Colleague's Argument: Some believe war is inevitable due to its inherent causes but question these beliefs critically.
Rational Basis: War can be rationalized based on the bargaining model which identifies three main reasons for war:
Commitment Problems: When parties doubt each other’s commitment to agreements.
Lack of assurance can lead to preemptive actions or escalations in conflict.
Incomplete Information: States may misjudge each other's capabilities or intentions, prompting unnecessary aggression.
E.g., believing another state is weaker or likely to attack first, leading to a preemptive strike.
Indivisible Goods: Certain issues cannot be divided without losing value, creating conflict over them.
Increase Costs: Making war prohibitively expensive can deter states.
Enhanced Transparency: Clearer information about state intentions and capabilities defuses misunderstandings.
Outside Enforcement Mechanisms: Using international bodies to guarantee compliance can stabilize agreements.
Divisibility Strategies: Finding ways to share divisible objects can reduce tensions.
Critique of ISI: Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) is deemed problematic due to risk of financial crisis.
Focus on Comparative Advantage: Emphasizing a nation’s strengths (e.g., coffee) while importing goods utilizing a non-protectionist approach may promote growth.
Price Volatility: Heavily reliant economies suffer from unpredictable market fluctuations.
Lack of Incentive for Modernization: Limited diversification hinders investment in human capital.
Geographical Limitations: Dependence creates less flexibility in trade options.
Declining Terms of Trade: As developed nations advance, reliance on raw material exports often yields diminishing returns.
Countries Highlighted: Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea as models for diversifying economies beyond primary goods.
Importance of Manufactured Goods: Transitioning to manufacturing can provide greater stability and reduce dependency on volatile commodity markets.
Collection Action Problem: Tackling climate change is difficult as states see benefits but may not feel compelled to contribute.
Public Goods Dilemma: A stable climate is a non-excludable benefit, which deters individual responsibility.
Comparative Case to CFCs: Cooperation on CFCs was easier due to fewer stakeholders and direct incentives.
Misconceptions: It's a misbelief that large-scale human rights violations no longer occur; they are still prevalent globally.
International Criminal Court (ICC): Critics point out that the ICC primarily pursues African states, undermining its credibility.
Power Dynamics: Strong nations often evade ICC scrutiny or accountability for abuses.
Widespread Awareness: Encouraging public knowledge of human rights helps garner support for enforcement efforts.
Economic Incentives: States should see economic benefits in adhering to human rights standards to attract trade and investment.