global economies, cultures, and politics driven by international economic activity.
- Regionalism: Rising levels of regional social and economic exchange.
There are two main views on their relationship:
Regionalism is part of globalisation or a step towards it.
Regionalism is a reaction or challenge to globalisation.
20
Q
4
Viewpoint 1: Regionalism as Part of Globalisation
A
- Regionalism reflects globalisation through regional organisations (e.g., Mercosur, NAFTA).
- These groups adopt free trade and capital/labor mobility to stay competitive globally.
- Regionalism helps accommodate global capitalism while allowing political management at a regional level.
- Example: Job losses in the US due to Mexican manufacturing reflect globalisation more than just regionalism.
20
# 5
Viewpoint 2: Regionalism as a Reaction to Globalisation
- Regionalism grows as nations seek “safe harbors” from global economic unpredictability.
- Example: The EU protects its farmers via subsidies (Common Agricultural Policy), resisting free market forces.
- ASEAN supports smaller Southeast Asian countries against larger neighbors like China and Japan.
- Political integration may protect declining global powers (e.g., UK, France) through EU representation.
- Regionalism can shield national interests in a globalising world.
20
# 6
EU Expansion and Functioning
- The EU has expanded to include many Central and Eastern European countries, nearing Russia’s border.
- Expansion complicates decision-making (27 members now).
- Some Eastern European countries resent pressure from Western Europe.
- The EU mixes supranational institutions (e.g., Commission, Parliament) with intergovernmental control (e.g., European Council).
- Key decisions on sovereignty issues (foreign policy, defense) still require unanimity; others use Qualified Majority Voting (QMV).
- The EU allows member states to retain significant control; no full sovereignty loss.
21
# 2
EU’s Structure and Challenges
- Supranational elements:
Commission administers policies (e.g., CAP, trade).
Parliament has increased legislative power.
European Court of Justice can overrule national laws.
- Intergovernmental elements:
National governments dominate key decisions.
Veto powers remain in crucial areas.
The EU President is appointed by member states, often a low-profile figure.
The UK’s departure (Brexit) shows states can leave the EU.
22
# 5
EU’s Role in the World
- Biggest economic trading bloc.
- Leads proactive climate change initiatives (e.g., Cap & Trade).
- Has formal EU leadership roles (President of the European Council, Foreign Affairs spokesperson).
- However, lacks military/strategic capabilities — NATO remains key.
- EU struggles with foreign policy unity due to member state divisions.
23
# 6
Federation vs. EU Reality
- Federation involves central government with sovereignty over defense/foreign policy.
- The EU has moved somewhat toward federation (shared currency, supranational institutions) but is not a true federation.
- Eurozone countries share monetary policy via the European Central Bank. Banking Union (2014) centralizes bank supervision for financial stability.
- EU lacks common army, tax system, or full diplomatic service.
- Some members have opt-outs (e.g., UK, Denmark, Sweden on Eurozone).
- Multi-speed integration is emerging, with some members deeper integrated than others.
24
# 4
Pros of Further EU Integration
- Promotes cosmopolitanism and counters narrow nationalism.
- Economic and political union increases interdependence, reducing war risk. Political and economic union complement each other.
- Single market boosts prosperity and global security.
- Pooling sovereignty enables greater global influence.
25
# 6
Cons of Further EU Integration
- Loss of national sovereignty can ignore unique national interests.
- Weakening national identities provoke nationalist backlash.
- Language and cultural differences hinder political allegiance.
- The “democratic deficit”: EU institutions are distant and less accountable.
- Integration driven by elites and corporate interests, not popular mandate.
- Benefits mainly large, powerful states; fears of German dominance.
26
# 5
Impact of EU Enlargement
- Trade creation increases market size, improving terms of trade. Economies of scale benefit producers; demand from accession countries grows. Foreign investment boosts incomes and helps transform new members.
- Labour migration helps alleviate shortages and inflation pressures. But costs include higher spending on poorer regions and cohesion funds.
- Decision-making becomes more complex.
- Social and economic strains from migration and investment shifts.
- Turkey’s potential accession faces strong opposition. Russia opposes Ukraine joining EU/NATO, creating geopolitical tension.
27
# 7
EU Unity
Key Treaties:
- Treaty of Rome (1957): Introduced the idea of an “ever closer union” between European states.
- Single European Act (1986): Promoted free movement of goods, services, and people across member states.
- Maastricht Treaty (1992): Formed the European Union (EU), introduced common citizenship, the single currency (Euro), and aimed for a single European foreign and defense policy.
