IR lesson 5

The Global System and Its Key Actors

• The global system includes various actors such as nation-states, international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations (MNCs), events and issues that transcend national boundaries (e.g., climate change, pandemics), and individuals.

Modernity and the International System

• Modernity:

  • Rise of nation-states with defined territories and centralized governments.

  • Treaties between nations:

    • Great Law of Peace: A nation-based treaty existing for over 800 years among Indigenous nations in North America, which influenced the writing of constitutions and international relations.

    • Western nations' Treaty of Westphalia (1648): Ended the Thirty Years' War in Europe, establishing principles of state sovereignty and non-interference.

      • Limited states' ability to interfere in each other's affairs through international legal interpretations.

      • Affirmed autonomy of kings and the concept of state sovereignty.

  • Myths about the 'monopoly of violence': The state's claim to exclusive legitimate use of force within its territory is often challenged by non-state actors.

  • Origins of modern states can be traced to the Peace of Westphalia, which established the foundation for state sovereignty.

  • Created an anarchic system of states: The absence of a central authority has contributed to events like WWI and WWII. The debate continues whether hierarchy or equity better explains the International System and which one is more realistic.

Multiplex World Order

• Established powers, such as the United States and European countries, still dominate some aspects of global governance, including international financial institutions and security structures.

• Emerging powers like China, India, and Brazil play an increasingly significant role in global affairs, sometimes collaborating with established powers and sometimes competing.

• Non-state actors and activists, including NGOs (e.g., Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch), advocacy groups, terrorist organizations, cartels, and traffickers, play lead roles in various global issues.

• Leadership is dispersed; no single actor dominates, leading to a more complex and multi-faceted international environment.

• Shift requires acceptance of non-Western countries and Southern ideas and institutions to foster a more inclusive global order.

Key Terminology

• Levels of Analysis (LOAs) (Singer 1961):

  • System Level: Examines the entire global system, including the distribution of political power, economic system, global governance structures, and technology diffusion. Focuses on broad patterns and interactions among states.

  • State Level: Focuses on nation-states as primary actors, considering their strategic and economic positions, political systems, national interests, and foreign policy decision-making processes.

  • Group Level: Analyzes actors within social, organizational, professional, and bureaucratic contexts, such as political parties, NGOs, interest groups, and multinational corporations. Explores how these groups influence state behavior and international relations.

  • Individual Level: Examines the beliefs, fears, personalities, and decision-making processes of individuals, such as political leaders, diplomats, and activists, to understand their impact on international behavior and decisions.

• Methods: Ways of gathering information and insight into a research question, including qualitative methods (e.g., case studies, interviews) and quantitative methods (e.g., statistical analysis, surveys).

Liberalism and Realism

• Realism:

  • Traced to Thucydides, who suggested consistent human behavior patterns driven by self-interest and power.

  • Explains the continuing presence of war as an inherent feature of the international system due to the struggle for power among states.

  • Assumes humans act in self-interest, making conflict unavoidable in the absence of a central authority to enforce order.

  • Hobbes described a 'state of nature' as a war of all against all, leading to the proposal of a 'social contract' where individuals give up some freedoms for protection by a sovereign.

  • Three S's: Statism (the state as the primary actor), survival (ensuring the state's security), and self-help (relying on one's own capabilities for security).

  • Sees a world of danger and threats everywhere, emphasizing the need for states to prioritize their security.

  • Pervasive insistence that this logic is everywhere (tautology), suggesting a circular reasoning where the assumption of self-interest is used to explain all behavior.

Realism and Neorealism

Liberalism and Realism

• Liberalism:

  • Based on idealist principles, asserting a better world is possible through cooperation, international law, and institutions.

  • Assumes humans are good and desire peace and harmony, emphasizing the potential for cooperation and mutual benefit.

  • Immanuel Kant: The more liberal states, the more peaceful the world (democratic peace theory), suggesting that democracies are less likely to wage war against each other.

  • Two key elements of nation-state interaction: trade and international organizations (IOs).

  • Trade: Positive-sum interaction where both sides benefit, promoting economic interdependence and reducing the likelihood of conflict.

