Studied by 25 people
Define: Development
Achieving a higher quality of life for all people through economic development, social development and environmental protection, which are all interdependent
Types:
Economic → GDP/GNI, FDI, trade, industrial sectors
Social → HDI, education, healthcare, equality, sanitation
Demographic → pop size/growth/age
Cultural → art, music, film, religion, language, food
Political → democracy, autocracy, freedom of speech
Concepts of HD: Development Continuum
→ Economic/Social focus
→ link to modernisation theory: explains how countries develop their wealth and reinforce the development continuum
LDC
→ first decided by UN to determine who needs aid urgently
behind in several aspects of dev = less resilient
poorest economies
civil conflict
1 bil people, 46 countries
33 Africa, 9 Asia, 3 Pacific, 1 Caribbean
similar trend to Brandt Line
e.g. Ethiopia, Myanmar, HAITI
LEDC
low levels of dec
mainly primary industry
e.g. Kenya
OPEC
60% proven oil reserves
wealth from oil not always translated into sustained economic growth
wealth/gender inequality sometimes issue
elites who own industries have the wealth
e.g. Saudi Arabia, UAE
RIC
rapid develop 1980s-90s
e.g. Russia, Brazil
NIC
rapid develop 1960s-70s
3bil people
high levels of growth (replacing MEDCs as engines of global economy)
e.g. Asian Tigers (China, India)
development follows flying geese
MEDC
wealthiest countries → dominated global economy past 50 years
some legacy superpowers (industrial revolution/imperial)
mainly tertiary/quaternary sector
e.g. USA, UK, Japan
Concepts of HD Contested: Brandt Line
‘rich north, poor south’
designed to create action from wealthier countries to reduce wealth inequality
BUT ended up as an excuse for exploitation in the ‘poor south’ (dependency theory) + lack of social reform
false dichotomy: too simplistic only focussing on wealth + out of date
Concepts of HD Contested: Western Ideas on Development
Wealth First
→ dominant views on development are Eurocentric (Western)
Focussing on equal rights, democracy, and capitalism seen as successful in promoting development since historically western countries have been and are leading in economic/political significance
BUT some govs don’t want to adopt Western governance and values → may go against traditions and culture (Western-Northern hegemony)
Escobar’s view → plus thinks development + dev aid should be empowerment and community participation (grassroots approach - would be slower but more sustainable)
Concepts of HD Contested: Rosling’s View
Health First
‘You move faster if you are healthy first than if you are wealthy first’
→ Social/Environmental Focus
→ improvements in environmental quality, health, life expectancy and human rights are more significant goals for development; economic growth only means of delivering them
Example: Some Asian Tigers
South Korea/China saw large drops in infant mortality before rapid economic growth (improved human capital)
Concepts of HD Contested: Sharia Law
→ Social focus
→ Model of non-secular governance
The law of Islam
Muslims believe God is showing them the way to happiness based on the fulfilment of:
o Necessities: preservation of religion, life, intellect, lineage, and wealth
o Comforts: things sought to ensure a good life and avoid hardship, though not essential
→ This recognises wider aspects through this, such as the importance of investing in human capital (e.g., education and intellect)
Severity of implementation contested
Saudi Arabia one of the strictest → controversy over gender inequality and having the death penalty
o BUT due to their oil wealth they’re still central in the world’s economy
Concepts of HD Contested: Bolivia under Evo Morales
→ Environmental Focus
→ Links with Gaia Theory: the Earth is a living being, if you try and interfere with it, it’ll counter to correct itself
Inherited Several Issues:
Economic: high inflation, selling of state assets and high levels of poverty
Social: exclusion of indigenous people from the political system (himself apart of indigenous Aymara group)
Morales values communal ownership and cooperation with his socialist and traditional Andean values
He made significant changes:
Renationalised Bolivia’s oil and gas industries with the revenue funding public works projects and social programmes to combat poverty = extreme poverty reduced by 43%
Lead creation of the 2009 Constitution focused on the Law of Mother Earth (Gaia Theory)
government’s duty is to protect Mother Nature by reduced resource consumption and removal of all weapons of mass destruction
‘nature-first’
BUT still one of South America’s poorest countries + still dependent on natural resources for economic growth
Concepts of HD Complex: Measures of HD
→ traditionally measured using growth of GDP but may not be best option…
Happy Planet Index
→ relationship between quality of life and levels of wealth complex
→ composite indicator
2019 Data:
Best: Costa Rica (62.1)
Worst: Qatar (152nd, 24.3)
USA: 122nd
→ scores so low due to its consumerist, capitalist model not being sustainable
China: 94th
HDI
→ composite indicator (e.g. life expectancy, infant/maternal mortality rate, years in school)
2021 Data:
Best: Switzerland
Worst: South Sudan (191st)
USA: 21st
→ good but likely not best due to healthcare not being free
China: 79th
Gini Coefficient
→ measures income equality
2023 Data:
Best: South Africa (63)
Worst: Slovakia (163rd, 23.2)
USA: 47th (42)
