ir exam unit 3

characteristics of multinational corporations (MNCs)

companies based in one state with subsidiaries/branches in other states; often tension between mncs and their host governments due to their different goals

• mncs have the most leverage early in the agreement between them and a host government, while their practises are still new to the state; as time goes on, the host government learns the technology and the mnc loses influence

types of mncs

natural resource-oriented, market-oriented, efficiency-oriented

natural resource-oriented mncs

investments to acquire raw materials→oil and mining are most prominent

nationalisation

when a state’s government takes control over the mnc in their borders→happens a lot with natural resources, especially during times of war

what tools do host countries have to encourage mncs to benefit them

• performance requirements: certain # of exports

• local content requirement: sourcing from other sectors within the local economy

• research partnerships: partnering with local universities

• locational benefits: the natural resources of a country; can be nationalised

benefits of mncs

create jobs, links a developing country to the global economy, brings management expertise, brings goods and technologies to countries that were scarce before, transfer savings from high income to low income countries

drawbacks of mncs

take advantage of laxer labour and environmental regulations, drive out local firms and businesses, have strict control of technology (makes the benefit of technology transfer unlikely), enclave issue (the state may be isolated from the global economy)

market oriented mncs

investments for selling to consumers in that market→looks for large markets and intangible assets (like production knowledge)—they often move to avoid protectionist barriers like tariffs

efficiency-oriented mncs

investments made to reduce production costs→cheaper labour, less environmental regulation, lower taxes, etc

balance of payments

accounting device that measures money coming in and going out of a country; two main components: current account and capital account

what happens in a balance of payments crisis

if a country is unbalanced (ie huge trade deficit with not enough capital account surplus) then the International Monetary Fund (IMF) can loan money to them, but with strict rules regarding changes of practises and how they will be paid back

what does ‘race to the bottom’ mean in terms of foreign investment

idea that increased globalisation leads MNCs to try to find the cheapest production practises, lowering their standards for labour and environmental protections to decrease costs

modernisation theory v dependency theory of development

• modernisation theory: rooted in neoclassical economics; optimistic about prospects for development, claiming that obstacles to development are internal to the country and if they just change their institutions they can develop→once modernised, countries will democratise

  • dependency theory: really popular among scholars in the developing world; pessimistic about development because they consider the obstacles to development to be external—there’s only so much a state can change internally; poorer countries lose out by exporting raw materials, but they get trapped into exporting these, while developed countries export manufactured goods and make more money; unbalanced power between rich and poor countries is exacerbated by biases in IMF, world bank, and WTO

*modernisation theory encourages engagement with the world economy, while dependency theory says to avoid it, at least temporarily while still developing own internal country

foreign aid

potential means of assisting with development in developing countries; money/aid given to developing nations to help them meet basic humanitarian needs; can be bilateral (government to government) or multilateral (institution to government)

why did foreign aid drop off after the cold war

foreign aid is political!! the us stopped giving as much foreign aid after the cold war because during that time they wanted to reduce the spread of communism and other soviet ideals, so they used the marshall plan to give aid to other european countries rejecting communism; afterwards, it fell off and the us became less involved in others’ affairds

moyo’s arguments against foreign aid

• points out foreign aid’s unsuccessful history

• acknowledges that sometimes it’s helpful, like with giving scholarships to girls, however they will just go back to their home country afterwards where they can’t work anyways

• corruption means that foreign aid money isn’t always spent right

  • many governments use foreign aid money to pay off debt rather than advance their healthcare or education

  • governments aren’t held accountable for what they spend money on, because they’re not relying on taxes from citizens as much

• it can destroy or discourage local production and industry by crowding out—dutch disease: when money is coming in, it decreases the local currency

• aid can lead to conflict—fighting for who has control over the money

• aid can be given to try to get influence over the aided countries

• foreign aid can make foreign investors less likely to invest in the aided country

• for the marshall plan specifically, she says it was finite and short-term, so it doesn’t compare to modern foreign-aid

How is international law different from domestic law (within states) and similar to

domestic law?

