12 markers Flashcards
Analyse the key disagreements between realists and liberalists
- Human nature
- Power
- international organisations
Examine why sovereignty is now a widely outdated concept
explain why sovereignty is an outdate concept
- Globalisation- due to the increased interconnectedness , globalisation has lead to a shrinking world where states are accepting cooperation because it is in there interest for example the increasing use of technology has made it harder for states to remain sovereign because of cultural factors i.e. language for example the English language is the second most spoken language in the world which make it harder for states to dominate there own nation.. looks at the liberal perspective of cooperation .. Differs from realists views as they would argue that sovereignty is not outdated as this is one of the fundamental principles of the westphalian system which means that iOS function to put state sovereignty first
- Pronoun borders - territorial borders are starting to disappear this is because nation states can no longer control the shift of sovereignty staring to become less valuable ie the increased migrating crisis in the south . similarly the increased interdependence makes it hard for nation states to control what happens in there country and how things are ran . The most recent example would be the covid-19 crisis and how states had to cooperate in order to solve a global issue ie vaccines, travelling shows that states are losing there sovereignty
- Eu as an Igo - liberal values are spreading because there’s an increase in the widening and deepening of interconnectedness for example the EU …
Examine why global governance is so controversial.
Point 1- Realists would argue that global governance is controversial because it overrides state sovereignty by enabling non state actors and international organisations/ intergovernmental to influence decisions that should be at the will of the state. .. this differs from a liberal perspective where there would use the liberal philosophy’s of cooperation , peace and mutual beneficial relationships to justify/ underpin the idea that global governance is controversial for example NATO is a igo that promotes peace and security between the 12.. states whilst maintain a degree of state sovereignty because they were set up for the benefits of the state
Point 2 -loabl governance is controversial because there are elements of supranationalism which ends the anarchy of the Westphalia system
Point 3 - reproduces western idedology -
Examine the criticisms that have been made of both the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
Point 1- Not successful in its aims - one criticism of the world bank is that it is dominated by the west and reproduce policies that harm poorer countries instead of developing them. This can be especially be seen with the world bank for example in Bolivia and the wold banks structural adjustment programmes( saps) this is where the world bank refused a 25mil loan to a local water supply company and instead insisted that the Bolivian government hand other the local water supply to large TNCS which did not aide in the development of Bolivian. Another example can be shown with the use of saps in Africa that lead to cuts in public sector employment . This is similar to some of the criticism of the IMF where its loan conditions in fact worsen the conditions of developing countries instead of improving it for example in 2001 in Argentina and the 2008 financial crisis .
Point 2- Dominated by the west- Another criticism is.. that the IMF is dominated by western ideology specifically the US this is because this institution is heavily involved with the US , its headquarters is in Washington DC suggesting it has some involvement with US government, furthermore the us contributes the most to its funding as it has the largest economy and, consequently, enjoys the largest proportion of votes in decision-making. This is similar to the world bank where the US has too much influence over the bank and its policies ie the president of the world bank is David malpass and the president should come from the developing world
Point 3- Ineffective. The world bank is an ineffective institution because it spends too little to make a real change for example the A spends $700 billion on its military while the Bank spent just $259 billion on global economic development in 2019 . This shows that the world bank is not doing enough to fufil its aims, this further demonstrated by the resignation of Dr Jim Yong Kim he knew that he could not do much without more funding. The IMF shares this criticism as it is also an ineffective institution this can be seen in its involvement with the global financial crash where it encourage the de regulation of ,..
Examine why has the World Bank been criticised, and how has it responded to criticism.
point 1. Been criticised because of its involvement with US. this is because of the WB close relationship with the united states for example its president is from the developed world David Malpas. there have been suggestions that in response to this specifically under Obama there was a previous introduction of a president from the developing world specifically china Dr Jim King was the president and had expereince in global..
point 2. Too little spent on development.
Point 3
Examine the main criticisms of the IMF
- Dominated by the west - One main criticism of the IMF is its domination by the west. The US in particularly dominates the IMF which is because the headquarters is based in the capital of America, Washington DC which suggests that there is slight US governmental influence. Furthermore, the US contributes the largest quota of funding to the IMF because it has the largest economy and, consequently, enjoys the largest proportion of votes in decision-making. Decisions require majorities of 85% and the US has17% of votes, therefore effectively exercising veto power.
- Promotes western financial interests- Another criticism of the IMF is that it promotes western financial interests by using poorer countries cheap resources. THE IMF CONCENTRATES wealth in developed countries.. This is evident through the use of SAPS ( structural adjustment programmes ) which encourages free trade and discouraging state intervention in domestic economies enables rich countries to gain access to markets in less developed countries and exploit cheaper sources of labour.
- Global stability has decreased - A final criticism of the IMF is that it decreased global stability. The IMF encouraged the deregulation of international finance by its promotion of the neo-liberal orthodoxy through the conditions on its loans and through its technical advice and annual report. This was evident in the 2008 financial crisis.
