Session 16: Ethics in International Relations: Comprehensive Study Notes

Pillars, Principles, and Context of Ethics in International Relations

• Foundations of ethical IR discussed in the session: humanitarian aid, environmental cooperation, human rights, global development. These pillars form the foundation for how nations build international relations.
• Key ideas highlighted as ethical underpinnings: ideas of justice, freedom, mutual respect, mutual benefit, peaceful coexistence, and the framework of global goodness.
• Pillars of ethical IR and global governance mentioned: humanitarian aid, environmental cooperation, production/realization of human rights, global development. These pillars underpin how nations interact.
• Core challenges to ethical IR identified:
  • National interest and “my country, my agenda” driving competition and conflict.
  • Sovereignty concerns and cultural differences that can lead to persecution or discrimination.
  • Ambiguity in legal frameworks and legal vacuums that misused by some states.
• Major ethical issue in IR named: war and conflict (the elephants in the room).
• Ethical stance presented: war should be the last resort; prioritize peaceful resolutions and exhaustive exploration of non-military options before escalation.
• Illustrative examples used to anchor discussion:
  • Russia–Ukraine conflict as a case where territorial and strategic interests are prioritized over human lives.
  • Israel–Palestine conflict as a decades-long example of overlapping claims, historical grievances, and political maneuvering that sustains violence.
• Core claim: both sides in a conflict frame their actions as justified; civilians suffer the consequences. The speaker emphasizes the need to examine actions from the perspective of humanitarian impact rather than assigning blame.
• Metaphors and analogies used:
  • A drug peddler analogy to illustrate how war and conflict can be framed around money and profiteering.
  • A house party metaphor for Rohingya refugees and the ethics of deportation vs. protection.
  • A board game analogy for conflict resolution (compromise and diplomacy instead of destruction).
• Ethical principle stated: war should be avoided; non-violent, diplomatic resolutions prioritized; when war occurs, it must be justified by just war criteria.
• Just War Theory (three core conditions):
  • Just Cause: defending against aggression or upholding a genuine defense of rights.
  • Legitimate Authority: war must be declared by a recognized sovereign entity.
  • Proportionality: harm caused by war must be proportional to the harm prevented; a cost–benefit analysis-like approach.
  • The speaker notes that these criteria were invoked in the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, with the claimed just cause (WMDs and democracy) later questioned as unjustified by many observers.
• Practical takeaway on just war criteria:
  • War is justified only when it is the last resort, all other options have been exhausted, and it meets the three criteria above.
  • The presence of powerful economic interests and sovereignty concerns can lead to ignoring these ethical checks.
• Human cost of war emphasized: lives lost, trauma, displacement, economic devastation; the ethical weight of each decision in war can be life-altering for ordinary people.
• Positive alternative approaches highlighted:
  • Peacebuilding programs, economic aid, and diplomatic exchanges.
  • Example: Good Friday Agreement (1998) as a successful diplomatic settlement resolving long-standing violence in Northern Ireland.
• Conceptual emphasis on cosmopolitan ethics: human rights are universal, and protecting human rights is a responsibility that transcends national borders.
• Human rights violations examined with concrete cases:
  • Rohingya genocide in Myanmar: systematic persecution, loss of citizenship, refugee crisis; UN described as textbook ethnic cleansing.
  • Uighur Muslims in China: mass imprisonment and reeducation camps; asserted goals vs. external characterizations as cultural erasure.
  • South Asian refugees and debates about refugee protection and deportation.
• Conceptual distinction: refugees vs. migrants:
  • Refugees: forced to flee due to persecution or conflict; no choice.
  • Migrants: voluntary movement in search of better opportunities.
• International community’s role in protecting human rights:
  • The ideal of cosmopolitan ethics: every human being has rights regardless of nationality.
  • UDHR (adopted 1948) as a response to WWII atrocities and a common standard for all nations.
  • Ongoing gaps between commitments and actions by many UN member states due to economic interests and political calculations.
• Human rights violations should trigger swift and coordinated international action (diplomatic pressure, sanctions, peacekeeping) rather than inaction or weak responses.
• Economic inequality as a central ethical issue:
  • Data highlights growing disparities: top 10% hold approximately 76% of wealth; bottom 50% hold about 2%.
  • Top 1% hold around 23% wealth (based on the data referenced in the talk).
  • Global wealth disparity described with vivid metaphors (cake distribution, “grand canyon” between rich and poor).
  • Inequality framed as a threat to social stability, economic growth, and global peace; utilitarian argument ties distribution to overall societal welfare.
• Economic inequality and redistribution mechanisms:
  • Proposals include cooperative global action, progressive taxation (Nordic-like models), universal health care, free education, and social safety nets.
  • Critics point to debt traps and exploitation via structural debt, donor conditions, and the risk of dependency on aid.
