the Basics
where does the legitimacy of Ios come from concerning 1) knowledge 2) multilateralism and 3) elections
1) by virtue of being manifestations of multilateralism, IOS are seen as representative of the entire planet
2) Knowledge - they are composed of experts in thier respective fields and therefore can present objective points of view
3) they are appoitned rather than elected, meaning they will make attempts to avoid dirty politics
According to Mearsheimer what is the only reason states would enter into cooperation through IOS? Can you provide an example?
To achieve relative gains while minimizing the risks associated with an informal agreement through the punishment /defection mechanisms of IOS. This would be done to enhance their security or potentially balance against common threats. Nevertheless he does not believe cooperation is truly powerful.
For instance, Japan caught up to the US and Russia in the 1980s economically. Immediately, America put a 60% tariff on Japanese cars and America went to the WTO to try and charge copyright rules that would disproportionately negatively impact Japan.
If you say trick question - they wouldnt that also counts
What is Barnett and Duvall's theory of power in global governance concerning whether IOS and states are the sole drivers of international relations and organizations? Provide an example to illustrate.
Barnett and Duval theorize that non-governmental actors like transnational activists or civil society organizations can use ideational power and productive power when they utilize rhetorical, symbolic and shaming tactics to influence state behaviour and compel complaints with certain norms and values. A good example of this is how activists successfully pressured the Clinton administration to sign the landmine treaty. They used symbolic meanings and shaming tactics like public awareness campaigns to instruct people on the devastating humanitarian impact of landmines in order to mobilize more people to apply pressure on the US government to potentially change their actions and sign the treaty.
What is Ian Hurd's theory about symbolism in politics? Use the ICC or the status of "country" to illustrate.
Because the UNSC and the UN are considered legitimate by virtue of being a hub of all the big players in international politics and their expertise and thus their belief in the institution's authority, they can confer authoritative power to symbols in international politics. By possessing authoritative power, these symbols are able to effectively influence behaviour and norms without the need for military coercion.
The ICC represents a quintessential example of the UN being able to imbue arbitrary things with symbolic importance. While the ICC lacks any enforcement mechanisms, its rulings still have symbolic significance because they can alter the behaviour of international leaders and actors. Our 72 countries accept its rulings because of its capacity to provide a legal framework that prioritizes accountability over politics and reduces power dynamics. Thus, when the ICC indicts someone, its rulings are considered legitimate and binding and will encourage actors to act in accordance with them. For instance, the indictment of Sudanese President Omar-Al-Bashir for war crimes led to several African states refusing to allow him to travel to their nations under the guise of arresting him and ceasing communication with him. A recent example happened with Netanyahu having to drastically alter his flight path and avoid Canadian airspace to get to the USA, as Canada said they would uphold the ICC's decisions.
The status of being called a country is also significant because it allows for a country to announce itself as a sovereign state under international law so it can participate in treaties and agreements, but also so it can defend itself, and get access to aid and development. It changes how these states are treated by other entities in the international system. For instance, Palestine and Kosovo are currently observant states to the UN and not officially recognized as countries. If they were, they would be able to block Israel and Serbia from seeking to restore them, annex them, or take them back, or whatever you think about that situation and there would be more laws to govern their relationships in general.
what is Severeine Austerre's argument about social frameworks and their effect on peacekeeping procedures? What is the most notable example of social framing used by the UN? Provide an example related to the Congo.
IOs produce social frames/ frameworks that shape international actors' perceptions of a problem, which skews the potential solutions for that problem. By creating these social frames, international actors' understanding of these is changed; thus, their behaviour, practices and routines are altered. These frames then become more pertinent the more they are involved in discourse. The most notable example is when the UN labels something as "post-conflict" because it alters international actors' perceptions of violence in a nation. Actors come to interpret the environment as peaceful and thus adopt strategies for peaceful environments, which are counter-intuitive due to the ongoing conflicts that they are then unprepared for, which in turn undermines effective peacebuilding.