China: 68th (38)
Variation in HD (Between + Within Countries): Education and Economic Development
→ education is central to economic development by increasing value of human capital
→ view not universally shared = variation
Poverty
→ better education helps break the cycle of poverty as higher wage jobs can be accessed with greater skill
No Education (2020):
Africa = 22% (BUT improved from 59% in 1970)
North America = 0%
Post Secondary (2020):
Africa = 9%
North America = 24%
Gender Inequality
occurs in education where boys are valued over girls
54% world’s non-schooled population are girls
→ Sub-Saharan Africa
low income + education often paid = boys prioritised
primary completion: 72% boys vs 66% girls
→ Middle East
poverty + boys often valued over girls for religious/cultural reasons
primary completion: 93% boys vs 87% girls
→ Afghanistan
education system devastated by 3 decades of conflict and natural disasters = general low primary completion
but worse for girls due to traditional norms of women’s role in society (e.g. marrying young) + lack of female teachers esp. rural
only 16% schools girls-only and many have poor sanitation, further reducing attendance
17% girls marry before 15 years old
natural disasters: floods, earthquakes, landslides (= parental concern for safety if send to school)
Variation in HD → Health and Life Expectancy: UK (Developed)
→ life expectancy no longer increasing (unlike other developed economies (unlike other developed economies such as Hong Kong)
→ is becoming more equal, however
men: 79.4
women: 83.0
Wider Determinants
→ occupation, education, income, housing (links to deprivation)
Rising wealth inequality
wealthiest in Kensington/Chelsea live 16 years longer than lowest income
partly due to cost of living crisis
Lack of affordable housing + varying quality
black mould + issues with landlords not taking responsibility = Manchester rent strikes
Preventative Healthcare
→ immunisation, education on healthcare, technologies (e.g. pacemakers)
cuts to government spending on NHS and education (due to 2008 financial crisis and covid-19 + Tories)
Variation in HD → Health and Life Expectancy: India (Developing)
→ life expectancy increasing
2015: 68.3
1990: 58.0
Lifestyle Choices
non-communicable disease increasing
26.2% die from 4 main (e.g. heart attack, diabetes, cancer) between ages 30-70
changes in diet partly reason (globalisation = westernised consumption)
Preventative Healthcare
very unequal - WHO
scored 70 in 2005 on relative inequality for accessing reproductive, maternal, and new-born health interventions
successful immunisation
sanitation improvement (but not best)
2015: 94% drinking from improved sources
BUT globally ¼ improved water contaminated with faeces
Variation in HD/HR → Health and Life Expectancy: Australia (Developed)
→ life expectancy high for non-indigenous population (83 avg.) BUT inequality for ATSI people
Wider Determinants
→ differences in income/employment for ATSI communities compared to non-indigenous population
in remote areas (decreased access to healthcare services)
historic discrimination
no legal right to housing/education
children taken to live with white Australians = lack of trust in authorities (inc. healthcare professionals)
= life expectancy on avg. 17 years lower
Lifestyle Choices
44% over ATSI people over the age of 15 smoke (2.6x the amount of non-indigenous) as part of culture
more at risk of non-communicable disease such as cancer
IGOs Role in HD: MDGs
Successful Goals
Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development
→ All target met/excellent progress or good progress
Official development assistance from developed countries increased by 66% 2000-2014, reaching $135.2 billion
Proportion of external debt revenue in developing countries fell from 12% in 2000 to 3% in 2013
e.g. Malawi
Internet conver increased from 6% of all people in 2000 to 43% in 2015
.+ due to globalisation +.
Improved technology (e.g. mobile phones, faster internet, social media)
Increased international agreements (inc. trade)
Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality
→ target met/excellent progress, good progress, and only 1 fair progress
global under-5 mortality rate has declined by over 50%, despite population growth in developing regions
improved preventative healthcare
e.g. 2000-2013 measles vaccine helped prevent 15.6 million deaths + reported cases declined by 67%
Unsuccessful Goals
Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women
→ Moderate/Good success in education
Southern Asia
1990: 74 girls were enrolled in primary school for every 100 boys in 1990
2023: 103 girls are enrolled for every 100 boys
→ BUT least achievement in equal representation in national parliaments
1 in 5 members of parliament are women
Successful Regions
Southeast Asia
→ education improvements (goal 3)
→ China as a rapidly economically developing country and having increased economic/political ties to other SE Asian countries for trade also increase the whole areas development (can afford greater spending into HD e.g. hospitals)
Unsuccessful Regions
Oceania
Only part of Goal 6 (to reduce spread of HIV/AIDS → preventative healthcare) had the target met/excellent progress, mostly fair progress or poor progress/deterioration
Sub-Saharan Africa
Only 1 target met/excellent progress (halt or reverse HIV/AIDS, Goal 6)
Poverty makes other goals hard to tackle
IGOs Role in HD: SDGs Improved MDGs?
