U4 AOS1 Flashcards

1
Q

Define realism

A

Realism involves states (and other global actors) prioritising their specific interests and needs over those of the global community.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Define cosmopolitanism

A

Refers to the ideology that humanity is one single community, regardless of state, culture or levels of economic development. All humans are equal and should be treated equally and global actors should act with this motivation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Define justice

A

Refers to the concept of moral correctness based on ethics, law, fairness and equity that, importantly, also seeks punishment when ethics are breached. This extends to global politics through international systems of justice, such as the ICC and ICJ, which seek to uphold international law and deter future violations.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Define ethics

A

Ethics seek to address questions of morality and extends to global politics, as global actors have underlying ethics to their actions, such as realism or cosmopolitanism.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Define international law

A

Traditionally only relating to states, international law is a body of rules established by custom or legal arrangements that are accepted as binding upon the international community. Customary international law applies to all global actors. Written legal arrangements, such as treaties, are only binding to those who consent to it through explicit ratification. Some international laws may apply to states, such as the UN Convention against Torture, while others may apply directly to citizens, such as war crimes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Effectiveness of SDGs

A

A/t SDGs were successful in setting a cohesive global agenda which inc transparency + accountability, failed to acc progress towards noble aims b/c lack of commitment for HICs → devt in uneven

pos:
- IMF + PMI adopt SDGs
→ PMI = framework for CC/labour policies
→ IMF = inc access to 0% interest concessional loans + encourage spending in 5 key areas of SDGs
- ODA record hugh 2021 $177.66bn

neg:
- only data on 36/169 tragets → 3 on track/13 too slow/11 no progress/9 regress
- SSAfr only on track for 1 target + prog in 9
- COVID → ODA dec 18% b/c diverted to NIs → 2020 119mil extra ppl back in extreme pov
- debt vs GDP in SSAfr inc 23.4% 2011 → 43.7% 2020
- FDI to LDCs only inc 13% 2021 + proportion = dec 3.5% 2020 → 2.5% 2021
- 2021 ODA avg = 0.33% GNI <1/2

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Explain the difference between realism and cosmopolitanism

A

Realism and cosmopolitanism’s fundamental difference is who should be prioritised in a state’s foreign policy. Realists argue that a state’s primary obligation is to its own citizens and so they should always prioritise the advancement of their own NIs over all other considerations. Meanwhile, cosmopolitanists believe that because humanity is one single community, states should act in the best interest of the greater good, even if this comes at a cost to their own population.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Explain the difference between justice and ethics.

A

Both justice and ethics are both underpinned by a sense of moral rightness, which can be influenced by various ideologies such as cosmopolitanism or realism. However, justice is fundamentally different from ethics in that it seeks punishment when standards of moral correctness, which are based on ethics, law, fairness and equity, are breached. Therefore, the difference between justice and ethics is that justice is the enforcement of ethics.
e.g. 1951 CRSR A38 states take other states to ICJ when convention violated

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Explain the difference between international law and ethics.

A

2 differences = scope + reason behaviour is impacted

1) gl actors have ethics that underpin actions, so scope is limited vs IL either applies to whole IC or broad base of signatories

2) ethics impacts behaviour b/c moral motivation vs IL impacts behaviour b/c legal obligation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Explain the difference between international law and justice.

A

The fundamental difference between international law and justice is their relationship to the concept of ethics. International law, customary and written, seeks to codify ethics by stipulating global actors obligations relating to specific issues. As such, justice is then the response to global actors’ breach of the ethics laid out in international law. Therefore, international law and justice differ in that it is the former’s role to define ethics and the latter’s role to enforce them by seeking punishment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Outline the aim of the Millennium Declaration.