The Unlabelled the Congo as a post-conflict environment, which then implied that the worst of the conflict was over as a result of the peace agreement signed by Pretoria in 2002. Therefore, international actors were under the impression the Congolese war was over, leading them to prioritize macro-level solutions like installing free and fair elections and national-level policy concerning state building and large-scale interventions. These ultimately proved to be problematic because they did not address the continued violence, instead diverting resources from addressing the still ongoing conflicts, which made these issues remain unresolved.
what are norms in international relations according to Ian Hurd? provide an example. What is the most important norm?
Norms are recipes, perceptions or belief systems for how individuals ought to react to specific situations or what ought to be done. Norms can manifest as rules which designate how to move in a society and its etiquette, like not committing crimes, or they can be legally enmeshed within a country's legal system and become state legislation which is formalized. For instance, things like the security dilemma and its effect on cooperation and trust are all norms internalized by countries that affect what they ought to do, be it in this case that they ought to become more military powerful and use their resources to bolster their strength.
The most important norm is legitimacy!
what are the basic elements of John Mearseinheimer's realism theory concerning the nature of international politics, the primacy of states, what their interests are and how they spend their money? How, according to him, does his affect the capacity for countries to work together in IOs?
Mearsheinheimer's realist theory pre-supposes that all states exist in an anarchic state of the world wherein there is no large mediator between countries to prevent conflict. As a result, he believes that the states are the big players in international relations because they recognize the security dilemma they are in and that there is nothing restricting one country from taking another's sovereignty. As a result, countries are going to be concerned with protecting their sovereignty no matter what and will thus be focused on relative gains (getting more power, money etc than others) rather than absolute gains in order to ensure they have more than others to protect themselves. Moreover what states do get in terms of gains they will always put towards their offensive military capabilities in order to ensure they have a system to protect themselves.
BEcause Ios are a bundle of states, the potential for cooperation within them are limited by the inherent interests of states. States would only be interested if it served their security interests and could cut down on instances of mobilizing costs like the US' involvement with NATO during the Cold War. These things together constrain the capacity to create lasting alliances because states are always trying to get one up on each other in order to ensure their protection.
Explain Voeten's theory of the elite pacts. 1) what is it? 2) how are the P5 an example 3) how does this impact how governments take action 4) what 2 things do elite pacts rely on?
An elite pact is an agreement among a select group of powerful actors to stabilize a system with rules and mechanisms for conflict resolution. The P5, with their powers of veto that can prevent resolutions, their capacity to interpret articles and what constitutes threats to peace and article 51 when self-defence is legitimate, provides the P5 with a lot of power on being able to decide Because the P5 have such a substantial role in determining what can be done and what cannot be done within international relations, other countries are concerned about the consequences of their military actions as when the P5 agree on a specific action it gives it moral legitimacy for the world to follow without fear of consequence. The P5 additionally are concerned with ensuring the norm of compliance to make sure people actually respect their decisions.
The success of elite pacts, in this case, the p5, rests on 1) actors' self-reinforcing compliance, meaning they adhere to the established norms and agreements because doing so aligns with their interests and expected benefits. Otherwise, if actors cheat, that will mean the elite pact loses its effectiveness as actors will not be able to trust one another to not cheat again.2) Secondly, it relies on the actors in the P5 actually recognizing that it is actually important for their security
Explain the symbolic significance of being a UNSC member, having an item on the summary statement and peacekeeping?
Why do states want to capture symbols /symbol-making?
What do these elements go to show about the UNSC?
1) The symbolic significance of being an unsc member lies in its proximity to the P5. Although p-5 has centralized decision-making, non-permanent members value these positions because they gain the ability to appear at the center of important things and thus bolster their legitimacy as a global power. For instance Brazil as a burgeoning power covets the non-permanent membership because they gain proximity to the P5 and can participate in high level discussions that may influence the agenda, both of which combine to enhance Brazil's international prestige.