→ SDGS widened from solely socially focussed to include targets like economic development and environmental action (as also influence HD)
→ Partly due to change in who drafted them:
MDGs: financial and social experts basing them on the world’s poorest countries
SDGs: individual UN member states, stakeholders and civil society organizations
-> Differed Intentions
MDGs: lessen or halve the rates of poverty, mortality and other detrimental social occurrences
SDGs: build upon the previous goals to completely solve these issues
-> SDGs are updated to modern standards
e.g. equality for all (i.e. all minority groups) whereas MDGs only mention gender equality
IGOs Role in HD: Malawi
→World Bank, IMF, WTO traditionally promoted neo-liberal views of development based on adoption of free trade, privatisation, and deregulation of financial markets
Malawi:
→ BUT recent programmes aimed at improving environmental quality, health, education, and HR
HR in International Law/Agreements: UN
UDHR
→ signed 1948 by 48 nations (UN agreement)
AIM: make HR specified in 1945 United Nations Charter more clearly defined to increase common understanding of human rights for freedom, justice, and peace
→ response to the Holocaust (killed up to 17 million) to ensure such actions never repeat
Since it's adoption, the UDHR has been used:
to place political pressure on countries seen to be denying people basic human rights, and to press for change
as a justification for economic sanctions against countries
as a justification for military intervention in foreign countries seen to be committing genocide or widespread human rights abuses.
to give ground to campaigners
BUT:
not legally binding = hard to punish so hard to force change
BUT does provide framework for foreign policy to explain economic/military intervention
not everyone signed
USSR: felt didn’t condemn fascism/Nazism enough
South Africa: to protect their apartheid system which violates numerous articles - USA would condemn
Saudi Arabia: stated violated Sharia Law (Iran agreed UDHR secular understanding, Pakistan challenged them by signing)
West’s history of colonialism made them a problematic normal representative for the rest of the world
ICC and ICJ
→ system of prosecuting war criminals
ICC: between people
Radovan Karadzic, found guilty of genocide in Srebrenica = sentenced 40 years in prison
ICJ: between states
HR in International Law/Agreement: Cairo Declaration
→ 2000
→ resolution for UDHR (too secular/westernised)
→ members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation support Cairo Declaration instead (e.g. Saudi Arabia and Iran)
HR in International Law/Agreement: ECHR (Council of Europe/European Court)
→ 1950
→ Set up by Council of Europe
→ 47 members (inc. 28 EU members)
AIM: to protect basic HR through 14 articles + establish better relations between European countries post-WWII
= provides framework for countries to more easily implement HR into law
HOW: all member states include in their national law (e.g. UK 1998 [delayed] as part of Human Rights Act) so cases can first be heard in home country, before European Court
BUT:
Decreases self-determination
undermines national sovereignty by overturning national court hearings
if 1 country sets a standard, others may follow (e.g. UK government leaving the EU to self-determine HR in part → damaging e.g. Rwanda)
European Court slow to make decisions
HR in International Law/Agreement: Amnesty International (NGO)
→ NGO promoting intervention
→ founded 1961
→ HQ in London
mass membership funded by members + supporters
promotes direct action
protests/campaigning
letter writing
MDGs: Suriname + Malaria
→ already exceed 2015 target (goal 6)
malaria rates fell 70% 2001-2006
action: insecticide-treated bed nets + active case detection + public awareness campaigns
HR in International Law/Agreement: Superpowers
→ have own agendas and power to implement
USSR:
Refusal to sign UDHR
Veto in UN Security Council to limit western efforts to advance/protect HR through economic pressure and military intervention
e.g. protect own interests in Ukraine against western condemnation despite HR violations
USA:
Guantanamo Bay
est. 2002 for ‘enemy combatants’ from 9/11
Only US know details of what goes on + as hegemony cannot be challenged for HR abuses
Detained before trialled → only 7/779 convicted (but also don’t know how many of there)
Failure of UDHR: signatories aided US
UK: allowed aircraft to refuel in UK
China:
Publicly reject criticism of political repression of citizens
Offer diplomatic + economic support to HR violators (e.g. Sudan) for own economic interests
HR in International Law/Agreement: Developing Countries
→ developing status may make implementing a framework for protecting HR into law very difficult (lacking political/economic stability)
Brazil
→ use local police use torture, believe it effectively maintain law and order
→ if the national gov remove torture they’d need to:
create well-paid investigatory units to monitor police
fire police forces and increase salaries of replacements
overhaul entire judicary system
= people may argue its best to use limited resources in a way more likely to help people (e.g. building schools/hospitals)
MDGs: Afghanistan + Water and Sanitation
→ harder to achieve environmental sustainability goal due to continuous conflict (40yrs) and no prospect of resolution
hardest to provide clean water and safe disposal of waste
80% Afghans drink contaminated water
Kabul: one of fastest growing cities (pop 5mil) but only 35 public toilets
MDGs: Tanzania + Education
→ abolished school fees 2002
→ made schools compulsory for all 7-13yr olds
= national primary school enrolment 59% 2000 → 95.4% 2010
appear on track to achieve universal education target
BUT increase in participation not matched with increased in resources = teachers, books, classrooms in short supply = concern over quality of education
national tutor-pupil ratio increased from 1:41 2000 → 1:51 2010
+ BUT rural-urban inequality (true enrolment figure may be 75%)
+ BUT drop out rates high, especially for girls vulnerable to cultural expectations
MDGs/Superpower: Nepal + Free Childbirth
→ introduced 2009
→ helping achieve goals 4 + 5
→ possible with funding from UK Department for International Development for a 5-year Safe Motherhood Programme
→ before:
32% childbirths attended by a healthcare worker
new born died every 20mins