A

To est a common framework for dev thru time-bound goals → guide policies of st + other gl actors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Outline the provisions of the Millennium Declaration

A
  1. Poverty & hunger
    - 1/2 extreme poverty
  2. Education
    - 100% primary edu
  3. Gender
    - gender equity in edu
    - inc fem pol rep
    - dec pay + emp gap
  4. Child mortality
    - dec 2/3
  5. Maternal mortality
    - dec 75%
  6. HIV/AIDS + malaria
    - prevention + treatment
  7. Environment
    - improve sanitation
    - inc access to clean water
  8. Global partnership
    - 0.7% GNI in ODA
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Explain how the Millennium Declaration was enforced

A

Unanimously approved by all UN member st + 22 orgs
→ public pressure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Evaluate the impact of Millennium Declaration on the actions of global actors.

A

Pos:
2015 UK enshrined 0.7% GNI in law

Neg:
only 5 st meet 0.7% GNI by 2014
→ impact limited to few st → X sufficient to motivate other gl actors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Evaluate the effectiveness of the Millennium Declaration

A

Pos:
- exceeded goal of 1/2 extreme pov by 2015
- achieved gender equity in all levels of edu
- ODA inc 66% 2000-14
- accelerated dev
→ rate of reduction of child mortality in SSAfr = x5 faster 2003-15 than 1990-95
- secondary impacts
→ ppl living on >$4/day x3 1991-2015

Neg:
- social inequity → inconsistent progress
→ only 56% births assisted in rural areas vs 71% overall
→ only 36% of HIV patients in dev st recieve treatment
→ women earn 24% less than men
- slow progress w w&s
→ 800mil ppl living in slums
→ diarrhoea = leading cause of death for kids <5yo
- 160 mil kids <5yo = insuff. food

Overall assessment:
A/t X meet goals, process of having common framework + setting time-bound goals → effective at accelerating progress

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Outline the aims of the 2030 Agenda

A

End pov + hunger everywhere, combat ineq w/in + bw st, build peaceful + just soc, protect HR, promo gender eq + ensure lasting protection of environ + nat resources

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Outline the key provisions of the 2030 Agenda

A
  1. No poverty
    - end pov in all its forms everywhere
  2. End hunger
    - eradicate hunger + ensure food sec everywhere
  3. Clean water + san
    - ensure safe + affordable drinking water
    - end open defecation
  4. Decent work and econ growth
  5. Industry, innovation and infra
  6. Climate actions
  7. Peace, justice and strong institutions
  8. Partnerships for the goals
    - 17.2 → 0.7% GNI in ODA, 0.15-0.2% GNI to LDCs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Evaluate the impact of the 2030 Agenda on the actions of global actors

A

A/t 2030 Agenda prov framework/goals for st’s intl dev policy to focus on, st still prioritise own NIs over achieving SDGs.

Pos:
UK pre 2021
- 2015-2020 0.7% GNI in ODA bc enshrined in law 2015
- 2010-19 above 0.15% threshold (above 0.2% every yr except 2012)
- influenced policy = UK DFID:
→ 2015-19 support 51.8mil ppl’s acces to clean W&S + help 14.3mil ppl gain decent edu

Neg:
- 2021 UK aid 2/3 bilat + 90% contracts for aid proj go to Brit cos
- 2021 UK reduce ODA to 0.5% GNI
- 2022 only 5 st meet 0.7% GNI
- Ch only give 0.04% GDP in aid → 60% loans → 20% Afr st foreign debt is from Ch → inc burden
- 2019 Aid Data Report → Ch aid disprop given to pol leader’s birth region = already $$$ → exasperate wealth disp

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Explain how the 2030 Agenda is enforced

A

Voluntary National Reviews
St update abt progress + challenges
→ transparency + support

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Evaluate the effectiveness of the 2030 Agenda

A

A/t sig progress w 2030 Agenda, objective of inc ambition to further acc progress = fail bc inc planning + spending X translate to dev outcomes yet

Pos:
- climate finance inc 10% from 2015-16 to 2017-18
- net ODA record high 2020 at $161bn
- 156 st dev National Urban Policies
- 2018 $2.2tr in R&D

