Unit 4 AOS 1 Flashcards
What is the Realist argument for the debate relating to differing strategies for poverty alleviation?
- What- neo lib/Washington Consensus belief that market is major engine of growth t/f 4 free market + benefits of eco growth trickle down
- Who hold- B, IMF, US
- Aim 4 development- should be eco growth (b/c benefits trickle down + alleviate pov)
- How- trade lib, finance + investment
- WC policies (inc fiscal discipline aka low gov borrowing, tax reform (to inc tax base + reduce marginal tax- aim 2 inc incentive 4 inc earning), interest rate lib (market set), trade lib (reduce barries e.g. tariffs), privatization of state enterprises (e.g. hosp, pub transport), secure property rights, deregulation
What is the cosmo argument relating to the debate about differing strategies for poverty alleviation?
- What- Stockholm Consensus- est 8 principals 4 developing policy-making + based on premis WC = ‘outdated’ + responsible 4 inc inequality + enviro prob
- Principals- GDP growth needs to be focussed on to achieve societal objectives (imp health, edu, employment, security + consumption)
- > Needs to be inclusive/equitable (x leave behind group)- esp b/w wealth groups
- > Enviro stability =MUST
- > Balance b/w market, state + community + inc market regulation (t/f dif groups what equipped to e.g. state= hospital)
- > Social norms dictate what valued in development
- > Global policies imp 2 create framework 4 trade
- > LT macro stability imp t/f need to build pub infrastructure
What is the realist approach to eco growth v sustainable dev (aka what should the priority of development policy be)
- What/Why- eco growth b/c allows community to inc consumption of g+ s + inc quantity b/c eco growth increases employment –> t/f Standard of Living b/c benefits trickle down
- People in poverty need situation improved - unethical not to use resources available which would rectify the situation
- How: policies such as resource exploitation (e.g. deforestation to sell timber or mining) OR promoting industries that allow for exports + minimal regulation of corporations/businesses
- who? IMF, WTO, TNCs
What is the cosmopolitan perspective on the debate sustainable development vs. economic growth?
- What -→ policies should consider inter and intra generational equity
- Why? resources are finite - so if resources are used all at once there is nothing left behind (e.g. timber or mining) + approaches preferencing economic growth are causing environmental damage which will significantly reduce food security/living conditions in the future
- Policies? SDGs + policies for keeping TNCs accountable
- Who? UN, Catholic Church (Laudato Si)
What is the realist perspective on the debate ODA vs. the self-interest of states?
What? States should give ODA in a way that serves their own interests
Why? States main obligation is to their own citizens + ODA is not the best way to combat poverty b/c it creates dependence + COVID/current economic situation means states cannot afford aid
If giving ODA it should be in a manner that benefits the state - better return from middle-income states, should include ties (e.g. using business from donor states) and potentially given as a loan
Who? Australia, USA (under Trump), China, UK (response to COVID-19 and cutting ODA)
What is the cosmopolitan perspective on the debate ODA vs. self-interest of states
What: Developed states should provide 0.7% of GNI in ODA annually w/ 0.15-0.2% allocated to LDCs and the ODA being untied and provided as grants not loans
Why? That is the volume of ODA required to meet the SDGs, LDCs are less capable of attracting FDI (only 1.9% of FDI allocated to LDCs cf. 53.6% to developing economies) + tying aid increases cost of project b/w 15 and 30%, ODA in the form of loans creates ‘debt traps’
Who? UN, UK (prior to COVID), Germany, Denmark
Examples of Cosmo responses to Development
- UN SDGs
- UK 2015-2020 ODA
Examples of Realist approaches to Development
- China
- UK post COVID
International Laws relating to Development
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Millennium Declaration
Details of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
- Aim of law: between now and 2030, to end poverty and hunger everywhere; to combat inequalities within and among countries; to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies; to protect human rights and promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls; and to ensure the lasting protection of the planet and its natural resources. We resolve also to create conditions for sustainable, inclusive and sustained economic growth, shared prosperity and decent work for all, taking into account different levels of national development and capacities.
- Key provisions: 17 goals, 169 targets and 232 indicators as ‘New Agenda’
- How it is enforced: Annual reporting and data collection
- Responses of other global actors to the law: all Member states of UN voted for, adoption by IMF, World Bank, WTO and TNCs (e.g. Phillip Morris, Nissan, Apple)
Strengths of 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
- Unanimous acceptance and approval
- The Agenda defines development as holistic = poverty reduction + inequality + sustainability + economic growth.
- Agenda was negotiated by all countries (low-income, middle-income, land-locked developing countries [LLDCs], small island developing states [SIDS]) and incorporated all previous sustainable development initiatives relating to these countries.
- Gained support of TNCs and IMF
- It endorses the .7% GNI aid target of the OECD and the UN for developed countries and sets a further target of between .15 and .2% of Official Development Assistance to be set aside for least developed countries.
- It established a mechanism for follow-up and review of progress known as the Voluntary National Review supervised by the High Level Political Forum (HLPF) [paragraph 84) and which is to occur at least twice in the 15 years to 2030.