→ after:
225,000 women benefit
281 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births
HR: Differences between Countries (China vs India)
Governance
→ democratic republic
→ has independent judiciary (separate from gov = increased HR protection)
GDP per capita: $1,596
total spending on education: 1-3% of GDP
total spending on health: 4% GDP
HR Violations
ethnic inequality
→ minority groups: indigenous populations are often in remote area (e.g. Adivao’s)
= differences in quality of life such as poor education + access to services
→ gender inequality
Rate of Development
→ slower than Chinas
→ BUT rapid population growth and the establishment of democracy (largest democracy in world) are increasing level of development
HR: Differences between Countries (China vs India)
Governance
→ socialist republic / authoritarian
→ no independent judiciary system = corruption more likely (government influence outcomes)
GDP per capita: $7,593
total spending on education: 4.3%
total spending on health: 5.6%
HR Violations
religious freedom
→ Christianity barely tolerated, communist party members must be atheist
→ Buddhism + Islam supressed
100,000s native Uighur Muslims detained in ‘re-education’ camps → alleged sterilisation
freedom of speech
→ internet is censored (e.g. 3Ts)
political freedom
→ Chinese communist party, in practice, is the only political party
policies controlled by estate, little regard to population = enables further HR violations as gov rejects idea of HR entirely and cannot be challenged (by voting against)
freedom of press
→ not free: media monitored by comm party
46 crimes punishable by death
Rate of Development
→ faster than India
rapid economic development > HR protection
e.g. freedom of speech brings no economic benefit
exploitation of workers in SEZs
argue once economic development achieved, HR can then follow (like Kuznets of HR)
not a democracy = opposition to lack of HR protection for economic development difficult
HR: Differences Between Countries (Ethiopia)
→ democratic republic
GDP per capita: $565 (small)
More likely to prioritise economic development > social development and HR
Total Expenditure on Education: 5.5%
Ethiopia is one of the world’s poorest nations, but its government system = more likely to invest in education than other types of systems.
Total Expenditure on Health: 5.1% (GDP per capita) / $25
→ Protects HR less than other democratic republics who usually promote HR the strongest (such as the US) as they are less economically and culturally secure:
Countries more economically and culturally secure use organisations (such as the UN) to raise specific HR issues for wider debate, so therefore is more likely to lead to action (depending on a Security Council veto)
Developing countries (like Ethiopia) that become democratic are expected to promote human rights, but are often ‘flawed’ so prioritise economic development (to improve their economic security) and internal security, which may infringe the rights of some
flawed democracy: elections are fair and civil liberties are protected, but there are problems, e.g. the media may not be free
HR protection brings financial costs (e.g. providing education and healthcare), this money could be ‘better’ spent on economic infrastructure
also China’s argument (like Kuznets of HR, violate HR to economically develop to then improve HR)
government security forces, militias, and non-state armed groups responsible for systematic abuses
Due to many neighbouring countries being previously colonised, may wish to show their political independence by making their own decisions rather than having international human rights directives imposed on them
Struggles to eradicate HR violations within their own country (esp. with lower economic security)
civil war → federal system didn’t foresee potential sources of conflict in a nation of more than 90 ethnic groups
the system created competition for power and influence (affected the safety of citizens as well as the freedom of movement) → now, Ethiopia’s government structure is a federation of nine regions
September 2023: 2.9 million internally displaced people and over 141,000 Ethiopian refugees and asylum seekers in neighbouring countries
April 2023, Ethiopian authorities arrested 8 journalists who had reported on the deteriorating situation in the Amhara region
HR: Differences Between Countries (Cuba)
→ socialist republic
GDP per capita: $6789.8
Total Expenditure on Education: 13.6%
Total Expenditure on Health: 8.8% (GDP per capita) / $603
Cuba reflects socialist commitment to equal access to education
Education is free for all, including university
→ Struggles with freedom of speech
Repression of July 2021 protests
100s in detention + harsh sentencing (e.g. some given 30-year sentences for ‘throwing rocks at law enforcement officials’)
Hurricane Ian: protests following widespread power outages
authorities deployed military cadets to repress
authorities appeared to intentionally shut down internet access, an increasingly common tactic to limit communication in Cuba in moments of political sensitivity
HR: Differences Between Countries (Myanmar)
GDP per capita: $1,203.8
Total Expenditure on Education: 0.6%
Total Expenditure on Health: 1.8% (GDP per capita) / $14
→ corruption linked to HR violations
Totalitarian regimes my decrease financial investment in education, health, and welfare for fear of the population becoming too well informed
Corruption provokes public protest (which authorities supress) and benefits power elites, to the detriment of disadvantaged groups
HR in International Law: Geneva Conventions
1949
→ rules to protect armed forces, those no longer fighting (injured/surrendered) and civilians
→ outlines limits of war (war crimes)
e.g. certain weapons banned (cluster bombs, chemical weapons such as mustard gas)
→ all UN member and observer states (196) have ratified the Geneva Convention
Ukraine/Russia
allegations of war crimes:
UN Commission of Inequality on Ukraine say Russian authorities took 16,221 Ukrainian children into Russian foster families
March 2022: Russian air strike on theatre in Mariupol which was sheltering children
alleged torture from both sides
Limitations
inconsistent
e.g. USA + Guantanamo Bay HR violations (no consequences due to superpower status)
several countries still use torture or carry out genocide of minorities (e.g. Gaza)