  • China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is discussed as an example of debt-trap diplomacy rather than altruistic aid.
  • John Rawls’ theory of justice (justice as fairness) suggested as a normative standard: inequality is acceptable only if it benefits the least advantaged (difference principle).
• The need for a global governance framework to address inequality and ensure accountability:
  • Critique of existing global governance as insufficient; calls for reform in international financial institutions (IFIs) and the architecture of the UN Security Council (veto power concerns).
  • The idea of a global minimum tax, tighter corporate taxation, and debt relief as potential tools.
• Cultural conflicts and intercultural dialogue:
  • Cultural conflicts arise from divergent worldviews, beliefs, and values; ethnocentrism as a frequent hazard.
  • Ethical relativism vs universal ethics: balancing respect for cultural norms with universal human rights.
  • Universal ethics aims to create harmony while respecting diversity; ethical relativism respects cultural variation but can risk tolerance of oppression if taken to extremes.
• Practical pathways to reduce cultural conflict:
  • Dialogue, education, UNESCO cultural exchange programs, and inclusive global policies.
  • Media representation that respects diversity and avoids manipulation or biased narratives.
  • Truth and reconciliation processes (e.g., Rwanda, South Africa) as mechanisms to acknowledge past wrongs and work toward healing.
  • Promoting intercultural dialogue and inclusive global practices; leveraging media for respectful cultural representation.
  • Recognizing and accommodating multiple voices through representation and policy; avoiding forced uniformity while pursuing unity.
• France’s secularism vs. cultural expression debate:
  • Burkini ban controversy cited as a clash between secular values and religious expression; often criticized as overly strict.
• South Africa’s post-apartheid policy emphasis on cultural recognition: 11 official languages and strong emphasis on inclusion.
• Practical strategies for intercultural understanding:
  • Representation and inclusion in policy; education about diverse cultures; exchange programs; cultural showcases (e.g., global bakery, culinary exchanges) as informal diplomacy.
  • Media can bridge gaps when used responsibly; caution against stealth agenda pushing.
• Truth and reconciliation in practice:
  • Rwanda’s post-genocide context contrasted with South Africa’s TRC model; TRCs as pathways to healing through acknowledgment of past wrongs.
• Ethical frameworks for handling cultural differences:
  • Ethical relativism vs universalism; unity without erasing diversity; utilitarian view that fewer conflicts yield greater happiness.
• Violations of international law and enforcement challenges:
  • South China Sea disputes and the limitations of PCA arbitration when major powers ignore rulings.
  • Geneva Conventions and the difficulty of enforcement without a global police force; international law often viewed as toothless without strong enforcement mechanisms.
  • Syrian chemical attacks (Ghouta 2013) condemned internationally but with limited accountability due to geopolitical dynamics (Russia’s veto power in UN Security Council).
  • Russia’s 2014 Crimea annexation seen as violating territorial integrity with limited consequences beyond sanctions.
• The political nature of international law enforcement:
  • Enforcement depends on international cooperation; power politics and vetoes undermine universal accountability.
  • ICC jurisdiction is limited by the fact that major powers (US, Russia, China) are not parties to the Rome Statute.
  • In contrast, some smaller states are more compliant with ICC norms, highlighting unequal enforcement power.
• Proposed reforms to strengthen international law and governance:
  • Strengthen international institutions (ICC, UN) with real enforcement authority, reducing reliance on voluntary compliance.
  • Consider reforming the UNSC to better reflect current geopolitical realities (permanent seats, reduced veto power, or a shift to a more advisory body).
  • Promote universal sanctions targeted at individuals responsible for violations, rather than broad state-level penalties that affect many innocents.
  • Emphasize collective action and shared accountability to deter violations and maintain global stability.
• The role of NGOs, CSR, and academic research in ethics in IR:
  • NGOs (e.g., Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch) serve as watchdogs and advocates for human rights and humanitarian aid accountability.
  • Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and responsible corporate governance contribute to ethical business practices and sustainable development—but risk greenwashing if not genuine.
  • Academic research and education (e.g., global ethics programs at prestigious institutions) train future leaders to weigh ethical considerations in foreign interventions and diplomacy.
• Steps to promote ethics in IR (practical, actionable recommendations):
  • Strengthen international law from threats to enforceable accountability with real consequences for violations.
  • Reform the Security Council to reflect contemporary geopolitics and reduce the veto power bottleneck.
  • Promote intercultural dialogue and education to reduce ethnocentrism and enhance mutual understanding.
  • Address global inequalities through coordinated policies, debt relief, fair taxation, and development strategies aligned with SDGs.
