political global governance mini essay plans

Question 1

evaluate the view that human rights institutions have significantly weakened state sovereignty

loa
3 points for and against argument, with examples
conclusion

Answer 1

loa: human rights institutions have not significantly weakened state sovereignty as there is no authority above nation state power and therefore human rights institutions can only persuade through soft power and not enforce regulations diminishing sovereignty.

• counter argument, the 2005 UNR2P and establishment of state sovereignty as provisional arguably has weakened states sovereignty as it presents the provisional message that states that abuse their own citizens forfeit their sovereignty as the UN can intervene
• e.g. Kosovo intervention in 1999, threat of NATO ground offensive forced Serbian president to hand over Kosovo to NATO administration
• this highlights Serbia’s sovereignty ultimately being weakened as NATO hand the power to challenge the Westphalian principles of states sovereignty which now after the Blair Doctrine involved responsibilities as wells rights.
• stronger argument, however the Westphalian principles of state sovereignty undermine this as international human rights is soft law as there is a lack of supranational authority
• e.g. 2016 Netanyahu UNSC resolution censured Israel in its policy of building settlements in the occupied territories, he responded by saying that as a sovereign state his country would continue constructing settlements
• this highlights the lack of enforcement of human rights institutions as states ultimately concentrate the highest level of power at state level.
• counter argument, the establishment of international courts highlights the willingness to protect human rights through legal methods. This infringes state sovereignty as courts such as the ICC and ECtHR have power in legal issues. This weakening state sovereignty.
  -e.g. 2012 ICJ sentenced Senegal former president to life imprisonment as he committed crimes against humanity and torture
• this highlights the ultimate power to enforce the rule of law beyond state sovereign boundaries and hold people accountable.
• stronger argument, however powerful states do not accept the ICC’s authority and state sovereignty limits the ECtHR jurisdiction and many powerful states such as the US remain unaccountable for actions preserving state sovereignty. As they are power maximisers and therefore lack/willingness of humanitarian intervention can excuse advance of strategic self interest
• e.g. Biden 2021 USA, UN urged new administration to shut detention camp of Guantanamo Bay which still holds 40 prisoners, most of whom have not been charged with any offence
• e.g. UK govt refused to comply with ICJ’s judgement that it should hand the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
• this highlights state sovereignty not being weakened as states can ultimately ignore the rulings made by the courts and the agreements are not binding to supranational authority

-counter argument, Human rights institutions and the R2P has not outweighed state sovereignty as regional and global stabilities are threatened if human rights abuses are not punished therefore state sovereignty needs to be inevitably weakened for the safety of the ISS.
- e.g. The migrant crisis caused by the Syrian civil war has threatened European stability
- This highlights that as a result of globalisation there is an increasing need to act through human rights institutions to increase global iso’s and diminish state sovereignty to an extent from terrorism and rapid migration threatening state stability.
- stronger argument, however state sovereignty is ultimately not weakened as humanitarian interventions can be used as a pretext for strategic self interests and could threaten the global order and power dynamics.
- e.g. 2020, UN report held Russia accountable for indiscriminate attacks in civilian areas in Syria. However, given Russia’s global influence it is hard to see under what circumstances the West will hold either to Russia or its ally to account.
- This highlights the hard power within the ISS and the ultimate state sovereignty that is retained by nation states on the international stage.

conclusion, states sovereignty is not weakened by humanitarian interventions due to the Westphalian principles of state sovereignty and the realist view point of states acting in their own self-interest through the bollard model. However, the extent to which state sovereignty is weakened is dependent on their power status within the ISS and their sphere of influence.

Question 2

evaluate the view that global governance is reducing poverty but failing to protect the environment

loa
3 points for and against argument, with examples
conclusion

Answer 2

loa: global governance has been successful in creating forums for global discussions on the protection of the environment however global governance has not reduced poverty and arguably increased it despite the UN’s aims through SDG’s and MDG’S

• counter argument, poverty is being reduced as liberals highlight that globalisation and in turn global governance has lead to a levelling out of the economic playing field due to inward investment and more competitive markets driven by the liberal free market.
• e.g. China’s open door policy to F.D.I. due to globalisation has allowed for them to reduce poverty and create a middle class working economy and become a potential challenge to the US hegemony
• This highlight the vital role global governance can highlight the greater wealth and level of development that has been established by China and many states in east Asia such as South Koreas, which are both having an increasingly important hard and soft power role on the international stage.
• stronger argument poverty is not being reduced as core states can be seen to be exploiting peripheral states reducing the profit in which they can make on manufactured materials and forcing them to export raw goods.
• e.g. Ghana cocoa trade and lack of subsidies compared to EU and West and raw materials force it into dependency theory
• This highlights global governance following the realist state interest of western powers within organisations such as the WTO, IMF etc. and not solving the original goals of poverty and states are ultimately sovereign.
• counter argument, global governance is failing to protect the environment as igos lack hard enforcement power to force states to take enough actions. They cannot hold them accountable to keep their promises
• e.g. Trump opting out of Paris Agreement in 2010
• this higlights the utlimate sovereign power for a hegemony to withdraw from global governance agreements and Cops failing to cooperate in order to protect the global commons
• stronger argument, global governance is successfully influencing nation states to take action and protect the environment and global commons as global civil society movements pressure countries to deepen commitment through social media and global campaigning
• e.g. the Paris framework has seen an increasing number of states moving to net zero pledges with an estimated 90% of world economy now covered by such pledges.
• this highlights the importance of soft power within the ISS and global governance as through creating forums for discussion such as the IPCC AND UNFCCC there has been creating convergence on environmental issues and increased concern leading to more pledges and commitments to improving the environment
• counter argument, through convergence between global north and south there has been a diminishing of poverty and consequently as countries are developing the environment is being exploited to a greater extent as more countries are industrialising.
• e.g. China becoming a ‘airpocalypse’ resulting in carcinogenic health issues due to rapid development and reduction of poverty
• this highlights global governance reducing poverty and the consequential negative impact this has on the environment and greater need for decision making to prohibit this.
• stronger argument however this view must be rejected as pollution from most developed states is not increasing, but currently developed states do pollute more than developing states. Therefore, it can be argued that global governance is not reducing poverty and more developed nations are able to fund and tackle innovative ways of tackling climate change such as the UN’s SDG’S within global governance and the ISS as action on climate change is occurring whereas poverty is limited
• e.g. UNFCCC roadmap for negotiations bound by treaties. Legally binding emmision targets agreed at Kyoto protocol.
• e.g. SAP’s can actually negatively impact states like Greece etc.
• This highlights the ways in which global governance creates a forum for discussion on climate change and universal issues of global commons. And the way in which the west can influence decision making of global governance organs acting in their best interest and not always concerning those in poverty.

conclusion, global governance is succeeding currently at protecting the environment through global initiatives and regular cops where states can make agreements to policy. however global governance isn’t succeeding at reducing poverty due to the west driving the global governance organs.