still large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers
few cases actually go to trial
HR: Differences Between Countries (Corruption Index)
→ corruption linked to HR violations
corrupt regimes may decrease financial investment in education, health, and welfare for fear of the population becoming too well informed
corruption provokes public protest (which authorities supress) and benefits power elites, to the detriment of disadvantaged groups
Corruption Index
→ scores countries globally based on how corrupt their public sector is perceived to be
source:
13 different external sources
perception of experts / surveys of businesspeople
reliable: only countries with data from at least 3 of the 13 sources included
limitations:
Changed system in 2012 = cannot compare CPI scores from after 2012 to before 2012
Doesn’t measure everything (e.g. tax fraud)
Corruption hard to measure as its designed to stay hidden, so only comes to light with scandals, investigations or prosecutions = still no measure of ‘real’ levels of corruption
HR: Differences Between Countries (Corruption Index Examples)
Most Corrupt: Somalia -> 11/100 score, 180th rank
Least Corrupt: Denmark -> 90/100 score, 1st rank
Analysis
→ generally, greater economic development = lower corruption score (e.g. less corruption is seen in Western Europe and North Americas vs more corruption in many countries in the Sahel)
Anomalies:
Bhutan → 26th
higher than other South Asian countries ranking despite ranking 178th for total GDP by IMF 2022
Italy → 42nd
lower than most Western Europe despite being highly economically developed (ranking 8th for total GDP)
→ generally, authoritarian governments score lower than democracies
Myanmar → 162nd (totalitarian)
Finland → 2nd (full democracy)
Anomaly:
India → 93rd (largest democracy globally)
China → 76th (low but higher than idea despite functioning as authoritarian)
UK
rank: 20th
→ okay but lower than expected
lower than most of West Europe: Germany (ranked 9th) and Switzerland (ranked 6th)
low for democratic governance
low for high economic development (6th globally for total GDP, World Bank 2022)
→ explained by
superpower status associated with exploitation
ineffectiveness in governance
e.g. money going to friends of MPs discretely
disrupts economic security (may be partly reason for the current cost of living crisis)
HR Differences in Protection: Gender and Ethnicity
Afghanistan → Gender Inequality
Myanmar → Ethnic Inequality (the Rohingya people)
The Rohingya are Muslims people living in Rakhine State (NW Myanmar), a majority Buddhist country
Under the 1982 Myanmar Nationality Law the Rohingya were denied nationality = have no HR protection
Between 1978-2018 several military persecutions have forced 740,000+ Rohingya to flee as refugees to Bangladesh
The 2015-18 crisis was labelled a genocide and crime against humanity
HR Differences in Protection: Health and Education
USA
→ decreased HR protection for indigenous populations compared to general population
High School Diploma: 83% vs 87%
Households in Poverty: 27% vs 15%
Life expectancy: 73 vs 79
HR Differences: Demand for Equality
→ progress towards equality happening at different rates and is often slow
Australia (ATSI)
ATSI Australians only counted in the national census, and allowed to vote in 1967
Starting in 1976, some land rights have been granted, entitling them to some traditional lands
HOWEVER
ATSI Australians still feel under-represented in politics and business
still feel their rights (especially rights to land) have not been met
life expectancy nearly 10 years less than white Australians
Afghanistan (women lack equality)
→ progress in women's education made 1973-1992
BUT dramatically reversed with Taliban taking power 1996-2001 and again 2021
Taliban = fundamentalist religious and political group, following extremely strict version of Sharia Law which treats women with brutality
women can’t go out alone, appear on TV, be visible in a house from the street, be employed or get medical attention
2001-2021, limited progress made with a more moderate government, but was no better than in the 1970s + now decreasing again as they’ve resumed power
Geopolitical Intervention: Types
Intervention is action taken by one or more sovereign states, within the territory of another, in order to change their political and social conditions
Development Aid - money, technical help, or supplies given to developing countries to support long term econ/pol/soc/env development
Trade Embargo - government/international ban to restrict trade with a particular sovereign state, to pressurise its leaders into changing policies
Military Aid - money, weapons, expertise given to developing countries to strengthen their military (e.g. so they can better protect borders, fight terrorism, combat piracy, prevent trafficking etc)
Military Action
Direct: air strikes or troops from one sovereign state acting in another
Indirect - equipment, or advisers, are provided from one sovereign state to another/a military group within them
Geopolitical Intervention: IGOs (UN)
→ UN can prosecute war criminals
Example: Srebrenica Massacre
→ aimed to kill every ‘able-bodied male’ and drive out Bosnian Muslim population
Karadzic, former Bosnian-Serb leader, found guilty of the Srebrenica Massacre = convicted of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity
sentenced 40 years in prison
= end of systematic campaign of terror violating HR
HOWEVER
successful prosecution of countries, organisations, or individuals who commit war crimes is rare
→ ‘fog of war’ can obscure circumstances of offences + leaves little reliable evidence/witnesses to base prosecutions
→ international law normally stops one sovereign state intervening in the internal affairs of another
→ the UN Security Council can authorise intervention only if all five permanent members agree
→ so the UN can only prosecute if the state fails to do so first + state may not agree to extradite them [hand over (a person accused or convicted of a crime) to the jurisdiction of the foreign state] + enforcement of the trial convictions by the UN is the state’s responsibility
Example: Darfur War Crimes 2003-2008 (limits of ICC due to UN bureaucracy)
Omar-al-Bashir, dictator of Sudan at time, oversaw
300,000 killed
ICC issues a warrant for al-Bashir’s arrest in 2009
five accounts of crimes against humanity