  • IOs: Provide diplomacy to solve disputes and avoid war, offering platforms for negotiation, mediation, and collective action.

The English School and Constructivism

• The English School:

  • Described as liberal realism, seeking a middle ground between the pessimistic view of realism and the optimistic view of liberalism.

  • Not as pessimistic as realism, nor as optimistic as liberalism, recognizing both the constraints of anarchy and the potential for cooperation.

• Constructivism:

  • Highlights the importance of values and shared interests between individuals who interact on the global stage and binding social norms in shaping international relations.

  • Alexander Wendt: Structures constrain agents and construct identities and interests, arguing that anarchy is what states make of it through their interactions and shared understandings.

Essay Approaches

• Realist: Emphasize power, security, and self-interest in international relations.

• Neorealist: Focus on the structure of the international system, particularly the distribution of power, as the primary determinant of state behavior.

• Liberal internationalism: Advocate for cooperation, international law, and institutions to promote peace and prosperity.

• English School: Seek a middle ground between realism and liberalism, emphasizing the role of shared norms and values in shaping international society.

• Constructivist (Realist, Liberal, Norms, Identity): Focus on the social construction of reality, examining how ideas, norms, and identities shape state behavior.

• Gramscian: Analyze the role of hegemony and ideology in maintaining global power structures.

• World Systems Theory (Marxism): Examine the global capitalist system and the inequalities between core and periphery states.

• Western Feminist: Critique traditional IR theory from a feminist perspective, highlighting gender inequalities and power relations.

• Intersectional feminist: Analyze the intersection of gender with other forms of identity, such as race, class, and sexuality, in shaping international relations.

• Postcolonial: Examine the legacy of colonialism and its impact on contemporary international relations.

• Settler colonial: Focus on the ongoing structures of domination and dispossession in settler colonial states.

• Securitization: Analyze how issues are framed as security threats, leading to extraordinary measures.

• LGBTQ Rights: Examine the role of international norms and activism in promoting LGBTQ rights.

• Queer: Challenge traditional categories and norms in international relations, focusing on marginalized identities and perspectives.

Theory and Purpose (Cox)

• Cox: "Theory is always for someone and for some purpose," emphasizing the political and normative dimensions of theory.

• Problem-solving (takes things as is) versus critical theory (questions what we find), distinguishing between theories that seek to maintain the status quo and those that challenge it.

• Questions to ask: Who does design empower, and who does it disempower? This prompts reflection on the power dynamics and ethical implications of international relations.

Settler Colonialism

• Settlers made by conquest, not just migration, highlighting the violent and exploitative nature of settler colonialism.

• Remakes society; doesn’t use existing population to establish government, aiming to replace Indigenous governance structures with settler institutions.

• Justification for non-inclusion, dispensing with indigenous populations, rationalizing the dispossession and marginalization of Indigenous peoples.

• Not an event, but a structure, emphasizing the ongoing and systemic nature of settler colonialism.

• Use of the family as a tool of assimilation and control, disrupting Indigenous kinship systems and cultural practices.

Review of Critical Theories

• Capitalism, Marxism, Gramscian, world systems: Focus on economic structures and power relations in shaping global politics.

• Post colonial, settler colonial, western feminist, intersectional feminist: Examine the legacies of colonialism, patriarchy, and other forms of oppression in international relations.

• Genders and sexualities: Analyze the construction and regulation of gender and sexuality in global contexts.

• Masculinity and femininity: Explore how gender norms shape state behavior and international relations.

• Bodies resist the oppression of gender: Highlight the agency and resilience of individuals in challenging gender norms.

• Colonial construction of gender: Examine how colonialism has shaped gender identities and relations in different parts of the world.

International Organizations

• Enduring question: In what ways do international organizations challenge, and complement, the power of nation-states? This highlights the complex and evolving relationship between IOs and states.

Key Terminology

• Supranationalism: An organization can govern members with independence in decision-making (e.g., The EU), indicating a transfer of sovereignty from states to the organization.

• ASEAN: Conceived as an economic intergovernmental group to raise the standard of living and status of Southeast Asia, promoting regional cooperation and integration.

