Final Exam
Q1: This is the “what challenge is International Law solving and what is IL? First explain the challenge of international cooperation from the perspectives of a Realist, Neoliberal Institutionalist, other Liberal perspectives, and a Constructivist. Then describe what international law (IL) is: how it’s formed, how it’s similar and different from national law, the distinction between law and politics, etc. Finally, what is your own view of international law, given what you’ve learned thus far? Why do you think about it the way you do?
Realist Challenge of international cooperation rests with relative gains and the prisoners dilemma
"The prisoner’s dilemma is the story of two prisoners who are interrogated separately for an alleged crime. The police have enough evidence to convict both prisoners on a minor charge but need testimony from one in order to convict the other for a suspected major charge. An interrogator tells each prisoner that if one testifies against the other while the other stays silent, the one who testifies will go free—the sentence for the minor charge will be reduced for helping the police. The one who stays silent, however, will get a one-year prison term—the sentence for the major charge. If both testify, both will get six-month prison terms—the punishment for the major charge will be reduced for helping the police. If both stay silent, they will both receive one-month prison terms for the minor charge. Staying silent is referred to as “cooperating” with the other prisoner, while testifying against the other prisoner is referred to as “defecting.”
In short, while the prisoners could cooperate with one another (not testify against one another), with their self interest in mind it is better in their head to defect (testify) if they don't think the other will since they are looking at their best interest (being let free)
Relative gains is the leverage that another state gains over the others in a certain interaction. This is a focus for the states because from a Realist perspective cooperation is not feasible and complying with other states only happens when a more powerful state makes them
“Realists highlight the important role that state power plays in eliciting compliance with international law. States do not simply choose to comply with international law. Instead, they comply because more powerful states make them” (Mingst-Elko McKibben, 242).
Liberal perspective:
Cooperation is crucial and they encourage it because they view it to be in their best interest
Constant interactions between states in the international system helps them to form a symbatic relationship causing cooperation with those states to be more in their self interest
IGOs play a large role between the states so that they can keep their mutual relationship and establish a good relationship for in the future
Behavioral standard is created as a shining beacon for all other nation states to follow
Constructivist perspective: (Get quotes for all the perspectives)
Constructivist are pretty neutral to whether conflict or cooperation will be more likely to happen
The norms of the state dictate the states democracy and how to shapes the countries' identity which dictates how they will cooperate in the international community
Democracies generally have a mutual expectation of nonviolence and compromise which works well for cooperation
When these norms changed, or democracy backslides this is when cooperation can falter
Q1 What is IL and what describes IL
IL is principles, norms, rules and decisions making procedures so that states and political actors work with each other to around an issue or topic
It is formed by Treaty Law which nation states can sign/ratify treaties like the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan (1994) or the Climate Convention by the UN the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) or through customary law
IL has similarities to international law due to VIP (someone who; is important and can hold leverage over decisions) but is different due to its operating in the horizontal legal order due to the anarchial nature of the international system (vs a vertical one where one party has power) over those below it
It's different form politics because law is policy choice that has been formalized through procedure and politics is policy choices that result from the exercise of power and influence
(PP IR 14) Horizontal legal order: The "subjects" are states that have power
If you have state consent, almost anything is possible
Q2: This is the structure of the global judicial system and how well it works remember to use key terms!!! First describe the development of the global judicial system’s structures and institutions (ICJ, ICC, nation-state, and local courts). What are the differences between arbitration and adjudication? Why might a nation-state prefer to use one over the other? Do international legal institutions increase international justice? Explain how you can answer this question “yes” and then explain how you can answer this question “no”.