Neg:
- 2020 2.72bn ppl exp food insec
- Nth Am x15 no of nurses/midwives vs SSAfr
- 2bn ppl lack clean drinking water
- 3/4 ppl w/out electricity = in SSAfr
- only 1/2 Nat Urban Policies implemented
- bribery x5 more likely in LICs than HICs
- 2020 avg ODA 0.32% GNI = <1/2 of what is needed

Why?
- bilat + tied aid = less efficient e.g. Ch (Afr’s #1 bilat creditor) give 80% aid as loans → dec efficiency 30%
- pol unwilling to give more ODA esp COVID

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

UK response to issue of development

A

enshrine 0.7% GNI in law 2015
prov >0.2% GNI in ODA to LDCs every yr 2013-19
DFID help vax 56mil kids 2015-17 → save 990K lives
DFID support 52mil ppl access clean W&S
BUT #1 recip = Pakistan (18% budget = mil → ineff use of ODA)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

China’s response to issue of development

A

pos:
- co-ord set of proj (X one-off)
- Ch aid → more econ growth than W proj
- Pres Senegal says he can get contract from Ch in 3 mo vs WB 5 yrs
- pre COVID WB est BRI → boost econ 3.4% in participating st
- Heidelburg Uni est BRI → 7.6mil ppl out of extreme pov
- Maastricht Uni find regions in Afr recieving Ch aid → wealthier pop, longer edu, more edu qualifications

neg:
- only 0.04% GDP given in aid
- 80% aid = loans
- 60% loans = high interest, short maturities + commodity revenues as collateral
- 2019 Aid Data Report → correlation bw Ch aid + birthplace of pol AND bw Ch aid + surplus steel
- #1 bilat creditor in Afr

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Outline the aim of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

A

Est common framework to ensure fair + humane treatment of ref + appropriate responses by states to future ref crises

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Outline the key provisions of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

A
  1. Defines refugee as ‘any person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’ → limits to only 5 reasons (X incl climate change/pov/war) + unclear abt rights/responsibilities in regards to AS
  2. ref entitled to free primary edu
  3. ref entitled to social assistance
  4. prov ref w legal assistance + representation
  5. ref cannot be punished for seeking asylum unless X come dir from st they’re fleeing
    31.2. allows detention of AS when waiting for claim to be processed
  6. non-refoulement
  7. sig st must co-op w UNHCR
  8. sig st must report on new legislation to ensure adherence w Conv
  9. sig st can bring other st to ICJ for breach of Conv – X incl ind or orgs e.g. UN or Amnesty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Explain how the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is enforced

A

A38 stipulates states may bring cases to ICJ if believes another sig st violated Conv

X incl ind or orgs e.g. UN, Amnesty

→ UN multi denouncements of Aus off-shore detention + Op Sov Borders policy but X impact

26
Q

Evaluate the impact of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees on the actions of global actors.

A

impact depends on if ref or NIs = priority

  1. Australia
    Priority = NS → Op Sov Borders
    → using loopholes in 1951 CRSR to evade responsibility → violate A25 by denying legal access for AS intercepted at sea/A33 bc boat turnback/A31 bc punishment thru indef detention
  2. Jordan
    Priority = ref → X sig but upholds principle of non-refoulement (A33)
    → accepted 1.3mil Syr ref as of 2021
27
Q

Evaluate the effectiveness of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

A

A/t 1951 CRSR achieved goal of est common framework, effectiveness = lim bc failed to ensure humane + fair treatment of ref bc X enforcement + loopholes

POS:
- 146 sig
- principle of NF (A33) = accepted as customary intl law even by non-sig e.g. Jordan + India
- Aus enshrined def of ref in law = 1958 Migration Act

NEG:
- A38 has never been invoked
- vague def of ref → X able to access rights stipulated in Conv
e.g. Gr Moria ref camp = 1 meal per day, 4 fams per tent, lim water access, inconsistent edu

28
Q

Details UNHCR’s response to the issue of people movement.