- Lisbon Treaty (2009): Created roles like the EU President and High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, and gave the EU legal identity.
- All these treaties have expanded Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers, reducing national veto powers.
- Influential leaders such as Angela Merkel and Jean-Claude Juncker support EU federalism, but this support may either push federalism forward or trigger backlash.
- Brexit removes a major opponent of federalism, potentially accelerating moves toward deeper integration.
28
# 6
EU Not Unified
- The Lisbon Treaty emphasizes subsidiarity, protecting national sovereignty by ensuring decisions are taken as closely as possible to citizens.
- Member states retain control over core areas like taxation, immigration, defense, and foreign policy.
- Challenges like the migrant crisis threaten the Schengen Agreement (free movement of people).
- The Eurozone crisis and imposed austerity measures (the Troika) have weakened support for federalism, especially among left-wing groups. The rise of Eurosceptic and nationalist parties in countries like Poland, France, UK, Greece, Czech Republic, and Hungary signals growing resistance.
- Events like Brexit and the election of Trump contribute to an existential crisis within the EU.
- The fading memory of WWII has eroded the original idealism that helped bind the EU together.
29
# 2
EU as a Model for Regionalism
- Since WWII and globalization, many regional organizations have formed (e.g., NAFTA/USMCA, MERCOSUR, African Union, ASEAN), focusing on economic, security, and political cooperation between neighbors.
- However, the EU is a unique and complex case and may not be a practical model for others due to:
Its democratic deficit and lack of full accountability.
The single currency's troubled history.
Difficulties managing a large membership (27 states), complicating decision-making (e.g., during the Ukrainian crisis).
The replacement of national sovereignty with supranational institutions (Commission, ECB, Court of Justice), which many states might resist.
29
# 4
Other regional bodies differ greatly to EU
- USMCA is a free trade bloc with no political integration; a common citizenship or currency is unlikely due to US national identity.
- MERCOSUR connects South American trading partners and has an elected parliament, but no push for common citizenship or currency.
- African Union engages in peacekeeping with the UN but has made little progress on free trade due to protected borders and financial interests.
- ASEAN is somewhat similar to the EU, aiming to enhance trade and possibly establish common citizenship and currency, but with limited progress on legal or military unification. ASEAN’s drive is more about regional economic strength than EU-style integration.
30
# 5
Other evidence with sovereignty challenged
- specially since the end of the Cold War, sovereignty has been frequently breached and liberals have argued strongly that the principles of global governance, whereby states increasingly co-operate in an intergovernmental fashion and willingly accept limits on their sovereignty, have meant that Westphalian principles no longer form the basis of relations between states.
- Globalization has dramatically challenged the economic sovereignty of states. The collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 had global economic implications because the world’s economy is so inter-connected, while the expansion of multi-national corporations also create a less nationally based and more internationally based economy, in which your economy is less dependent on the economic policies of your government than on the decisions of TNC shareholders. If, for example, Apple were a country it would be the 55th richest in the world so the decisions made by apple will dramatically influence a country’s economy. Such supraterritorality thus undermines the centrality of the state in economic decision making.
- The transatlantic trade and investment partnership agrement between the EU and the USA also challenges national sovereignties because, by removing barriers to trade and investment it also stops states from rejecting goods if they do not adhere to that country’s safety / health standards.
- The external sovereignty of states has also been reduced by the growth of intergovernmental organizations such as the World Trade Organization [1999] International Criminal Court [2002] which impose certain rules on its members that they should abide by and should not unilaterally ignore. It has been suggested, too, that the conditionality of IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programmes also undermine state sovereignty since loans are dependent upon strict adherence to the conditions.
- Cultural sovereignty has also been threatened by the expansion of the internet as well as growth of international broadcasters such as Al-Jazeera, Russia Today, CNN and Sky further weakening national cultures and creating a more global mono-culture which has helped to undermine sovereign differences between states.
30
Other evidence that weakens globalisation
Pollution is accelerated by global economic expansion resulting from freer trade, leading to adverse effects such as global warming. Easier travel facilitates the spread of disease (SARS, AIDS, COVID-19), as well as the growth of organized crime (smuggling people & drugs) and terrorism. These developments make nonsense of national borders– eg the globalised communications and transport networks make it easier for terrorists to transfer funds, weapons and personnel between states and launch their attacks – for instance the 9/11 terrorists were drawn from cells in the US and Germany and were able to use planes as bombs. Recently the rise of ISIS, who have utilised the now globalised world very well, has made comprehensively clear that globalisation can be used to connect extreme organisations across the globe. (Bokko Haram swearing allegiance to ISIS being further evidence of this)
