UNIT 4 AOS 1 Flashcards
Define national interest as it relates to the study of Global Politics.
Used as an all-embracing concept to justify certain policy preferences and actions, and includes the goals of foreign policy.
Define international society as it relates to the study of Global Politics.
Notion of a ‘society of states’ in which law, order and co-operation form the basis for interaction, and that states work together towards achieving common ideals and goals. The extent to which a functioning and effective international society exists is contentious.
Define justice as it relates to the study of Global Politics.
The concept of moral rightness based on fairness, equity, law and ethics, which, importantly, seeks punishment when said ethics are breached. Most commonly witnessed in the global arena through such global systems of justice as the ICC and ICJ which seek to uphold international law and prevent future violations. (ICC prosecution - Lubanga)
Define ethics as it relates to the study of Global Politics.
Seeks to address questions of morality. This extends to global politics on the basis that a common humanity binds all human beings, beyond individuals in states to the world as a whole, this necessitating certain actions. (UN Charter 1945 - outlines ethical commitments of international community)
Evaluate the international community’s responses to a specific case study in relation to the ethical issue of human rights.
Increasing death toll of over 170,000 people
War crimes (torture, ill-treatment by govt forces)
Referral of Syrian conflict to ICC vetoed by Russia and China
Few aid agencies (NB: set to increase with latest resolution 2165) to assist those in need - 54.3% of population in extreme poverty
- US, Iran and Russia supplying arms/armed those directly involved as to not harm their citizens to protect foreigners
What has been the UN’s response in Syria? Include the dates and resolutions in your answer.
27/9/13 - Resolution 2118 - verification and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles, endorsed establishment of transitional governing body in Syria with full executive powers
22/2/14 - Resolution 2139 - demanded all parties all humanitarian access in Syria and threats to take further steps in case of non-compliance
14/7/14 - Resolution 2165 -Cross-border and cross-line access for UN and partners to deliver humanitarian aid in Syria without state consent and established monitoring mechanism for 180 days
Religious, economic, development and cultural challenges to the universality of human rights.
Religious = Cairo Declaration of HR in Islam vs Universal Declaration of HR.
Economic = HR abuses when economic conditions deteriorate or states seeking economic advancements. (Chinese and Foxconn ‘no suicide’ pacts for economic development to continue) Economic and social > Political and civil liberties.
“States less economically developed should not expect to provide the same political rights as those in the developed West”
Cultural = Western concept with little place in some societies and culture. Asians value debate (1993 Bangkok Declaration) - family of Asian societies, insufficiently supportive of religion. Cultural relativism or excuse for repression????
Principle of universality vs religion
Universality - cosmopolitan school of thought, universalist, fundamental aspect of international law, HR protected by rule of law
Religion - Western values prevalent, cultural and religious context of non-Western countries…
Universal Declaration of HR: freedom of speech, religion, from fear, from want. Article 18: freedom of religion.
Cairo Declaration of HR in Islam: undefined interpretation of Sharia law. Article 10: convert from Islam to other is prohibited. Article 6: Men and women equal in human dignity, but women have duties to perform. Traditionalist family values?
Justifications for humanitarian and armed intervention and the ‘Responsibility to Protect’
Humanitarian intervention - action by one state or a group of states in territory of another state, normally without the consent of the latter
Intervention works against principles of international society, state sovereignty, non-intervention and non-use of force
Libya (resolution 1973)
FOR
- does not breach UN Charter because it does not use force against “political independence” and “territorial integrity” of states
- Intl community has moral responsibility to intervene to protect civilians from genocide and mass killings. When a state fails to protect citizens, they lose sovereign rights
- Instability and HR violations in one part of world can spread to every other
AGAINST
- UN Charter only makes exceptions for use of force in right of individual and collective self-defence
- Greater common good preserved by maintaining ban on use of force -> humanitarian intervention threatens global peace and security
- Intervention rarely driven by humanitarian factors - selectivity in responses
- A state’s citizens should not be harmed to protect foreigners
What are the general perspectives in ethical debates?
Realist = sovereignty above all (anyone who opposed the Libyan, Syrian interventions) Cosmopolitan = human rights above sovereignty (supported Libyan and arguing intervention in Syria)
Describe a disarmament treaty.
Convention on Cluster Munitions prohibits signatory states from all use, stockpiling, production and transfer of cluster munitions, a type of explosive weapon which scatters submunitions over an area. Came into force on August 1, 2010. Signatory states must destroy cluster munitions stockpiles by 2018 and have to enact domestic legislation to carry out provisions (impinges upon legislative sovereignty)
Framework for cooperation and assistance to ensure adequate care and rehabilitation to survivors and their communities, clearance of contaminated areas, risk reduction education and destruction of stockpiles.