A

• Identify, assess + recommend RS cases using UNCHR RS Submission Categories:
o Legal and/or Physical Protection Needs
o Survivors of Torture and/or Violence
o Medical Needs
o Women and Girls at Risk
o Family Reunification
o Children and Adolescents at Risk
o Lack of Foreseeable Alternative Durable Solutions
• Document refs
• Suggest RS criteria for recipient st to use

29
Q

Details of EU’s response to the issue of people movement:

A

Detail:
• 20 Apr 2015 (response to x2 mjr shipwrecks  kill 1000+ ppl in 1wk) Eur Commission proposed ’10-pt Plan’
o Reinforce Joint Operations bw CGs in Med
o Capture + destroy ppl smuggling vessels
o EASO → deploy teams to It + Gr to assist w processing AS applications
o EU-wide voluntary RS programme
o Est more efficient return programme for irregular migrants
→ 23 Apr 2015 EU HoS agree to x3 Op Triton budget
→ 18 May 2015 EU launched Rome-based op to capture + destroy ppl smuggling vessels
• 22 Sep 2015 EU approved plan to relocate 120K AS over 2 yrs to interior st (except SA non-sig)
o 15,600 from It + 50,400 from Gr + 54,000 from H
• Nov 2015 Paris attacks → Pol’s foreign affairs Min says only accept ref if sec guarantees bc Nov 2015 Paris attacks → Sep 2016 quota system abandoned
• EU-Turkey Deal
o Nov 2015 EU offer T 3bn EUR over 2 yrs → T manage 2mil Syr ref
o Mar 2016 T demand extra 3bn EUR in return for swap deal – EU would accept 1 legal ref for every illegal ref returned to T from Gr
o T involvement in war in Syr + threats to cancel deal → Aug 2016 deal de-facto suspended
• 50% all RS ref gl since 2017 = EU st vs 8% in 2007
• 5/8 st gl w sponsorship programs = EU st
• Accepts sig more ref thru direct asylum claim route than RS
o 2019 – 206,100 asylum claims accepted dir but only 24,815 RS in EU
• EU hosts 1mil of 6.6mil Syr ref
• Eur Council Pres argue ref should be detained up to 18mo
* Balkan route = safer bc on dry land → closed
o Sep 2015 H close border w Serb
o Mar 2016 Slov + Cro also

30
Q

Details of Australia’s response to the issue of people movement

A

• Narau reopened Sep 2012 + Manus Isl Nov 2012
• July 2013 Rudd announce AS arriving illegally X eligible for asylum ever
• Sep 2013 Abbott govt launch Op Sov Border (enforced by ADF) → ‘turn back the boats’ or mandatory detention

31
Q

Detail of Jordan’s response to the issue of people movement

A

• 2021 1.3mil ref (more than all of Eur = 1mil) – 670K UNHCR registered → 7% J pop = registered Syr ref
• 2018 began expanding rights of Syr ref – access to work, aid, edu + legal protection
• 80% ref live in local comm X camps
• 2016 J Compact – J receive $700mil grants/yr from IC + $1.9bn concessional loans + preferential trade deal w EU → J has to triple edu enrolment + emp thru 200K work permits
• June 2016 close border w Syr bc car bombing
→ July 2018 60K attempt to flee renewed fighting but borders closed
→ Oct 2018 border reopened bc #Opentheborders bc maj J support cont assisting ref
• 2020 renewed visas bc COVID
• Jan 2021 reinstated ref access healthcare
• 2021 record # of work permits issued = 62K
• July 2021 allow Syr ref work in all sectors allowed to non-J

32
Q

Israel’s response to the issue of people movement

A

Details:
fortify Golan Heights border w barbed wire + landmines bc ref pop

Rationale:
ref intake undermines J maj → major NS risk

33
Q

Hungary’s response to the issue of people movement

A

Detail:
2015 voted against Eur Comm’s 10pt plan incl EU-wide RS program

Rationale:
Victor Orban believes H can’t accept “Muslim invaders” → “protect its cultural and ethnic homogeneity” + accused ref of being disguised econ mig there to “in reality seek social allowances and jobs”