two counts of war crimes
genocide charges added in 2010
BUT are unable to detain him
= until al-Bashir is arrested and transferred to The Hague (ICJ), the case will remain in the Pre-Trial stage (even if transferred, the long period since the genocide conviction makes difficult → requires strong set of witnesses, who will now be less available)
Military Intervention: IGOs (R2P)
Responsibility to Protect (R2P), 2005
→ each individual state responsible for protecting population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity
→ when state lacks capacity to prevent these things, the international community is responsible for assisting (through getting a UN resolution)
→ created after atrocities of Rwandan massacre
→ changing intervention calculation
MORE PROACTIVE = would lead to more interventions
leaders consider whether will be prosecuted under R2P = more likely to refrain violating HR
applies not only for HR violations but if a government looses control (e.g. gangs take over)
UN not only can intervene but should
Libya, 2011
FIRST USE OF R2P
HR Violations:
widespread attacks against civilians after demonstrations occurred 2011 (inspired by Arab Spring), 100s killed/injured
= UN Council initiated R2P, demanding end to violence
imposed series of international sanctions
referred case to ICC
March 2011: demanded ceasefire + authorised all member states to ‘take all necessary measures’
= NATO plane strikes on Gaddafi’s forces
HOWEVER
→ international intervention not widely supported (5 countries abstained vote):
insufficient evidence to justify interfering national sovereignty
may set president for international community having a say in how other sovereign states treat pop (e.g. Russia/China)
→ since this intervention Libya has suffered civil war without a stable government system (shifted source of violence > solved)
Geopolitical Intervention: NGOs (Amnesty International)
→ founded 1961
→ HQ in London
→ a mass-membership organisation funded by members and supporters, that promotes direct action such as protests, letter writing and campaigning
Geopolitical Intervention: NGOs (Human Rights Watch)
→ founded 1978
→ HQ in New York
→ largely funded by wealthy individuals, it puts pressure on governments to take action and intervene
Geopolitical Intervention: Debate
→ often widespread agreement between govs, IGOs, and NGOs that HR violations have occurred:
2015-18 persecution of the Muslim Rohingya nation by the Burmese government military forces
Bosnian genocide of Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica 1992-5
The genocide of the Tutsi in Rwanda by Hutu forces 1994
Forced inequality of women under the Taliban in Afghanistan 1996-2001 + 2021-today
HOWEVER
often disagreement whether HR violations justify intervention:
→ NGOs little power to intervene, unless they are invited by a sovereign state, or protected by the forces of another
→ UN no military forces, relies on members providing and funding them
→ physical factors make aid technically difficult: land-locked countries, dense jungle, lack of air-strips to land personnel and supplies
→ geopolitical considerations may prevent interventions
risk that intervention could lead to wider conflict (e.g. Libiya)
different sides of a conflict being allied to opposing powerful countries
e.g. the USA and Russia
→ any intervention breaches sovereignty of a state = needs to be very strong moral and ethical grounds for direct military intervention (e.g. widespread and serious HR violations)
= often western govs intervene indirectly (economically)
economic aid for social development with policy change required to receive (e.g. ODA)
making trade agreements with conditions of HR improvement
Development Aid: UK vs USA
→ $150 billion of aid each year from developed countries to developing countries aiming to improve welfare + HR
0 out of top 10 recipients are democracies or flawed democracies (EIU Democracy Index)
UK: mainly authoritarian
USA: mainly hybrid
large sums of money
USA: $16bil 2017 dev aid (+$10bil military aid)
BUT UK sometimes larger proportion of income
1970 UN resolution of wealthy members committing 0.7% GNI annually to dev aid (voluntary)
UK: 2015 made legal requirement to hit, 2021 0.7% GNI
USA: 2021 0.2% GNI
in sub-Saharan Africa, aid targeted to developing countries
to improve HD (e.g. education, healthcare)
for geopolitical influence, creating allies (countering influence of China/Russia)
USA main donation: Afghanistan, $1,000,000,000
UK main donation: Pakistan, £402 million
Development Aid: Types
Bilateral Aid
given from one country to another, either monetary, technical, or supplies
Multilateral Aid
given from an IGO (e.g. World Bank), often involves loans
→ UK funding: 36% multilateral, 64% bilateral
Aid from NGOs (Voluntary Aid)
by charities such as Oxfam and Christian Aid, funded by donations from ordinary people
Emergency Aid
short-term aid, to cope with a natural disaster, often from NGOs and governments
Development Aid: Motives
complex, may include:
→ genuine desire to improve human rights and human welfare (altruism)
→ political ties, such as providing aid to ex-colonies (guilt or responsibility for past exploitation)
→ to gain economic access for businesses (or prevent other countries from gaining influence)
→ to strengthen political alliances
Development Aid: Success (Ebola - Context)
→ outbreak in West AFrica first reported 2014, became deadliest occurence of Ebola
killed 5x more than all other outbreaks combined (11,000)
28,637 cases
→ poverty + fewer deaths than other epidemics = little incentive for drug companies to invest, so work of non-profits essential
→ aiding ability of healthcare, sanitation, and education systems important for tackling:
the dehydration the virus causes leads to deaths = rehydration therapy reduced mortality rate 90%→25%
spreads through bodily fluids = less contagious
poor sanitation systems increase spread
traditional burial practices spread
Development Aid: Success (Ebola - WHO)
→ UN, IGO
ability to declare global health emergencies
→ needed to access greater funding from UN + others (e.g. UK gov + Wellcome Trust)
→ 1st on hierarchy of response
supported training
of safe burial practices
of healthcare workers in hygiene practices (e.g. gov +NGOs, inc. MSF)
Development Aid: Success (Ebola - UK Gov)
→ national government, through DFID (old name)
DFID worked with WHO