Development of the global judicial system and its institutions
Arbitration: 3rd party conflict that may or may not utilize laws to resolve the issue; supported by international treaties and is fast and effective but can lead to delays
Stated with Merchant Law where medieval merchants could settle their disputes even when they came from and traveled all over Pro: (didn't require them to stay in once play, go back how or to the court)
Pro: Many treaties (especially those between western states) developed which allowed nation-states to arbitrate their differences instead of war
Eventually the 1899 Hague Convention for disputes and the Permanent Court of Arbitration was developed and still used today
Adjudication: The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) was made in 1922 and in 1945 it transitioned to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
The International Criminal Court was made in 2002 to replace having to have a tribunal (a court of justice) every time something bad happened which very costly
Arbitration and Adjudication differences and why states might favor on over the other
Arbitration: 3rd party conflict resolution that may or may not utilize laws
It is preferred because it usually has less delays, preferred by both sides are willing to talk out their problems and cooperate to come up with a solution
If the case settled in arbitration is does not generate as much publicity (its more private) as it would if it was filed through the ICJ or the ICC
Adjudication: Legal rules to resolve conflict and are almost always binding
Maybe one side might want the case to be public to make the VIP kick in; perceived self-interest is specifically powerful and informal sanctions from other countries can hurt their soft power
Can be useful when one country does not want to cooperate
Non-commercial disputes can be tried better in this way
Pro international legal system working:
International persecution of piracy (it is taken very seriously and is seen as "the enemy of all mankind" )
Countries usually don't go to war with each other due to the ability to mediate through things like arbitration which is a quicker and more cost-effective solution than going to war
When states for alliances like the EU, NATO and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) they agree to cooperate with one another to influence international law norms and the leader of the group makes sure they follow the laws
Con of International Legal system:
Due to most states existing in a horizontal legal system, there is no one leader that enforces the international legal system and compliance is solely based on VIP
Ex: Do countries really need to extradite criminals that other countries want? Turkish officials fled to Greece and Greece granted them asylum instead of making them go back to Turkey
Q3: *key terms!!
First describe each aspect of the Just War Theory: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, Jus post Bellum. What is the significance of each of these and the significance of the idea of a “just war”? What are the complexities when apply Just War Theory to cyberwarfare? Which of the political theoretical perspectives most clearly resonates with Just War Theory in your opinion? Explain why you see it this way
Jus ad Bellum: War is a last resort and needs to be declared by a legitimate authority. Has to be in self defense of for ultimate justice, and or/must be fought to bring peace
Jus in Bello: Focuses on how combatants should act Must distinguish between combatants and civilians and make sure that the force used to combat the threat is appropriate
Jus post Bellum: correct actions after war Only punish those actually responsible for war/war crimes, terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights initially violated (no revenge surrender
Significance of "just war theory - bellum iustum":
The origin: Just War lies within Christianity (very western and rooted in Christianity because they were told that they could inhabit non-Christian lands and used Just War as a justification for converting as many pagans as possible to Christianity
It's bold idea that Just War exists because war is a multifaceted idea that has many different angles to it; along with most of the people deciding on things like Just War do not involve the input of marginalized groups
Complexities of Bellum Iustum to cyberwarfare:
Due to its integral part in basically every-nation state's government and role in IR cyberspace is part of critical infrastructure
Cyberwarfare has become increasingly common and cooperation at the global warfare regarding it has been limited
Cyberwarfare and cybersecurity have transnational components where the traditional components of Bellum Iustum is very unclear
Which political theoretical perspective resonates with the Bellum Iustum the most and why?
Liberalism: Humans are social and intelligent creatures that can live and cooperate together to further their human rights and cooperation
While we live in an anarchical society we're connected together for better or worse by interdependence, the Bellum Iustum and the tenets of that is proof
Q4: What is war? What causes war? Each author/reading here will answer these questions differently. What answer might each give? Then compare their ideas with each other.
What is war?
Conflict that is more lethal than other organized forms of violence (MEM
Both/all sides in the conflict need to have some capacity to harm one another but the ability to harm does not need to be equal (MEM
Deliberate organized violence by an identifiable political authority (MEM)
Conflict declared by a legitimate authority where the use of power is proportionate to the threat (based on Bellum Iustum theories)
Mekhennet states that war is when marginalized voices or those who are generally under looked decides to strike back in order to right wrongs, they believe have been committed against them
What causes war?