  • Enhance funding ethics in international aid: ensure accountable agreements, independent monitoring (e.g., UN OIOS), local community consultation, SDG alignment, and empowerment-focused programs that foster self-reliance rather than dependency.
  • Ensure that aid funding does not enable rights violations and that resources are used to empower local institutions and communities (e.g., Grameen Bank microcredit as a model of empowerment—though with critiques).
  • Develop governance frameworks for emerging ethical challenges: AI, cyber warfare, climate action; bind commitments on carbon emissions and responsible technology governance.
• International funding and aid: ethical considerations and best practices
  • Issues in international funding include dependency, conditionality, lack of transparency, failure to address root causes, and local factor neglect.
  • Dependency: aid can undermine sovereignty and self-determination when donor demands influence policy choices.
  • Conditionality: aid often comes with strings (e.g., IMF structural adjustment programs) that may hurt local economies by demanding cuts in public spending or opening markets in ways misaligned with local contexts.
  • Lack of transparency: aid money can be siphoned or misused without adequate monitoring.
  • Failure to address root causes: Band-Aid solutions (Millennium Villages Project) can fade when funding ends; long-term development is prioritized over quick fixes.
  • Local context and cultural factors matter: one-size-fits-all approaches fail; local consultation leads to better outcomes (Kenya water conservation success vs HIV programs with resistance when cultural contexts aren’t considered).
  • Solutions and best practices for aid effectiveness:
  • No surprises: establish accountable agreements between donors and recipients with clear expectations and non-negotiable human rights protections.
  • Independent monitoring: use oversight bodies (e.g., UN OIOS) to audit and ensure funds reach intended projects.
  • Local community consultation: involve civil society, local leaders, and beneficiaries to tailor interventions to local needs.
  • SDG alignment: shift from short-term relief to long-term development; provide resources that enable local capacity building (e.g., training, technology transfer, infrastructure).
  • Prioritizing local empowerment: empower communities with skills, resources, and institutions to sustain development; avoid creating dependency.
  • Avoid funding rights violators: ensure funding does not enable human rights violations; accountability is essential.
• Emerging ethical challenges and the need for a forward-looking framework
  • AI bias and decision-making: AI tools can reproduce biased Western-centric views; need inclusive, transparent AI governance.
  • Cyber warfare: warfare is increasingly conducted in cyberspace; lacking Geneva-like conventions for cyber operations.
  • Climate change and accountability: binding commitments on carbon emissions; universal standards for environmental responsibility.
  • The Paris Agreement and beyond: need universal follow-through and robust enforcement mechanisms.
  • A proposed international framework should address ethics of technology use from AI to cyber threats and include binding commitments to carbon reductions and environmental stewardship.
• The ethical stance for powerful nations today: profit vs peace, global responsibility, and moral leadership
  • A common thread: arms industries and major powers often act in their perceived national interest, which can perpetuate conflict; ethical considerations demand a transition from profit-oriented weapon exports to promoting peace and stability.
  • Important components of ethical leadership include accountability, governance, human rights protection, and global responsibility beyond narrow national interests.
  • Exam-oriented takeaway: articulate the gap between talking about peace and acting on it; identify ethical concerns (profit vs humanity, global responsibility, moral leadership, accountability, human rights, ethical governance) and propose concrete actions (arms treaties, sanctions, reform of international institutions, intercultural dialogue, and stronger enforcement).
• Case study discussion prompt: data and drug ethics in a biotechnology company
  • Scenario: Senior scientist (Dr. Srinivasan) faces pressure to expedite trials for a new drug due to market potential; shortcuts proposed include data manipulation, selective reporting, excluding negative results, bypassing informed consent, and using patented compounds rather than developing new ones.
  • Stakeholders: Dr. Srinivasan, the pharmaceutical company, patients, the research team, regulatory bodies, the public.
  • Dilemma: integrity vs. profit; informed consent vs. accelerated market access; data ethics vs. drug ethics.
  • Possible options:
  • Adhere to ethical standards (nonnegotiable): maintain integrity, ensure informed consent, publish complete data, seek extended timelines if needed.
  • Seek a balance: request extended time or staged trials while maintaining ethical safeguards; be transparent with stakeholders.
  • Data ethics vs. drug ethics definitions:
  • Data ethics: honesty in representing trial outcomes, accurate data, full disclosure of both positive and negative results.
  • Drug ethics: patient safety, informed consent, first do no harm, risk–benefit assessment.
  • How data and drug ethics save humanity: builds trust in health care, prevents misuse, protects patients, ensures regulatory compliance, and fosters sustainable medical innovation.
  • Outcome-oriented conclusions: prioritize ethical standards over expediency; uphold patient safety and rights; ensure data integrity; communicate transparently with stakeholders.