2) Although the summary statement may have no practical power because items are rarely brought up again, possessing an item is said to be valuable because it represents an institutional acknowledgement of the problem being recognized by the international community and the P5 thus implying that the issue is significant enough to warrant attention from the international community which enhances its legitimacy and status. For instance, Pakistan actively emphasizes the India-Pakistan issue as being the oldest issue on the UN agenda in order never to let it fall off the agenda so Pakistan can remain visible and legitimate in the eyes of the international community as a real problem needing to be addressed.
3) Peacekeeping works as a trademark in the sense that its label conveys legitimacy and quality military operations, wherein the UNSC control its use. Peaceckeeprs are tehrefore treated as a UN entity that marks the end of conflict and constrasts with imperialism, it has an aura of respect. Hence why, Russia painted their vehicles white and helmets blue in their operations in Tajikistan, recognizing that the blue helmets convey a certain level of authority.
Since symbols have authoritative power, by convincing audiences that their understanding of norms has legitimacy, states are able to shape narratives, proton their interests and potentially foster compliance. For instance, the US' bold eagle and its promotion of democracy as a universal value became powerful symbols the US could use to justify interventions in other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, wherein they could argue that spreading democracy was a moral obligation with international and domestic support.
Since the UNSC controls the release of peacekeepers and what stays on the agenda, it perhaps dispels the idea that the international system is entirely anarchic as the UNSC is a recognized center of authority that wields powerful symbols which have tangible effects. If you factor in other institutions like the ICC, this bolsters the point.
What is the main norm that Barnett believes the UN falls susceptible to in its peacekeeping dealings? How does this create complex issues for the UN? Provide some examples of the norm of neutrality impeding sufficient peacekeeping duties.
The main norm that Barnett believes the UN falls susceptible to is the norm of neutrality, wherein the UN believes humanitarian aid cannot favour one side of an armed conflict over another in their distribution of aid and thus this ideology of impartiality ruins the capacity for aid even during the genocide. This results in the UN often being complicit in letting atrocities unfold, as their inaction undermines the humanitarian principles of alleviating suffering and upholding the UNDHR. This is made more complex by the fear of invading another country's sovereignty.
The most notable examples of the norm of neutrality failing can be found during the initial Yugoslavia conflict in 1991, wherein they approved operation-shoot-to feed, which explicitly told soldiers to protect the food and resources being distributed but not the people, allowing for more deaths to happen in the process because they did not want to seem like they were picking sides. During the Srebrenica massacre, the peacekeeping forces did not attempt to subdue or protect people leading to thousands more dying at the hands of the Bosnian-Serbs In Rwanda, the UNSC deemed that genocide was taking place so as to seem like they were neutral despite the conflict desperately needing military invention and not just doctors being thrown into the carnage.
According to Barnett and Finnemore what are epistemic communities and can they effectively do within international organizations? Provide an example to illustrate.
Epistemic communities are groups of experts who use academic language and have specialized knowledge in a specific area of concern relating to international organizations/ relations. For instance, this can range from expert economists working in the World Bank or IMF to people with extensive knowledge of labour rights and laws working in the ILO. Because they are experts, the knowledge of epistemic communities is considered objective or neutral and, therefore, is effective at depoliticizing intense issues. For example, when international organizations use numbers, they reduce complex political issues in quantifiable metrics that might not be sure of the underlying socio-economic factors. This is present in areas like 1) the World Bank's Doing Business indicators, which rank countries based on how easy it is to do business there, making complex problems look simple 2) the World Bank's estimates concerning poverty being 8.5% but absolute poverty meaning people making more than 2.15 a day,
what does Mearsheimer view the role of the strongest states being within IOS? Provide an example to illustrate
Mearsheimer believes that the strongest states will always have the highest say, as, without them, the international institutions are unable to function effectively. Mearsheimer believes that the strongest states will effectively use these platforms to flex their military rights and economic power in order to shape rules and promote their agendas while maintaining a semblance of multilateralism. Great powers will be able to steer the interests of weaker countries who may bandwagon towards them in voting decisions out of fear of punishment. For instance, the P5 HAVE THE POWER TO EXERT SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE OVER INTERNATIONAL SECURITY DECISIONS THROUGH THEIR VETO POWERS AND THEIR CAPACITY TO INTEREST ARTICLE 7 AND ARTICLE 2.7
How do elite pacts work (Mention their power of veto) ? Why would this mean that the pact cannot be depoliticized? Provide an example. Nevertheless why is the elite pact an important form of international governance?