Summarise the differences between sceptics and hyperglobalists
Point 1- ara 1- - Impact exaggerated according to sceptics because the state is still the main actor for a large majority if economic activity for example TNC’s are still tied to there nation states. furthermore places in the south are marginalised and not apart of the global economic economy.. where as hyperglobalists argue significant in contributing to global economic activity as well as increased cooperation and peace. this is because globalisation has resulted in a complex webb of interconnectedness
Point 2- Globalisation threatens sovereignty..according to hyperglobalists its significant impact the importance of nation state authority and sovereignty is decreasing due to the economic logic of the global market.. This differs from sceptics who argue that sovereignty still resides within states . Regional and international governmental institution s such as UN , AU, NATO help states pursue there objectives and grow their power
Point 3-Globalisation inevitability- according to hyperglobalists globalisation is inevitable as time progresses because of technological progressions and the spread of lliberal ideas .. sation is inevitable is a social construct created for the west to keep pushing there own agenda and ideas specifically the US which is why they are the creators of some igos
Examine the effectiveness of both the international courts and tribunals in protecting human rights
Point 1.. They have been effective in protecting human rights against former state leaders. For example the ICTY was established in 1993 to deal with the crimes against humanity and genocide they succeeded in finding the former Serbian leader Milosevic , Madic guilty of all crimes against humanity and received long sentences. Similar tribunals set up for atrocities in Rwanda and Sierra Leone have seen Jean Kambanda and Charles Taylor, respectively, convicted for war crimes and other atrocities. en state crimes punished and their perpetrators brought to justice, something that may never have occurred if left to their own national courts. It is possible that these proceedings have acted as a deterrent to other national leaders around the world. Therefore suggesting that international courts and tribunals are effective in protecting human rights
Point 2. Not effective because the focus is on poor countries. these are widespread accusations that the courts tend to concentrate on leaders from poorer countries,
particularly the black nations of Africa, whilst ignoring any atrocities carried out by the Western powers in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. For example George W Bush never faced a trial for torturing prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, nor any western leader for ‘illegally invading’ Iraq. Furthermore, the invasion of Ukraine has not lead to PUTIN being guilty of war crimes. This is similar with d ethnic cleansing continue within countries such
as Yemen, Syria and Myanmar leading to the conclusion that the courts and tribunals are only have a limited effect on protecting human rights .
Point 3-
Analyse the divisions regarding human nature that exist between realists and liberals.
Point 1 - Realists believe in global anarchy which stems from the works of Bull which suggests that there is no proper system of international law so states are able to act in aggressive , selfish and self interested manner. This is similar to Hobbs conservative views of human nature such as in order for there to be security states must enlarge there dominance. This creates greater insecurity amongst other states. This differs from the liberal view where they believe that states favour cooperation and peace over conflict and war.Liberals believe that states negotiate this can be seen through organisations such as the UN and wto .
Point 2 - Realists believe that war is inevitable and cannot be avoided. It is not in the nature of states to be cooperative and trusting instead conflict is necessary for a state to keep growing as this is in human nature to desire more power and be restless in its pursuit . As states pursue national interest it will naturally bring them into conflict. This differs from the liberal view where they believe that there is a possibility of harmony and balance rather than war and conflict. It is apart of human nature to be cooperative and rational, non state actors work together to pursue goals that are beneficial to all. Liberals use the democratic peace thesis to explain this rationality. This is the idea that democratic states do not go to war with other democratic states because states are built on the principle of compromise and discussion rather than force .
Point 3-
Analyse the divisions that exist between realists and liberals over the impact of both international organisations and the significance of states.
Point 1. Realists believe that IGOs restrict sovereignty where as liberals believe this increases state power. Realists see IGO’S as bodies that attempt to limit the power and independence of the nation state this suggests that realists are sceptical about institutions of global governance such as the United Nations because it has too much influence over the behaviour of states. Realists are only interested in IGO’S to increase there position in the international system ie increasing there desire for power. States cannot rely on international organisations or international law because it cannot override the state and sovereignty. Whereas liberals believe that there international organisations have had a significant impact on the international system. States have gained more by working together using IGO’s rather than competing with each other. This can be seen through the rise of china and Chilie. International organisation have increased complex interdependence and …
Point 2- There are clear divisions between liberals and realists over the significance of the state.According to realists states are significant and are the predominant actors in global politics with great emphasis on sovereignty as their defining trait. The only actor that matters in global politics is the state. Although liberals understand the importance of states in the global world they don’t see states as the most important actor. Liberals would point to the rise of non state actors, international organisations and globalisation means that the state is becoming less and less important and no longer as significant as it once was.
Point 3-
Summarise the criticisms of the IMF
Summarise the criticism of the worldbank