• international law is less concrete than domestic law because the states are the ones in charge of policing it; there is no supreme police force

• international law is derived from:

  • customs→established state practises, like human rights, diplomatic immunity, etc…

  • treaties→ the most important source of international law; principle that once signed, a state must observe and follow the treaty; binding on governments and their successors, ie russia inherited from soviet union

  • general principles→punishments/rewards for actions in the international system tend to be relatively similar worldwide

  • legal scholarship→includes the written arguments of judges/lawyers around the world on related issues; often referred to when no other source of international law is helpful

• domestic law differs by state while international law is consistent from long-established norms

skeptic v idealist perspectives on international law

skeptic:

• cannot be called law if it cannot be enforced

• IR system has no police

• lots of lawbreaking internationally

• law can be bent for self-interest

• powerful states can ignore laws

• where law should matter most, the use of force is useless

idealist:

• law provides predictability

• IR society is emerging

• laws are always violated

• states have self-interest but in legal order

• compliance is the norm because of predictability and the fear of punishment/reprisal from other states (IGO sanctions, punishments from domestic courts—many US MNCs are being sued in US courts), also because they want other states to follow laws so they do as well; democratic regimes are more likely to comply

three competing perspectives on international law—leslie johns

critical perspective: doubts whether international law has independent impacts on politics—critics claim that any impact on law is caused by selection effects→because states negotiate agreements, they can write rules how they want, with minimal constraints, also if a state joins an agreement, it indicates support for the idea and would have already followed the principles whether or not there was a treaty; even if rules arent written, IR norms may be caused by coinciding interests

contractual perspective: views IR law as a result of mutually beneficial cooperation between states—international law solves collaboratino, commitment, and screening problems

sociological perspective: views states’ views as malleable because IR law exposes states to new ideas—IR law succeeds because public opinions change

main bodies of the UN

• general assembly: all the states are members, each get one vote on matters, resolutions pass with 2/3 votes but isn’t legally binding

• security council: made up of the 5 permanent members (US, UK, France, China, Russia→because they won WWII and established the UN to prevent another WW); these five get veto power but no other states do, this veto power can lead to inaction; this council’s actions are legally binding and they can authorise troops

• secretariat/secretary general: head of the UN; nominated by the general assembly, serves 5-year term; bureaucracy for administering UN policy and programs

*the un is not very good at preventing war, but is good at peacekeeping, and yet peacekeeping is not mentioned in the 1945 UN charter—un troops are borrowed from members, but usually not from big military countries, because they’re more controversial—-roles include enforcing ceasefires, breaking up warring factions, etc…; peacekeeping is expensive, and requires more funding beyond the member dues

Why is human rights law expanding

more institutions supporting: International criminal court (ICC), responsibility to protect (R2P), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and various treaties and conventions

• ICC: first permanent court established for violations of international law; can prosecute anywhere in the world, as long as crime occurred in a signatory country or if the accused is a signatory

• R2P: UN global political movement

• Genocide Convention: adopted in 1948—defines genocide and commends members to act against it

human rights laws

• no genocide: 1948 genocide convention

• violence against women: 1976 international tribunal on crimes against women; 1993 vienna conference on human rights

• slavery: anti-slavery international NGO founded in 1839; still roughly 10 million people in forced labour situations—bonded labour, ie workers’ children working to pay off debt

how human rights laws are enforced or encouraged

treaties and conventions:

• vienna conference on human rights

• internatinal tribunal on crimes against women

• genocide convention

• Universal Declaration on Human Rights

IGOS:

• UN

NGOS:

• Anti-Slavery International

why has the US not joined the ICC

• state sovereignty concerns

• concerns of american citizens being investigated

how to help poor countries—birdsall et al.

1. end internal agricultural subsidies→middle income countries like turkiye, brasil, india would be able to export goods to these countries—the poorest countries still wouldn’t be able to export though because they don’t have the means to export

2. specific foreign aid→it’s hard for current foreign aid to help economies long-term; if it has narrow, specific goals then it is more successful

3. climate change policy→rich countries can do technology transferred emissions trading; NGOs can institute an emission ‘fee’ of sorts, where countries buy the right to pollute, making it less popular to pollute

4. migration policies→rich countries can reduce barriers to allow more migrant workers; can withold their earnings so they have savings for when they’re back home

current state of human rights—emilie hafner-burton

many governments infringe on the human rights of their people, and often these injustices are built into the laws in states→ ie less rights for women, no gay marraige, etc

• state sovereignty: efforts to promote human rights will never trump state sovereignty—unless those in power have an interest in human rights (if it benefits them), then human rights will remain overlooked

• decline of the west: mainly, western democracies upheld and defended human rights, and recently, the US has become less of a promoter of human rights

• rise of autocrats: repressive powers are successfully gaining influence; China’s rise has undercut many human rights in favour of economic development, and the west’s support through trade furthers this

going forward:

• needs more treaties, regulations etc…

• have to embrace the fact that power and sovereignty aren’t going away, so we need to figure out how to encourage human rights in the face of this—coercian v persuasion

• human rights should be ‘localised’ or supported by local actors and advocates