From a Realist perspective they believe that war is inevitable and is in fact natural and can be made better or worse depending on the power imbalance/balance (MEM)
From the Liberal perspective they believe that a lack of interdependence and trade (the inverse of the commercial peace theory) can make states more prone to violence (MEM)
Constructivist: Believes that social identities can also play a role in whether a state goes to war or not (ex: North Korea and Switzerland) (MEM)
Many times, the doctrine of discovery caused war as Christian authorities used God and religion to justify starting conflict and seizing land, all in the name of God and spreading their religion (Lec)
Mekhennet says when people feel as though they need to right a wrong or alternatively when marginalized voices are not included in the discussion or implementation of solutions to widespread issues
Q5: Compare conventional war to nuclear war Is it possible to use nuclear weapons without causing a full-scale nuclear war? How? How likely are we to experience a nuclear war in your lifetime? How likely are we to experience a conventional world war in your lifetime? Explain using examples
Comparing conventional war with nuclear war (lec)
While conventional war spares civilians which follows the Jus in Bello Just War Theory a nuclear weapon doesn't
Conventional war leaves room for non-combatants (civilians) the ability to survive in peace but nuclear war does not allow this
Nuclear war is difficult because it doesn't follow the Just War Theory of Jus in Bello but the proportionality of using a nuclear weapon first is arguable at best and unjustifiable at worst
Is it possible to use nuclear weapons without causing full on nuclear war? (MEM 6)
Potentially by obliterating one side before the other is able to strike back and defend themselves and hope that their enemies do not strike back. This is a method of deterrence by the threat of MAD (Mutually assured destruction - means that if done both will completely annihilate one another)
How likely are we to experience nuclear war in our lifetime?
Not very likely, MAD, already existing defense treaties such as NATO, MAD, and the general power of the general hegemony are quite convincing reasons not to go to war
We also live in a liberal international world order, while cooperation may be punctuated by war, we are too globalized to start another world war there would be too much damage
How likely are we to experience conventional world war in my lifetime:
Collective security make world war less likely
Arms control helps to prevent this (international control/limitation of the development production, stockpiling, and usage of weapons)
Having continued balancing of power by nation states of their own accord and IGOs also help to prevent this
Conclusion not very likely
Q6: Terrorism Terrorist tactics have been used for centuries. Describe the complexity of why people or states might choose to use terrorism today and in what ways? Under what circumstances? Do terrorist tactics ever achieve “good” results for those who use them? Explain how you can answer both “yes” and “no” to this question.
Why states/people might choose terrorism today and how it is carried out:
Guerilla Warfare
Holding hostages
Inflict terror into the hearts of civilians to affect their leaders
Bombing
Advance political motives and personal/religious values
Under what circumstances do actors turn towards terrorism:
Religious reasons, when they believe people are complicit in things that are grievously morally wrong
When a marginalized is not involved in the solution
Desire for self determination
Do they ever achieve anything?
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter
Ex: Hamas standing up for Palestine, the French and American revs.
Q7: What are the various aspects of what makes human rights a leading transnational issue?
What makes human rights one of the leading transnational challenges to the world?
UN Peacekeeping operations also can't be everything at once, and is very hard to pinpoint one thing for them to do when dealing with systematic issues
Force is often not the preferred method of peacekeeping as use of force does not equal peace but R2P states otherwise and the UN should theoretically do this more often but it's not stressed by the states so it doesn't happen
It is very difficult to decide what to do when human rights are violated, while there is a general agreement that nation-states should not be allowed to commit things like genocide
Why is the issue so complex and difficult to solve?
Humanitarian intervention, based on the just war theory and R2P directly contradicts the Westphalian view of state sovereignty (believes they have exclusive sovereignty over their territory)
R2P has its own set of issues, such as what justifies state intervention? How violent and what way should the UN intervene
There's also the idea of cultural relativism, where human rights look different there are human rights violations that are justified by culture (ex: Sati funeral pyre burning - burning wives on the funeral pyres of their husbands or widow burning)
Who's responsibility is it to respond to human rights violations? Many states decide to not take responsibility
Which political theory is best suited to solve this problem?
I believe that liberalism and constructivism combined would be the most effective way to solve this problem
Liberalism believes that humans are inherently good and can cooperate for the best
Constructivism believes that the identities and definitions that make up respective entities and their soft powers
The UDHR (Universal Dec. of Human Rights) and IL all are due to the establish systems to help combat this issue
How can definitions translate into real help (constructivism):
International regimes such as the International Human Rights Regime or Int. Human Rights Law are made up of norms and pre-established structures and decision making around which actors goal get combined
If norm setters are able to converge to make IL and stick to it, more countries will be willing to follow IL and the VIP
The social and cultural norms are responsible for IL and Humanitarian Law
Q8: What are the efforts the international community has made to identify and stop human rights violations?