34
Q

Details of Germany’s response to the issue of people movement

A

• 25 Aug 2015 suspend Dublin Reg rules for Syr ref
• 13 Sep 2015 strengthen border control w Aus → stop ref arriving in sml Ger villages which X have capacity to cope
• Nov 2015 suspend right to fam reunification for AS w low status protection
• Nov 2015 est special reception centres
• Ref intake
o 2015 890K
o 2016 305K
o 2017 187K
• Aug 2017 Merkel pledge 50milEUR to UNHCR
• July 2018 est camps along border w Aus → house AS while wait for status approval + send back those already reg in another EU st
• Ger hosts 59% of Syr ref in EU
• BUT major member of EU → involved in neg w T to dec # of ref arriving In EU at all

Rationale:
Ger has capacity to accept ref → responsibility to relieve burden on border st by accepting ref

Impact:
POS
• Ref intake
o 2015 890K
o 2016 305K
o 2017 187K
• Aug 2017 Merkel pledge 50milEUR to UNHCR

NEG
• July 2016 Af AS attack 20 passengers w knife
• July 2016 Syr AS bombing → injured 12 ppl + he died
• Dec 2016 Tunisian AS drove truck thru xmas market in Berlin  12 killed
• Contributed to EU-T deal 2016
• Ger host 59% of Syr ref in EU → disprop burden

LIMITATIONS
• 13 Sep 2015 strengthen border control w Aus → stop ref arriving in sml Ger villages which X have capacity to cope
• Dec number of ref intake bc Balkan + Med routes close → less arriving in EU at all  lim no of direct asylum claims Ger can accept

Effectiveness:
COSMO
A/t Ger has taken some actions to protect its border sec, very effective at maximising intake of ref + relieving burden on st w less capacity e.g. Gr

REALIST
A/t justifiable bc pop w citizens, ‘open door policy’ X effective bc come at cost of sec e.g. terrorism

35
Q

Details of Canada’s response to the issue of people movement

A

• 2015 Trudeu promise RS 25K Syr ref by end yr  achieved late in Feb 2016
• 2016 RS 47K ref
• 2018 RS 28K (#1)
• 2019 RS 30K (#1)
• Private sponsorship program – in addition to annual quota
o comm raise 1yr social assistance
o govt prov Centrelink (pub income support) + healthcare + Eng classes but comm pays for other RS tasks (eg housing)

36
Q

Outline the aims of the 2018 Global Compact on Refugees

A
37
Q

Economic growth vs sustainable development

A

Fundamentally, the economic growth vs sustainable development debate is about what the ultimate aim of development should be. Advocates of a realist perspective which prioritises economic growth justify their position because maximising economic liquidity is the quickest way to lift people out of poverty and will theoretically supply communities with the capacity to deal with environmental consequences later. Therefore, they advocate an approach that involves exploiting all available resources, deregulation and the privitisation of public-owned industries. They argue that it is unethical to expect developing states to slow economic growth for the sake of sustainability since already developed states were not subject to the same standard and thus this perpetuates interstate inequality. Meanwhile, proponents of sustainable development contend economic growth is important, but long-term impacts on environmental, economic and social conditions must be considered so future generations can also reap the benefits of development. Therefore, cosmopolitanists advocate for an approach that ensures inter- and intra-generational equality by considering economic growth’s secondary impacts on the environment and society and its longevity. They argue that it is unethical to develop unsustainably because impoverished community are more likely to be forced to exploit natural resources which are often non-renewable which then contributes to widening wealth disparity and fails to solve the issue of development. Therefore, while realists argue development should focus on economic growth as to best serve the current population, cosmopolitanists are wary of its harmful reprecussions for future generations.