Keohane - After Hegemony

• The question of ‘after hegemony’ addresses the challenges of maintaining international order in the absence of a dominant power.

• Hegemon:

  • Sets up system: Establishes the rules and norms of the international system.

  • Bears cost: Provides public goods and enforces stability.

  • Embeds values (embedded liberalism – Ruggie): Promotes a particular set of economic and political values.

  • Others benefit from system, rise up: Allows other states to benefit from and eventually challenge its dominance.

• Does the rise of others challenge the embedded values? (China, ME). This raises questions about the future of the international order and the role of different actors in shaping it.

Keohane

• The declining relevance of the UN as an institution also decreases moral similarities, suggesting a weakening of international norms and cooperation.

• States pursue greater self-interest, cultural, ethnocentric pursuits, leading to increased competition and conflict.

• Is China's success coming at the expense of the US? This highlights the geopolitical competition between rising and established powers.

• Is China spending less on guns the reason for its success? This questions the relationship between military spending and economic development.

Keohane

• Hegemonic stability theory - the hegemon facilitates cooperation to further its own interests, suggesting that a dominant power can promote stability and cooperation in the international system.

• Decline of hegemony is going to put hegemonic regimes under stress, potentially leading to instability and conflict.

• The IMF, GATT and Bretton Woods were products of US liberal hegemony. Start to break down by 1970’s (hence offshore and the 2.3T), indicating a shift in the global economic order.

• Oil regime allows ME to grow, highlighting the importance of natural resources in shaping international relations.

• Was liberalism always going to undermine US national interest in its universalism? This questions the contradictions between liberal values and national interests.

Keohane

• As postwar economies grow, US relative power declines, reflecting the diffusion of power in the international system.

• Institutions reflect US power and extend the power beyond military strength, highlighting the role of institutions in maintaining hegemony.

• US subsidizes as long as in interest to do so, suggesting that even hegemonic powers act in their own self-interest.

• Does this success of others automatically mean the decline of the US? This raises questions about the nature of power transitions and the future of US hegemony.

Keohane – On cooperation

• Hegemonic leadership = pattern of order, suggesting that a dominant power can shape the behavior of other states.

• Harmony – never really exists, idealism of liberalism, recognizing the limitations of achieving perfect agreement.

• Cooperation - where the bulk of the states are the bulk of the time, indicating that cooperation is a common but not constant feature of international relations.

• Discord – disagreement can be specific or systemic but largely falls back to cooperation, suggesting that conflict is often followed by renewed cooperation.

• Cooperation ISN’T harmony – retains ‘boundedness’, indicating that cooperation is often limited and conditional.

• ‘Cooperation regarded as facilitating their own objectives as policy coordination’, suggesting that states cooperate when it serves their interests.

The UN

• Parts of the UN:

  Security Council: Responsible for maintaining international peace and security.

Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs)

• Organization made of only states (more than two) are usually founded upon a treaty or multilateral agreement (e.g., the UN), highlighting the importance of legal frameworks in establishing IGOs.

• The Six Main Organs of the UN:

  • The General Assembly: The main deliberative body of the UN.

  • The Security Council: Responsible for maintaining international peace and security.

  • The Economic and Social Council: Coordinates economic and social work of the UN.

  • The Trusteeship Council: Established to supervise the administration of trust territories.

  • The International Court of Justice: The principal judicial organ of the UN.

  • The Secretariat: Carries out the substantive and administrative work of the UN.

Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) cont.

• System of reciprocal recognition:

  • Mainland China recognized = No recognition of Taiwan, reflecting the political complexities of state recognition.

  • Some states refused to recognize Israel, highlighting ongoing disputes and conflicts.

  • No formal recognition of Palestinians, Kurds, indicating the lack of statehood for certain groups.

  • Little formal recognition of Crimea, reflecting the contested status of the territory.

  • Split recognition of Kosovo, indicating divisions within the international community.

Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) cont.

• Inherent tension between human rights and state sovereignty:

  • States are the ones who provide rights- this paradox was a conscious and known decision = Largely subjective criticisms of the UN (embedded liberalism), highlighting the challenges of balancing human rights with state power.