Efforts of the international community:
Racial Discrimination - Convention that ended Apartheid (International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid or hereinafter Apartheid Convention)
Rights of Women - CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against women
Human Trafficking - Abolition of the Slave Trade
Refugees - 1951 Refugee Convention
Children - Rights of the Child
Physical Security - Convention against Genocide and Cruel and Unusual Punishment and the Geneva Conventions
Who's responsible for finding abuses and stopping them?
Usually its IGOs and NGOs that find and alter to a human rights violation, nation states are more likely to point out other human rights violations and ignore their own
The UN and its appropriate branches are the ones that are responsible for "stopping" and internationally calling out abuses
Also the international community usually calls on the offending country trying to use VIP to their advantage
What has worked?
Over the development of the international community many soft methods that have been used are econ. sanctions, diplomatic talks, and military or econ. aid with human rights incentive
What hasn't worked?
Sometimes the UN is complicit or feeds into human rights violations even ones that they were sent to stop
Stopping everything at once while trying to do it peacefully but also possibly commit acts of violence is very complicated to nagivate
Local governments can withdraw permission for them to be there that too can create situations of hostility
Q9: Summarize multiple aspects of what makes the environment a transnational issue:
What makes it a transnational issue?
It affects everyone no matter what nation state you belong to as well as it causing inhabitable land which causes the issue of being able to tackle what to do with climate migrants due to their inability to go home because of the extensive damage which makes the responsibility of providing asylum in the hands of other states (Nabenyo)
Why is it hard to solve?
No one country is to blame and no one wants to take responsibility due to the cost of rehabilitation so it creates a tragedy of the commons
Which political theory best solves this issue?
I think that liberalism best solves this issue do to their need to cooperate with others which could help solve the tragedy of the commons - as there is success with cooperation like the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer which shows that cooperation between the states can have benefits
What do Christian Environmentalists contribute to the discussion?
They argue that anthropocentrism (believing that humankind is the central most important thing) is potentially sinful and the reason we are suffering from climate change
Humans are Gods creations not seperate or above
The Great Commission and Compassion for God's Creation; part of how we are supposed to care for dominion
Nordhuas' suggestions
The best hope for the effective implantation of the climate club where nations agree to strong steps to reduce carbon emissions to stop climate change and put strong penalize on those who dont cooperate
Due to the fact that while there has been some success with the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement but due to the fact that it is only operating on VIP
Summarize the various aspects of what makes global population dynamics and migration leading transnational challenges?
Population is not spread equally across the world, much as todays population growth is concentrated in countries where the existing infrastructure can't support it specifically LDCs (least developed countries)
The overall global north and global south population divide, population growth is not where the most societal improvements lye
Why is it difficult to solve?
According to the UN everyone including venerable people should be allowed basic human security to live and migrate with dignity
Unfortunately as we face the issue of state/national security and the limits of not wanting to take in more migrants but the international community pressures nation states to comply which impacts sovereignty
Accelerating demand for natural resources
In other parts of the world there is a population decline
Political theory to solve problem?
Liberalism because they believe in the inherent good in humans and that working together for the common good is the best idea
What does Nabenyo add?
They are from Turkana, a nomadic-pastoralist community who has been ignored by the gov. and therefore these people are very hesitant to trust their gov.
They also are in a place where climate change is drastically affecting their quality of life, their overall environment is getting worse
Classified as forced migration
Why is global health a transnational issue?
You need stability to fight diseases, hence why disease that normally were thought to be eradicated pop up during times of war when a country's infrastructure is destroyed
Global health is now though of as an international issue that every nation should take care of but this undermines the states sovereignty
Why is it hard to solve?
Malthus’s observations led him to believe that the decline of living conditions in the 19th century was because of overpopulation of young and the inability of resources to keep up with the growing population
While the Malthus Dilemma was ultimately proven to not come to fruition in the way that he imagined it the unbalanced population group in the world still is a heavy burden to bear
Unbalanced population growth means that much of the growth is happening in LDCs where the existing population is already unstable and social security nets formed by the government are little to none
Political theory to solve issue:
Constructivism believes that the identities and definitions that we make up give respective entities their (soft) power
Liberalism believes that humans are inherently good and can work together to advance the common good
Internally Displaced People are gaining more and more attention as time goes on, even though legally they aren’t protected internationally the accepted norms around that is changing