38
Q

Economic growth vs sustainable development

A

Fundamentally, the economic growth vs sustainable development debate is about what the ultimate aim of development should be. Advocates of a realist perspective which prioritises economic growth justify their position because maximising economic liquidity is the quickest way to lift people out of poverty and will theoretically supply communities with the capacity to deal with environmental consequences later. Therefore, they advocate an approach that involves exploiting all available resources, deregulation and the privitisation of public-owned industries. They argue that it is unethical to expect developing states to slow economic growth for the sake of sustainability since already developed states were not subject to the same standard and thus this perpetuates interstate inequality. Meanwhile, proponents of sustainable development contend economic growth is important, but long-term impacts on environmental, economic and social conditions must be considered so future generations can also reap the benefits of development. Therefore, cosmopolitanists advocate for an approach that ensures inter- and intra-generational equality by considering economic growth’s secondary impacts on the environment and society and its longevity. They argue that it is unethical to develop unsustainably because impoverished community are more likely to be forced to exploit natural resources which are often non-renewable which then contributes to widening wealth disparity and fails to solve the issue of development. Therefore, while realists argue development should focus on economic growth as to best serve the current population, cosmopolitanists are wary of its harmful reprecussions for future generations.

39
Q

Effectiveness of the UN’s response to development

A

A/t effective at setting gl agenda + influenced other gl actors to take action, progress is too slow to achieve set aims.
- IMF adopted SDGs
- PMI set own development objectives modelled on + linked to SDGs
- 156 st create National Urban Planning
BUT
- 2bn still exp food insec
- 800mil ppl in slums
- only 5 st meet 0.7% GNI → $2.5tr funding gap
→ of 35/169 targets that have data, only 6 on track whilst 12 too slow + 5 backwards
T/f UN succeeded setting cohesive framework for dev, X effective bc failed to translate to desired outcomes.

40
Q

Effectiveness of 1951 CRSR

A

A/t 1951 CRSR somewhat effective bc accepted as customary intl law, achievement of aims (define refugee, their rights + responsibilities of states) is limited bc states adhere to provisions inconsistantly bc prioritise sov.
Effectiveness - Jordan accept A33 + give edu + healthcare + work visas (62K 2020)
Lack -

41
Q

Effectiveness of 1951 CRSR

A

A/t 1951 CRSR somewhat effective bc accepted as customary intl law, achievement of aims (define refugee, their rights + responsibilities of states) is limited bc states adhere to provisions inconsistently.
Effectiveness - Jordan accept A33 + give edu + healthcare + work visas (62K 2020)
Lack
- Jordan X give same rights to non-Syr ref (violation of A8)
- Aus use loophole in def of refugee to justify turnbacks + offshore detention = violation of A33 + A31
T/f 1951 CRSR ultimately failed to achieve aim of est clear def of refugee + protecting their rights

42
Q

Rationale for UNHCR’s response to the issue of people movement.

A
  • Ref = in need of RS bc of vulnerability → most vulnerable must be prioritised
  • criteria should be fair + welcoming → maximising RS
43
Q

Impact of UNHCR’s response to the issue of people movement.

A

POS
- 2016 RS 21,499 Syr ref from Jord

NEG/LIMITATIONS
- 2020 COVID only 516 RS from Jord
- 2018 20.4mil ref of concern to UNHCR but <1% RS
- 2018 50% RS submissions concerned children
- pol unwillingness of host st e.g. US:
→ 2016 RS 11K
→ TRump → 2018 RS 19 ppl

44
Q

Effectiveness of UNHCR’s response to the issue of people movement.

A

COSMO
A/t UNHCR helpful bc provide system to help most needy, effectiveness is limited by host st unwillingness (X accepted suggested criteria + X meeting demand identified by UNHCR for RS)

REALIST
A/t actually RS v sml no of ref, nomination process + letting st ultimately decide own criteria = v effective bc able to maximise own NI gain

45
Q

Rationale for EU’s response to the issue of people movement.