Intergovernmental Organizations cont.

• IGOs power rests with member state governments. States can leave or ignore the UN, but punitive measures can only be taken if the Security Council are in accord and a coalition agrees, reflecting the limitations of IGO power.

• Security Council can enforce resolutions with kinetic harm, indicating the potential for military intervention.

• General Assembly can pass resolutions condemning and sanctioning – but enforcement lies with the Security Council, highlighting the division of powers within the UN.

• IGOs serve to underline that they do not signal an era of global government, rather governance, indicating that states remain the primary actors in international relations.

Intergovernmental Organizations continued

• IGOs are generally more specific than the UN – often dealing with one particular issue or a specific geographical area.

  • International Whaling Commission (IWC): Regulates whaling.

  • International Criminal police organization (INTERPOL): Facilitates international police cooperation.

  • Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN): Promotes economic and political cooperation in Southeast Asia.

  • African Union (AU): Promotes unity and development in Africa.

• Not all organisations that look to be IGO in nature, are IGOs. Some do not fulfill requirements, and some work with IGOs.

  • Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) forum: A group of states that are not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc.

Key Terms: Supranationalism

• To have 'supranational' powers means that an organisation is actually able to govern its members and have a degree of independence in decision-making from its member states.

• The only clear example of an international organisation such as this is the European Union (EU). For that reason, it is often described as sui generis, or 'unique' in its own right.

• The European Union is unique because, unlike the United Nations and all other intergovernmental organisations, it can actually be said to exercise a degree of sovereignty over its members via law-making powers in certain areas that its members agreed to relocate to the supranational level. This was done by a series of treaties that each member state negotiated and agreed, with the aim of 'pooling' their efforts in certain areas to enhance their shared peace and prosperity.

• Considering Europe's warring past and the economic and social devastation that the Second World War brought to the continent, integration was seen post-1945 as a novel solution to breaking the patterns of past rivalries.

• This began with predominantly economic integration across its six original members and gradually grew to include political, social, legal and even military areas across its twenty-seven member states. It also has its own currency - the euro. Together with its other capabilities, elements like these give it some of the powers and features typically only seen in states.

• The issue of supranationalism is not without controversy. There is a rising tide of discontent with the growing power of the European Union and a desire in some political circles to weaken, or even dissolve, the organisation so that more of the power returns to the states. The 'Brexit' debate, when the British public voted in a referendum to leave the European Union raised many of these issues and is an instance of the idea of supranationalism being challenged by more traditional sovereignty arguments. The United Kingdom's eventual exit in 2020 was the first time a member state had left the organisation.

Garbage Can Model

• Classic policy technique (Kingdon): A framework for understanding how decisions are made in organizations.

• Applying domestic policy analysis to the multilateral level (why peacekeeping at all?): This extends the model to explain decision-making within international organizations like the United Nations.

• How and why decisions are made (technology versus fluid participation): The model examines the factors influencing decision-making processes.
  Originally in universities: The model was initially developed to understand decision-making in academic institutions.

• The United Nations as organized anarchy:

  • Problematic preferences, unclear technology and fluid participation (ad hoc basis of peacekeeping): This highlights the challenges of decision-making in the UN due to conflicting interests and unpredictable processes.

Garbage Can Model

• The UN is:

  • Not a rational actor (Problematic preferences ): The UN's decisions are often influenced by political considerations and conflicting interests.

  • Unclear technology (changing organization, leaders): The UN's decision-making processes are often unclear and subject to change.

  • Fluid participation (personnel changes, departmental oversight): The UN's decision-making processes are characterized by shifting participants and responsibilities.

  • Ambiguity (not uncertainty, consequence of the above three): The UN's decisions are often ambiguous due to the factors mentioned above.

Weinberger Doctrine (post Vietnam)

• The Weinberger Doctrine asserts that:

  • The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved, emphasizing the importance of clear objectives and national interests.

  • U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed, stressing the need for decisive action and a clear exit strategy.

1988 through 1995

• Cold War ends (ethnic conflict becomes visible): The end of the Cold War led to a resurgence of ethnic conflicts.