leading role (esp. in Sierra Leone)
£427mil of direct support
supported regular cargo flights (partly funded by EU) to SL
supported 1400 treatment/isolation beds + 6 treatment centres
= isolate fast + limit spread
trained 4000+ healthcare workers
£10mil to increase burial teams (to 100), quickening response
radio messaging increased awareness and understanding
Development Aid: Success (Ebola - The Wellcome Trust)
→ NGO, charitable organisation
rapid response, funding research under R2HC
a £6.5mil initiative funded by Wellcome + DFID
research covers epidemiology, diagnosis, disease prevention
gave initial £40mil to launch DELTAS Africa
long term plan to develop African health researchers
would help manage/decrease other persistent health threats too (e.g. HIV and cancer)
Development Aid: Success (Ebola - MSF)
→ NGO, Doctors Without Borders
employed 4000 national and 325 international staff
ran 15 management centres (partly funded by EU)
admitted 10,310 patients
confirmed 3201 cases (1/3 of all WHO confirmed cases)
first 5 months handled 85% of hospitalised cases
continued support post-epidemic in Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone (Ebola survivor clinics)
Development Aid: Success (Ebola - EU)
→ IGO
provided $2.25bil in aid
short term medical supplies + health workers
medical research projects (e.g. vaccines)
Development Aid: Success (Ebola - Summary)
→ money funded research projects and training of new healthcare workers/researchers to prevent future outbreaks (Wellcome Trust)
→ vaccines being trialled, though slow (EU/Wellcome Trust)
→ effective response
treatment centres = reduce deaths
effective isolation/containment → mostly only 3 countries (WHO’s coordination)
Development Aid: Failure (Ebola)
→ WHO argued to have declared international emergency too late = possible unnecessary death (still 11,000 deaths)
→ Epidemic negatively impacted economic growth, most aid short-term/specific to treating Ebola
BUT EU, 60% aid for development
treating underlying problem (sanitation, infrastructure)
→ healthcare workers still spread thin (1-2 workers per facility) and not enough PEE (e.g. masks) in peripheral health facilities
BUT without international intervention Ebola could have spread in an uncontrolled way with even worse consequences
Development Aid: Reasons for Failure
argument that dev aid increases corruption:
→ it reduces innovation, free enterprise and entrepreneurship because it provides a basic level of economic support
→ it creates dependency, so countries begin to rely on aid 'handouts' rather than fostering economic development
Development Aid: Why Haiti Needed it
→ struggled to develop + experienced political violence from birth
slaves rebelled and won independence from France in 1804 = isolated by other slave-owning countries
→ heavy debt
feared invasion = pay back 90 million gold francs over the following 122 years to France
1964-1986 ruled by the corrupt and oppressive Duvalier family (with western, anti-communist support -> had to pay back US economic aid they provided)
→ long term debt
didn't qualify for HIPC (IMF - failures of IGOs) initiative despite poorest country in Americas
democratically elected President Aristide suggested French pay $21bil in reparations, soon after overthrown by a military coup supported by the US
→ devastating 2010 EQ =debt raised to $1.3bil as new loans given as aid (grants better)
→ weak government systems
US intervention in elections
ranks 164/180 on the corruption index
Development Aid: Haiti’s Reasons for Failure (corruption)
Haiti
→ 164/180 on corruption index (2nd most corrupt in western hemisphere)
→ corruption meant dev aid grew debt as its misspent
→ meant less aid went directly to local officials who understand where needs lie better than international organisations
only $582mil (9.1%) of $6.43bil of multilateral and bilateral aid (2010-2012) directly to Haitian government
especially important as people in dire situation: rife poverty (70% on less than $2 a day) and 2 million homeless
→ corruption of aiding superpowers (prevented some foreign debt but not foreign domination)
2010: USA interferes with elections - effectively banning one party, preventing Aristide’s return and influencing the vote counting process
prevented possibility of receiving reparations from France
Development Aid: Haiti’s Reasons for Failure (Dependency)
→ loans > grants = more debt
even though HIPC cancelled debt, new reconstruction funds offered as loans
2017: 20% GDP still spent on foreign debts
→ neo-colonialism (superpowers at fault)
relying on external aid (no longer able to independently develop)
[Libya → 25% GDP dev aid]
aid money spent of contracts with American rather than local companies
→ better system for providing development aid needed to decrease dependency
e.g. going straight to Haitian NGOs so they can control where investment is given (know the needs of people better)
however, corruption = don’t trust to misspend money
= transparent and accountable system is needed (e.g. giving regular updates on what is being done – if not enough being done, money can be retracted - seen with Ethiopian dam dev aid)
Development Aid: Haiti’s Reasons for Failure (NGOs → HIPC)
→ HIPC not good enough for any country, let alone Haiti
must accept harmful economic policy of IMF (e.g. privatisation)
many debts not included -> Haiti still ‘owed’ $900mil in 2009
developed countries didn’t accept their role in creating Haiti’s unjust debt, instead saw as charity
Development Aid: Haiti’s Reasons for Failure (Human Rights)
didn’t solve human rights abuses:
→ 2015 Human Rights Watch reported high numbers of arbitrary arrests and pre-trial detentions by Haitian police
BUT: helped right to basic necessities after 2010 disaster
e.g. temporary homes for 2 million made homeless
Development Aid: Haiti’s Reasons for Success (Health and Education)
→ HIPC aid better than no aid
→ DEC Appeal after the 2010 disaster
1.8mil+ assisted with £107mil of DEC funds
2010-2012:
improved water supplies of 340,000 people
supplied drugs to 5 cholera treating facilities serving 18,000 people
gave info to 116,000 people about preparing for future disasters
helped to reduce gender inequality: literacy classes for 60,000 vulnerable women
Development Aid: Success (Health)
Global Vaccination Programmes
→ led by WHO (UN) since the 1960s, immunisation reduced disease in developing countries.