A
  • H PM critic It, Ger + FR 2015 call to RS more ref bc believes this will lead to ‘tens of millions’ of mig coming to Eur
  • Sep 2016 quota system abandoned bc Nov 2015 Paris attacks → sec concerns
46
Q

Impact of EU’s response to the issue of people movement.

A

POS
• Arrivals by sea dec - Gr 2015 850K → 2019 58K
• May 2015 – Apr 2016 13K+ migrants rescued from sea + 68 alleged ppl smugglers = arrested
• Arrivals dec 85% 2015-17 + 92% 2015-18
o Sharpest decline = T-Gr route – 97% dec 2015-17
o Arrivals into It dec 35%

NEG
• Migrants crossing Med sea in 2018 = x6 more likely to die than 2015
• End 2017 only 29,401 ref from frontline st = RS
• Dublin Reg maintained disprop burden on border st
e.g Gr
- Mar 2020 32K ppl attempt cross T→Gr → close asylum applications for 1 mo
- Apr 2017 after EU-T deal only 6K AS on Gr isl but still X able to process quickly enough

47
Q

Effectiveness of EU’s response to the issue of people movement.

A

COSMO
A/t EU made some efforts to protect welfare of ref + manage ref crisis by ostensibly targetting ppl smugglers, ultimately worsened ppl mvmt issue bc made seeking asylum more dangerous.

REALIST
Response = huge success bc protect border sec

48
Q

Rationale for Australia’s response to the issue of people movement.

A
  • Primary obligation = protect own pop + terr → ‘open door policy’ for ref jeapordises this → unethical → rigorous screening necessary
  • must punish AS by deporting them to detention centres to deter ppl smugglers
49
Q

Impact of Australia’s response to the issue of people movement.

A

• Nov 2012-Nov 2013 90% reduction illegal maritime arrivals
• 2013-Aug 2021 871 AS on 38 boats sent back incl 124 children
• 2013 20587 AS arrive on boats → 2021 0
* dentention centres on MI + N cost $1bn

50
Q

Effectiveness of Australia’s response to the issue of people movement.

A

COSMO
A/t ostensibly abt deterring ppl smuggling, PS = completely ineffective response bc X humane or fair treatment of most vulnerable ppl. e.g. 2013-Aug 2021 871 AS on 38 boats sent back incl 124 children + bad cond on Nauru + MI

REALIST
A/t neg impact on EP bc cost of off-shore detention, v effective for ensuring OSB → NS bc 2013 20587 AS arrive on boats → 2021 0

51
Q

Rationale for Jordan’s response to the issue of people movement.

A

Moral obligation to ref bc vulnerable - imposs to turn away desperate ppl

52
Q

Impact of Jordan’s response to the issue of people movement.

A

POS
• 63% enrolment rate primary edu
• Acknowledgement that LICs need help dealing w ref crisis - 2016 J Compact
• 2021 62K work permits to Syr issued – sig bc only 38% ref gl have access to formal emp
• Oct 2021 33% ref outside camps fully vax + 55% inside camps

NEG
• 80% Syr ref live below relative pov line + 60% below extreme pov line vs 15% J citizens
• Only 30% enrolment rate HS  Syr ref girls x3 more likely to become child brides vs in Syr
• 2017 > 40% enrolled students X in school – often bc work, transport, poor quality edu, X necessary bc job sectors limited
• Econ growth 6.1% 2000-10  2.4% 2011-18
• Debt 69% GDP 2010 106% 2020 (inc 10% from 2019)
• Unemp 12% 2012  26% 2022 (2021 youth unemp 48%)
• Ref cost J govt $1.4bn/yr = 25% govt budget
• Non-Syr ref X same working rights

LIMITATIONS
• 51% children + 4% elderly  55% can’t be self-sufficient
• 2013 healthcare system overwhelmed  reintro fee system Nov 2014 = same as non-insured J citizens BUT access reinstated in response to COVID
• 2016 J Compact X really implemented
o 2018 UNHCR reports J only received 36% needed funds
o 2019 UNHCR reports J only received 51% needed funds
o 2010 UNHCR reports J only received 56% needed funds
o Only 1% ref resettled in 2020
• Covid
o 68% ref exp reduced income
o Food sec back at 2014 levels – UNHCR report only 2% ref households can meet basic food req

53
Q

Effectiveness of Jordan’s response to the issue of people movement.