• New attention rather than new politics: Increased focus on peacekeeping operations without fundamental changes in the international system.

• Precedents and reflexive actions: Past experiences and established procedures influenced peacekeeping operations.

• Changing politics:

  • Thawing of Cold War, international mood, acceptance of liberal democracy as standard of legitimate governance: These factors created a more favorable environment for peacekeeping operations.

• How missions occur:

  • Security Council sponsored missions: Peacekeeping operations authorized by the UN Security Council.

  • Brokered requests for UN assistance: Peacekeeping operations initiated through negotiations and agreements.

  • Un-brokered local requests for peacekeepers: Peacekeeping operations responding to local appeals for assistance.

Three ‘Paradigms’ of Peacekeeping

• First-generation (6 ½):

  • Interposition of a force after a truce been reached: Peacekeepers deployed to monitor and maintain a cease-fire.

  • Lightly armed, monitoring, consent, neutrality (Pearsonian): Peacekeepers operate with minimal force, relying on the consent of the parties and maintaining neutrality.

  • Canada’s image of itself? This reflects Canada's traditional role as a peacekeeper.

• Second-generation:

  • Consent of parties: Peacekeeping operations require the consent of all parties involved.

  • 1945-1971 85% one state internally oriented (proxies): Many conflicts during this period were internal, with external actors supporting different sides.

• Third-generation:

  • Chapter 7, with a comprehensive agreement reflecting the parties acquiescence: Peacekeeping operations authorized under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, with a comprehensive agreement.

  • Domestic civil wars ( beyond the original purview of UN activity): These operations often involve intervention in domestic conflicts.

Postwar (civil peace)

• Degree of hostility of the factions: The level of animosity between the warring parties influences the prospects for peace.

• Extent of local capacities remaining after the war: The availability of local resources and institutions is crucial for reconstruction.

• Amount of international assistance provided: International support is essential for rebuilding war-torn societies.

• Goal: participatory peace:

  • Not just absent of war: Peacebuilding efforts aim to create a sustainable and inclusive peace.

• Restoration of state sovereignty over the territory: Re-establishing the authority of the state is a key objective.

• Some degree of political openness (?).: Promoting political participation and democracy is often a goal.

• Is it possible to impose peace? This questions the effectiveness and legitimacy of external intervention.

Where is neutrality?

• Neutral, disinterested, impartial, unbiased: These are the desired qualities of peacekeepers.

• Versus good cop? This refers to the potential for peacekeepers to be perceived as favoring one side over another.

• Impartial as to outcomes (democratic): Peacekeepers should not seek to impose a particular political outcome.

• Peacekeeping as the nonuse of force:

  • Not win wars, but preserve peace: The goal of peacekeeping is to prevent violence and maintain stability.

• Enforce/encourage peace with belligerents (protect the peace): Peacekeepers may use force to protect themselves and the peace process.

• Cease-fire i.e. Cyprus – not peace enforcement: Some peacekeeping operations focus on monitoring ceasefires rather than enforcing peace.

• Mission-creep: The tendency for peacekeeping operations to expand their mandate beyond their original objectives.

• Is the absence of war, peace? This questions the definition of peace and the goals of peacekeeping.

The Role of the UN Post Cold War

• Peace enforcement: authorized to act with or without the consent of the parties to ensure a cease-fire. Mandated by the Security Council by chapter 7, heavily armed national forces under the Secretary-General (Korea, Iraq).

• Peacemaking: ‘bring hostile parties to agreement’, judicial settlement, mediation and negotiation = persuasion.

• Peacekeeping: Deploying UN presence in the fields with the consent of all concerned, confidence building measure to monitor a truce while negotiating comprehensive peace.

• Post-conflict reconstruction: Foster economic and social cooperation with the purpose of building confidence among previously warring parties.

Key People: Henry Dunant

• In 1862, Swiss businessman Henry Dunant published a book describing the aftermath of the 1859 Battle of Solferino, which he had experienced first-hand.

• He wrote how the soldiers were left wounded on the field with no medical care even after the battle had ended. Dunant managed to organise the local population into providing assistance to the sick and wounded.