smallpox was eradicated in 1977
measles deaths fell by 85% in Africa from 2000 to 2014
worldwide polio cases have fallen by 99% since 1988
= can better access education + employment = improved social capital + HD (positive multiplier effect)
Positive Economic Development: China
can improve human rights and welfare
→ if businesses grow, they provide jobs and incomes and people's lives improve (positive multiplier)
China: poverty reduced from 88% in 1981 to 5% in 2018
largely driven by job creation in cities, fuelled by FDI in Chinese industry
BUT poor working conditions in SEZs → low wages + dangerous
Negative Economic Development: Niger Delta
→ negatives often seen in developing countries where exploitation of primary industries leads to social and environmental degradation (lack of environmental laws and monitoring + corruption)
Niger Delta = Shell (oil)
→ oil exports = 25% of Nigeria's GDP
→ conflict with the indigenous Ogoni people over land rights
→ oil spills
approx. 9 million oil barrels since 1950s
caused widespread damage to forests, swamps and human health
e.g. oil leaking out of cassavas → used to make traditional meal grassi + its farming employs many women
Negative Economic Development: Kenya, Land Grabs
→ ability of local people to feed themselves through farming is reduced
Military Interventions
→ often justified on human rights grounds but some interventions are more about wider global strategic interests
NATO Intervention in Bosnia, 1992-5
→ Srebrenica Massacre 1995
attack on Bosnian Muslims by Bosnian Serbs
8,000 deaths
= the NATO Operation Deliberate Force → an offensive air and bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serbs
strong human rights justification, which eventually led to war crimes arrests (e.g. Karadzic, former Bosnian-Serb leader sentenced 40 years in prison)
2003 Invasion of Iraq
→ US and UK led invasion = downfall of Saddam Hussein
→ justified on the basis of removing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (weapons that kill large numbers of people indiscriminately), especially chemical weapons, and Iraq's support for terrorism
→ BUT weapons of mass destruction were never found by USA and UK forces, and its aftermath may have inflicted greater HR abuses than before the invasion.
Military Aid: USA
→ 2017, the USA exported $42 billion worth of arms to other countries
often to countries with questionable HR records
e.g. UAE (homosexuality is a crime, women need the permission of a male guardian to marry)
→ provides military aid to over 100 countries each year
partly used to fight terrorism, and partly to rebuild military and police forces after many years of conflict
partly for wider geopolitical interests
e.g. arming Iraq (2016: $5280 million), Afghanistan ($5100 million)to create strong allies against Iran
Direct Military Intervention: ‘War on Terror’
→ phrase 'war on terror' first used in 2001 by US President George Bush, shortly after the 9/11 attacks
→ used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq (promoting HR of minority communities)
→ BUT idea compromised by use of torture by western, combatant states who signed the UDHR
USA Guantanamo Bay
→ ALSO compromised by Muslim countries often lack of support for UDHR
1990, 48 Muslim countries signed the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (UDHR fails to account for Sharia Law)
Geopolitical Interventions: Democracy as Success
→ Western governments, especially the USA, see the promotion of democracy and freedom of expression as a key outcome of intervention
→ 40% of the world's population live in countries that are 'free.' (Much of Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand)
Geopolitical Interventions: Economic Growth as Success
→ less attention to holistic development (human well-being, HR, and development of democracy + economic growth)
developing countries: without government-funded welfare systems = pay for own education, healthcare and clean water: rising incomes make this possible more than the right to vote
→ BUT risks authoritarian rule and corruption and possibly even persecution of minority groups
→ YET Ecuador (1979) transitioned to democracy as they have developed economically
Development Aid: Equality (Success/Failure)
Haiti
HDI - Improved
small and slow
1990: 0.409, 54.6 years
2017: 0.498, 63.1 years (+16%)
= increase life expectancy since 1990
Gini Coefficient - Unimproved
income inequality
richest 20% - 47.1% of income
poorest 20% - 5.5% of income
= development progress may be benefiting the wealthy more than the poor
Military Intervention: Failures
Note 
Flashcard (266)