A

COSMO
A/t Jord contributions are commendable, failed to fully meet needs of ref bc undue burden

REALIST
A/t ideologically Jord response = effective bc supported by pop, ultimately disaster in a practical sense bc severe EP + NS cost

54
Q

Rationale for Germany’s response to the issue of people movement.

A

Ger has capacity to accept ref → responsibility to relieve burden on border st by accepting ref

55
Q

Impact of Germany’s response to the issue of people movement.

A

POS
• Ref intake
o total 1.4mil ref 2015-17
• Aug 2017 Merkel pledge 50milEUR to UNHCR

NEG
• July 2016 Af AS attack 20 passengers w knife
• July 2016 Syr AS bombing → injured 12 ppl + he died
• Dec 2016 Tunisian AS drove truck thru xmas market in Berlin  12 killed
• Contributed to EU-T deal 2016
• Ger host 59% of Syr ref in EU → disprop burden

LIMITATIONS
• 13 Sep 2015 strengthen border control w Aus → stop ref arriving in sml Ger villages which X have capacity to cope
• Dec number of ref intake bc Balkan + Med routes close → less arriving in EU at all  lim no of direct asylum claims Ger can accept

56
Q

Effectiveness of Germany’s response to the issue of people movement.

A

COSMO
A/t Ger has taken some actions to protect its border sec, very effective at maximising intake of ref + relieving burden on st w less capacity e.g. Gr

REALIST
A/t justifiable bc pop w citizens, ‘open door policy’ X effective bc come at cost of sec e.g. terrorism

57
Q

Rationale for Canada’s response to the issue of people movement.

A
  • 85% ref live in dev st
  • 2018 UNHCR identified 20.4mil ref of concern but <1% RS
58
Q

Impact of Canada’s response to the issue of people movement.

A

POS
• low unemp – 9% for ref vs 6% for Ca-born
• same proportion of ref pop as Ca-pop earn middle-class income 5yrs after RS
• 20 yrs after RS ref contribute more to Ca in income tax than $ received in pub benefits
• 51% ref emp in high-skilled jobs
• 57% ref = 25-54 y/o vs 38% Ca-born → helps w issue of aging pop
• Ref kids perform as well as Ca-born kids @ school
• Ref more likely than Ca-born to have tertiary qualification

59
Q

Effectiveness of Canada’s response to the issue of people movement.

A

COSMO
Majorly effective bc maximising # of ref RS + relieving dev st of burden
(Ca #1 RS st 2018 28K + 2019 30K)

REALIST
Majorly effective bc huge LT EP benefits
(w/in 20yrs ref contribute more to Ca econ in income tax alone than amt spent in soc service upon arrival)

60
Q

Details of 2018 Global Compact for Refugees

A
  • 176 states – the only country to vote against the Compact was the US

aims:
- dec pressures on host countries (e.g. through preferential trade agreements)
- enhance refugee self-reliance (access to labour markets in host countries)
- expand access to 3rd-st sols (RS)
- support conditions in countries of origin for return in safety and dignity.

established Global Refugee Forum (every four years)

61
Q

Effectiveness of 2018 Global Compact for Refugees

A

Superficially acknowledged responsibility of HICs to help share burden of LDCs but insig impact on RS

Pos:
- Led to preferential trade deals b/w EU and Jordan + Ethiopia and Bangladesh

Neg:
- X concrete mechanism for burden sharing → insig impact of RS numbers
e.g. 2020 UNHCR report <1% of 20,000 in need were RS
- 2018 = 55,680 → 2019 = 63,726