• Many were moved by his account and in 1863 he founded the International Committee of the Red Cross. Dunant's efforts prompted a push to provide for the care of wounded soldiers and civilians caught in places of conflict. This was the start of the Geneva Conventions, which all UN members have since ratified. The Geneva Conventions form part of the international law that governs humanitarian concerns arising out of war and conflict and stand as testimony of how an international non-governmental organisation (in this case the Red Cross) can start a movement that later develops into international norms and standards.

The Diverse Types of International Organizations

• International non-governmental organisations (INGOs) work at international level or have international members.

• Usually business entities (labelled transnational corporations), or terrorist/criminal organisations who act across borders (e.g., International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement).

• Hybrid organisations are international organisations whose memberships are comprised of both states and civil society groups (e.g., International Union for the Conservation of Nature.).

• Should you be neutral in the face of evil? This raises ethical questions about the role of IOs in addressing global challenges.

Diverse Types of International Organizations

• International organisations can be regional (e.g., the EU is only for European states, the African Union is for states on the African continent).

• International organisations can be ‘issue-based’ while being regionally specific but with global reach (e.g., NATO is a collective transatlantic security arrangement).

• Every regional organisation is different in terms of its mandate and its structure.

• All international organisations are unique unto themselves, showing that the organisation is dependent upon power invested by members.

Key Insights: International organisations and International Relations theory

• International organisations have contributed to shaping the discipline of International Relations itself, with many of its theories adapting to incorporate politics above the nation-state as has been explored in Chapters six and seven. This is most visible in the debate between realism and liberalism, which we will briefly recall here. For liberals, institutions are created and designed primarily to increase cooperation between states and build a more peaceful world order. But realists, on the contrary, tend to see states as motivated by their own self-interests - using international organisations merely as a means to an end when convenient. Realists argue that these organisations are created and shaped by the most powerful states so that the status quo may be preserved, that is, the states' dominant role in the international system (see Mearsheimer 1995). This is why it may not come as a surprise when international organisations are accused of being unfair or undemocratic - as delving into the realist part of the theory toolbox suggests that these institutions were never established to create a level playing field.

• Liberals, on the other hand, look at the same data but maintain an account that posits that the existence of international organisations does not point to a flawless or perfect world, and argue that over time positive-sum logic will rise to the top of the agenda and the international order will be more just and less prone to realist-inspired zero-sum thinking which typically leads to conflict. Of course, liberals are not utopians and such a system retains the means to keep 'rogue' nations in check through peer pressure (normatively speaking) or sanctions.

How IOs Add to Our Map of the World

• Outside interests, through INGOs, have eroded state impunity, increasing accountability for human rights violations and other abuses.

• Treaties must be ratified by each state to be held accountable by international organisations (e.g., US, China, and Russia are not part of the International Criminal Court), highlighting the limitations of international law.

• International organisations have set agendas for the international community (e.g., environmental and climate activism), shaping global priorities and policies.

• The average citizen is more affected by IOs that are more locally focussed (e.g., UN Development Program in impoverished nations), emphasizing the importance of local-level interventions.

Conclusion

• The extent of IO’s challenges and complements to states has no simple answer, reflecting the complexity of international relations.

• They are, however, instrumental in advancing the rights and security of the individual across a wide range of areas, highlighting the positive role of IOs.

International Law

• Enduring question: How do international legal norms affect the behaviour of actors across the global system? This explores the impact of international law on state behavior and global governance.

Key Terminology

• International law – A system of norms, a social practice and professional culture that remains open to change and contestation, recognizing the dynamic and contested nature of international law.

• Legal norms – Lawful actions and situations that are advised to governments by international lawyers. Ideally neutral and objective but ultimately influenced by power, highlighting the role of power in shaping legal norms.

• Laws of war – Legal regulation governing the use of force; lies in transitional points between the law of peace and the law of armed conflict, seeking to regulate the conduct of hostilities.

