1/27
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced | Call with Kai |
|---|
No analytics yet
Send a link to your students to track their progress
2 different theories of likelihood of global governance
Social contract theory
Neo-liberal theory
Social contract theory
Locke
Limited state created in a state of nature to prevent injutice
Therefore this should be applied to global politics
Rules-based international system would safeguard states from the problems of the anarchic international system
Neo-liberal theory
Complex interdependence (lack of hierarchy, decline in military force) → international organisations important
IGOs/NGOs set agenda, provide a forum and build coalitions
States make absolute gains in a globally governed system and cooperation is in their interest
The ‘international community’
1999 Blair speech post-Kosovo NATO intervention
Defence of shared values and interests
Separation of national and international interest
Difficult
Should act in the international interest when there’s an external threat
Protection of HR by the international community
Should be done
HR applies to all humans everywhere
HR going unchecked → weakening of entire global system of HR
Necessity of states intervening in other state’s business
To respond to crises that require international community’s response
International law?
As long as clear and universally agreed = important basis for global politics
2 roles of international law
Hold states accountable
Ensure universal basic standards
UDHR sets out basic principles of HR to be respected by all states
Reasons for 2005 R2P
1994 - 🇷🇼 genocide ineffectively prevented by 🇺🇳 peacekeepers
2005 R2P quote
“States have a serious responsibility to protect populations if they are suffering/likely to suffer serious harm”
R2P justification
Core principles of liberalism — only after discussion will military action be justified
4 considerations before R2P is enacted
Purpose
Timing
Legality
Substance
Purpose of R2P
Protection of civilians
Timing of R2P
Only post-diplomacy/negotiation
Legality of R2P
Only if authorised by UNSC resolution
P5 veto powers mean this could be set up as it wouldn’t be without it
Substance of R2P
Must be proportionate
Must be likely to suceed
Must not make the situation worse
3 difficulties of R2P being enacted in 🇨🇳 (Uighur Muslims)
🇨🇳 will not admit to commiting a genocide and therefore won’t negotiate — criteria 2 cannot be fulfilled
Cannot be proven due to censorship, and even if it can be, 🇨🇳 has a UNSC veto — criteria 3 cannot be fulfilled
Role of non-state actors in GG
Make states aware of viewpoints/new policy choices
Add to richness of debate
Peacefully resolve or de-escalate inter-state disputes
5 important aspects of IGOs
Universal and comprehensive source of IL
Have more power than a state acting alone
Improve integration, e.g. via free trade
Forum for negotation
Represent a broad range of ideas
Impacts of IGOs: 🇺🇳 (3)
MDGs and SDGs
PK missions across the 🌍
Acts via military action and sanctions
Impacts of IGOs: IMF(2)
Resolves cross-state financial crises
Had a more important role and impact on the global economy post-2008
Impact of IGOs: WB (2)
Improving international development
Implementing MDGs and SDGs
Impact of IGOs: NATO (2)
Military operations in 🇦🇫
Counter-piracy in Indian 🌊
Impact of IGOs: AU (2)
Formation of African bloc to increase African influence on the world stage
Peacekeeping in Africa
Impact of IGOs: ASEAN (3)
Increasing SE. Asian influence
Countering 🇨🇳
Better trade and connection
2 realist criticisms
IGOs are only useful if they support a state’s national interest
IGOs have too much power; should not be able to compel states to do things (hence vetos)
🇺🇸 undermining 🇺🇳 (4 ways)
Denial of visas to delegates from countries they don’t like
Huge funding cuts to humanitarian agencies - US AID
Vetos any proposals re. SDGs, 🇮🇱
Efficacy of 🇺🇳 = dependent on how interested 🇺🇸 is in the international community