Weaknesses of 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
- Non-binding + not enforceable
- Too many goals and targets so has not resulted in sufficient focus (if everything is a priority nothing is a priority)
- Lack of progress - not on track to achieve any goals by 2030
- Only 35 out of 169 targets have sufficient data to track progress
- Only 6 out of 35 targets are moving at a rate that would result in 2030 achievement of target w/ 5 going backwards
Details of Millennium Declaration
nb MDGS are not in the law, they were developed afterwards in response to the law
- Aim of law = that every individual has the right to dignity, freedom, equality, a basic standard of living that includes freedom from hunger and violence, and encourages tolerance and solidarity
- Provisions = shared responsibility for:
Peace, Security and Disarmament
Development and Poverty Eradication
Protecting our Common Environment
Human Rights, Democracy and Good Governance
Protecting the Vulnerable
Meeting the Special Needs of Africa
Strengthening the United Nations - Impact of law = reframed international definition of development, led to MDGs and eventually SDGs = time bound (for the first time), targets which are reported on annually = transparency
+ key developments in those areas - Lack of impact = did not lead to all OECD states accepting their responsibility = not providing 0.7% of GNI in ODA
What is the difference between realism and cosmopolitanism
Both = ethical schools of thought - attempt to answer the question of how states ought to act
BUT differ in how they see the construction of the world
Cosmo = single community
Realism = arena made up of individual states
T/F differ in what they see as the most important motive for action
Cosmo = common humanity
Realism = citizens
What is the difference b/w justice and ethics?
Both attempt to document morality
BUT justice seeks punishment when morals are breached WHEREAS ethics are attempts to address questions of morality to guide behaviour
States can have different ethics based on beliefs BUT justice is often enshrined in legal systems t/f membership of community (e.g. international community through ICC or UN) requires the state to agree to a defined set of morals that are enshrined in law
International Laws relating to People Movement
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
Global Compact for Refugees
Details of 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
- 146 signatories
defines who is a refugee – Article 1 - “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, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it..” - sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum - e.g. same as citizens with regards to - elementary education, social security and same as other migrants with regards to employment, housing, secondary education and beyond
- Sets out the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum - e.g. provide free access to the courts, provide identity papers and travel documents, respect marriage
- The Convention also sets out which people do not qualify as refugees, such as war criminals.
Key Provisions: - Article 1 – limits refugee status to five grounds listed for fear of persecution, importantly excludes poverty or crisis within the country (e.g. a war or a health crisis or climate)
- Article 31: Refugees unlawfully in country of refuge = Article 31.1 acknowledges that asylum seekers may enter ‘illegally’ but explicitly states that any refuge who does must not be punished for this – but only if they are coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened AND if they present themselves without delay. Article 31.2 allows for the detention of asylum seekers UNTIL they are given refugee status. It also says that refugees may be allowed ot settle in another state
- Article 33: Principle of Non-Refoulement – no state shall expel or return a refugee in a manner where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group or political opinion – i.e. a legitimate refugee cannot be forced back to the place they fled from – NB THIS PRINCIPLE IS ACCEPTED IN CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW (i.e. it is accepted by non-signatories as well as signatories)
Strengths of 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
- definition of refugee widely accepted and ensrhined national law (e.g. Australia)
- principle of non-refoulment accepted even by non-signatory states - e.g. Jordan and India
Weaknesses of 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
- only enforcement mechanism is through ICJ so requires a state to take the case t/f no opportunity for individual to seek justice in event of breach
- loophole of definition - does not deal with asylum seeker/what happens before ‘well founded’
- only deals with refugees once they are in state - most refugees are awaiting resettlement + loophole of while they are in transit (Australia e.g.)
Details of Global Compact on Refugees
Who: 176 states – the only country to vote against the Compact was the US
Aim: Its four key objectives are to:
- Ease the pressures on host countries e.g. through preferential trade agreements
- Enhance refugee self-reliance access to labour markets in host countries
- Expand access to third-country solutions resettlement
- Support conditions in countries of origin for return in safety and dignity.
Provisions:
- Arrangements to share burdens and responsibilities through a Global Refugee Forum (every four years), national and regional arrangements for specific situations, and tools for funding, partnerships, and data gathering and sharing.
- Areas in need of support, from reception and admission, to meeting needs and supporting communities, to solutions.
Weakness of Compact on Refugees
- No concrete mechanisms for burden sharing - i.e. how many refugees should states be resettling
- Has not resulted in increase in resettlement (2017 - year before = 65,108, 2018 signed in Dec = 55,680, 2019 = 63,726) - less than 5% of refugee resettlement needs are met according to UNHCR
Strengths of Global Compact on Refugees
- Led to preferential trade deals b/w EU and Jordan + Ethiopia and Bangladesh
Examples of realist approaches to people movement
- Australia
- Hungary
- Poland
- Israel
Examples of comso approaches to people movement
- Germany
- Jordan
- Canada