Key Terminology

• International Court of Justice (ICJ): state-to- state body that decides on how treaties are law- States violate each other’s soverignty

• International Criminal Court (ICC): War crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression- individuals that can be put in jail in The Hague

• United Nations Convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS): International treaty that establishes norms about the ‘high sea’

'Crime' Reflects Power

• Asset forfeitures surpass burglaries: This illustrates how legal systems can be used to redistribute wealth and power.

Canadian Law

• Canada has civil law, common law and indigenous legal traditions, creating a multi-juridical legal system.

• Overly static interpretation of any one can crush the other (tension over copyright in Canada), highlighting the challenges of reconciling different legal traditions.

• General lack of knowledge about Canada’s indigenous law – provides examples overlooked (Great Law of Peace international treaty that predates Westphalia), indicating the need for greater recognition and understanding of Indigenous legal systems.

• Supreme Court of Canada recognizes continued existence of indigenous legal traditions, affirming the legal rights of Indigenous peoples.

• ‘settlement did not terminate the interest of aboriginal peoples arising from their historical occupation and use of the land ’, recognizing Indigenous land rights.

1763 Royal Proclamation

• The two-row wampum belt reflects a diplomatic convention that recognizes interaction and separation of settler and First Nation societies, symbolizing the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada.

Canada as Multi-Juridical

• Sources of law:

  • Sacred law :(Canada, Queen, God) Peace and order clauses in treaties based mutual recognition of different higher powers (god vs creator)- Treaties reflect sacred values

    • Haudenosaunee see an alliance with Crown (not part of Canada)

  • Natural Law: Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke- Indigenous are ‘natural’ = right to dispossess

    • Technical abilities and environmental stewardship and laws and rules (Inuit and arctic sovereignty)

    • What is land for?

Canada as Multi-Juridical cont.

• Positivistic Law- Proclamations, rules, regulations, codes, teachings and axioms

  • Literal reading of texts (‘constitutional purists’)

  • Rare within indigenous traditions – not deliberative enough

• Customary Law- Central importance to international law

  • Found in common, civil and indigenous

  • Not always explicit, require interpretation and enforcement

  • Canadian courts allowed 30 year old adoption

  • Labrador and Nunavut recognize the role of Inuit Law as authority in the region, and their assemblies including, poorly written traditions, observances and practices, opinions of elders, consensus and community-based planning- What is the motivation of pretendians?

Public International Law

What Law is International Law?

• A system in which states hold supreme and exclusive authority over their people and territory and follow customary and contractual rules in their relations.

• Validity of any legal rule between states depends on the will of the states themselves; they are only bound by legal norms they have consented to.

• Almost all nations observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost all of the time (Henkin, 1979).

What Law is International Law? Cont.

• International laws depend on customary behaviours over time supported by the consent of nations.

• Contracts (treaties, conventions, covenants) can be concluded by states to define customary rules for the regulation of relations.

Customs

• Practices of states that lead to laws – Diplomatic relations, law of the sea, laws of war

• Efforts underway to codify

• Post 1945 – Increasingly codified multilateral system – More confusion about sources/validity of international law

• ICJ applies to:

  • International conventions

  • International custom

  • General principles of law of civilized nations

  • Juridical decisions of most highly qualified of various nations

• Does the role of custom make international law eurocentric?

Treaties

• ICJ: ‘ international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states’

• Convention= Treaty (not British constitutional law or conference)

• Article 102 of UN Charter:

  • 33,000 registered (several thousand multilateral)

• Increased global interactions require more treaties

  • Extradition, safety regulations of transport, aid, copyright, environmental protections

• Is International Law inherently liberal?

Subjects

• Only subjects of International Law

  • States, International Organizations and traditionally recognized entities

• NGO’s, Corporations, Foreign Corporations

• Contracts internationally between Nations and Corps

• Corporations ability to directly sue states under NAFTA

• Corporations are not mercenaries (no one state)

• Should NGO’s and Corporations be granted full subject status internationally?

Key Insights: Reflections on international law

• Grotius (1625): International law derives authority from the consent of many nations, proved by experience and testimony.

• Oppenheim (1912): International law comprises customary and conventional rules legally binding on civilized states in their interactions, not for individuals.

• Peters (2009): Sovereignty is subordinate to the protection of basic human rights, making international law an