Exam-oriented frameworks and key takeaways

• Just War Theory (summary):
  • ext{Just Cause},\, ext{Legitimate Authority},\, ext{Proportionality}
  • War should be a last resort; exhaust all peaceful options first.
  • In practice, justify-war assessments depend on context and power dynamics; even major powers can argue for just cause while others view it as unjustified.
• Human rights and cosmopolitan ethics:
  • UDHR (1948) as foundational standard; universal rights versus national sovereignty tensions.
  • International responses require timely, coordinated action rather than symbolic gestures.
• Economic inequality and justice:
  • Wealth distribution data highlights systemic inequality: ext{Top 10 ext{th}}
    ightarrow 0.76, ext{Bottom 50 ext{th}}
    ightarrow 0.02, ext{Top 1 ext{th}}
    ightarrow 0.23
  • Rawlsian difference principle: inequality is acceptable only if it benefits the least advantaged.
  • Policy implications: debt relief, progressive taxation, inclusive growth, sustainable development aligned with SDGs.
• International law and enforcement challenges:
  • International law often lacks enforcement teeth; major powers can circumvent norms through vetoes and geopolitics.
  • Reform proposals: stronger IOs, revised UNSC veto, universal sanctions targeting individuals; greater accountability.
• Intercultural dialogue and cultural ethics:
  • Ethical relativism vs universal ethics; the aim is unity in diversity, not forced conformity.
  • Tools: dialogue, education, UNESCO exchanges, TRCs, inclusive media representation.
• International funding ethics:
  • Avoid dependency; ensure transparent, accountable, and culturally informed aid; align with SDGs; empower local institutions.
  • Avoid conditionality that harms local economies; ensure aid is not used to enable human rights abuses.
• Emerging ethical challenges:
  • AI bias, cyber warfare, climate change; need binding frameworks to govern tech and environmental responsibility.
• Practical action items for students and policymakers:
  • Strengthen international norms and enforcement mechanisms; reform major institutions; promote economic justice and equitable growth; encourage intercultural understanding.
  • In professional practice (e.g., research and policy), adhere to data integrity, patient safety, informed consent, and transparent governance.

Connections to previous lectures and broader relevance

• Links to foundational principles of international ethics: justice, freedom, mutual respect, and peaceful coexistence.
• Consistent emphasis on human dignity as the baseline for all policy decisions, whether addressing war, refugees, or economic policy.
• The role of international organizations and NGOs as watchdogs and partners in achieving ethical governance.
• The importance of empirical data (e.g., inequality metrics) to ground normative claims and policy proposals.
• The necessity of practical, on-the-ground processes (local context, community consultation, SDG alignment) for the success of aid and development programs.

Final reflection prompts for exam prep

• Explain why war is considered a last resort and how just war criteria are evaluated in practice with real-world examples.
• Describe the differences between refugees and migrants, and discuss ethical responsibilities toward refugees using the Rohingya case.
• Summarize Rawls’ difference principle and how it applies to global inequality and international policy.
• Compare ethical relativism and universal ethics with examples from intercultural dialogue and policy.
• Outline the key reforms proposed for international law enforcement and governance, and evaluate their feasibility.
• Apply the Dr. Srinivasan case to a structured ethical analysis (stakeholders, dilemma, options, merits/demerits, course of action).

Notes on formatting and equations

• All major numerical references presented as LaTeX in … :
  • Wealth shares: ext{Top 10 ext{th}} = 0.76, { } ext{Bottom 50 ext{th}} = 0.02, { } ext{Top 1 ext{th}} \, ext{approximately} \, 0.23
  • Just War Theory: ext{Just Cause}, ext{ Legitimate Authority}, ext{ Proportionality}
  • Rawls’ difference principle: ext{Inequalities are permissible if they benefit the least advantaged}
• LaTeX for legal articles mentioned: ext{Article } 14, ext{ Article } 19(1)(f), ext{ Article } 39(b)-39(c)
• Concepts summarized with simple equations or principle statements as above to aid memorization and quick recall during exams.