113 states have signed or acceded to the convention, 84 are State Parties
US, Russia and China have not joined the convention (3/5 veto powers)
As of 2013, according to the Cluster Munition Monitor, state parties have destroyed 1.03 million stockpiled cluster munitions containing nearly 122 million submunitions. 71% of cluster munitions and 69% of submunitions declared as stockpiled by treaty’s state parties
Non-signatories - US, China, Russia. Non-signatory states represent 80% of worldwide cluster munition stockpiles
Syria has not signed. Human Rights Watch identified 224 cluster munition strikes locations from government forces where government forces from July 2012 until March 2014, in 10 of the country’s 14 governorates
Continued financing of cluster munition production by states party to the treaty - France and Germany: 8 French companies finance CM production, CM manufacturers received equity investments, loans and credits from German banks amounting to approx 1.3 billion euros (early 2011)
Outline an arms control treaty.
- The Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCOC), was established on 25 November 2002 as an arrangement to prevent the proliferation of ballistic missiles.
- The HCOC is the result of international efforts to regulate access to ballistic missiles which can potentially deliver weapons of mass destruction. It is the only normative instrument to verify the spread of ballistic missiles. The HCOC does not ban ballistic missiles, but it does call for restraint in their production, testing, and export.
- Since the signing and entering into force of the HCOC Code in November 2002 in The Hague, (Netherlands) the number of signatories has increased from 96 to 134 (132 UN members, the Cook Islands and the Holy See).
Security vs proliferation
Disarmament or arms control actions that limit the military capability of states may outweigh the importance states place on international ideals of non-proliferation
SECURITY
- China regards to Convention on Cluster Munitions - national defence needs (national interest)
- Finland refusal to sign for defence and security concerns over its border with Russia
- US - ban on CM put lives of military men and women and coalition partners at risk
- Poland - “We need those weapons to defend our territory”
NON-PROLIFERATION
- Threat faced by all mankind
Arms control vs disarmament
ARMS CONTROL
- break security dilemma, whereby states feel that their security is compromised, which makes reduction and control of weapons difficult
- mutual security b/w partners and stability overall
- cost reduction and damage limitation
- maintenance of stability might allow for mutually controlled armament and does not take peace-without-weapons stance
- improve security for parties
- realist perspective
DISARMAMENT
- lower number of weapons
- reduction of number of weapons and troops maintained by state
- cosmopolitan perspective
What is a NGO response in the issue of arms control and disarmament?
International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)
Outline
The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) is a coalition of non-governmental organizations working for a world free of anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions, where mine and cluster munitions survivors see their rights respected and can lead fulfilling lives.
The coalition was formed in 1992 when six groups with similar interests, including Human Rights Watch, Medico International, Handicap International, Physicians for Human Rights, Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation and the Mines Advisory Group, agreed to cooperate on their common goal. The campaign has since grown and spread to become a network with active members in some 100 countries – including groups working on women, children, veterans, religious groups, the environment, human rights, arms control, peace and development—working locally, nationally and internationally to eradicate antipersonnel landmines.
The ICBL monitors the global mine and cluster munition situation (through Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor, its research and monitoring arm), and conducts advocacy activities, lobbying for implementation and universalization of the Mine Ban Treaty, humanitarian mine action programs geared toward the needs of mine-affected communities, support for landmine survivors, their families and their communities, and a stop to the production, use and transfer of landmines, including by non-State armed groups. The ICBL participates in the periodical meetings of the Mine Ban Treaty process, urges states not parties to the treaty to join and non-state armed groups to respect the mine ban norm, condemns mine use and promotes public awareness and debate on the mine issue, organizing events and generating media attention.
Effectiveness
POSITIVE
- The signature of the Ottawa treaty in 1997 (which bans the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of anti-personnel mines) is seen as the campaign’s greatest success. 161 states are party
- Collectively, 87 States Parties of the Mine Ban Treaty have destroyed more than 47 million stockpiled antipersonnel mines, including more than 250,000 destroyed in 2012.
- In 2012, a global total of 3,628 casualties were recorded, a 19% decline compared with 4,474 in 2011.
- The incidence rate of 10 casualties per day for 2012 is a 60% decrease from what was reported for 1999, when there were approximately 25 casualties each day.
NEGATIVE
- The states that have not signed the treaty include a majority of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council: China, the United States and Russia. South Korea, like North Korea, has not signed the treaty, believing the use of landmines to be crucial to the defense of their territory against the other.
- Little progress in actual reduction of mine usage has been achieved. In 2011, the number of landmines dispersed is higher than ever since 2004, landmines being dispersed in Libya, Syria, Israel and Burma
- Belarus, Greece, and Ukraine remain in violation of the treaty after having failed to complete the destruction of their stockpiles by their four-year deadline. Belarus and Greece had a deadline of 1 March 2008, while Ukraine had a deadline of 1 June 2010.