Because states are self-interested actors with their own agendas, they intend to make decisions that benefit their own security, and the security of their client states over international security. As a result, elite pacts function through making side payments and negotiations amongst elite pact members wherein they leverage their veto power to either prevent resolutions or perhaps achieve some sort of future benefit. For instance when, the US was intent on establishing a tribunal in 2008 in Lebanon to try the leader of Syria, AL-Assad, for an attempted assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. However, Russia threatened to veto the establishment of a tribunal in order to protect their asset, Al-Assad. As a result they settled for a Tribunal that would try Hezbollah officers.
Although the UNSC is not a debate forum, and every action is pre-determined through side payments, bargaining and leveraging veto power, it is still significant because it is the sole form of international governance that actually exists with the potential to have countries comply and it is ran by the five most powerful countries in the world. Since the P5 can legitimize law and actions through articles 7,2.7 and 51, assuming they collectively agree on a resolution, states can take actions internationally that will not face domestic resistance and will be recognized as justified for maintaining international order. Additionally, punishment for betraying the decisions of the elite pacts is always possible through sanctions or trade wars. In many ways, this is unprecedented.
what is Hurd's argument concerning the power the UNSC has concerning international law? However what is a potential drawback of this?
Hurd argues that by virtue of the UNSC having the power to interpret Articles 7, 2.7 and because Articles 25 and 45 force member states to abide by UNSC resolutions, the NSA has disproportionate power in international law and especially in deciding what constitutes an international threat. Therefore when creating resolutions the P5 often push for vague resolutions so they can interpret them in the future for their personal benefit.
The inherent drawback, however, is that the P5 have diverging interests, and this disagreement will often lead to extensive uses of vetoes, which in turn prevent the council from taking action on certain issues and influence which resolutions are prioritized. Therefore, the power of the UNSC is inherently limited by the interests of the P5, and vetos can block any issue; thus, the UNSC is frequently hampered by the need for consensus among its most powerful members. For instance, this can lead to a ceasefires not being passed in the case of the US vetoing a ceasefire in Israel or in the case of the Russia and Syria Civil War, Russia has vetoed multiple resolutions aimed at addressing the crisis.
What does Alexander Bellamy think the issue is with the modern interpretation of R2P? How is the ICC involved ? Provide an example.
Additionally what are 3 reasons that military R2P might be avoided?
According to Louis and Maertens what is an inherent issue with the way Ios compartmentalize issues? can you provide an example.
International organizations often offer piecemeal solutions in the sense that the various bureaucracies, departments, and agencies within these organizations have responsibilities relative to different aspects of social life. As a result of these different focuses from different organizations/ wings, each might focus on different aspects of an issue, leading to a fragmented understanding of a complex problem wherein the root cause is not effectively addressed. For instance, concerning environmental damage, each Io's focus, be it the ILO on uneducated women, poverty and labour laws, or the IMF and World Bank's ideas concerning globalization and policies, might result in the complexity of the problem being oversimplified factors and obscuring critical elements like corporate corruption and multinational corporations which will, in turn, hinder effective solutions that require more inter-connected understandings of this issue.
Besides Mearsheimer's and realists belief that IOs will always serve the interests of the big players rather than the small ones, what is another issue he has with the IOs concerning compliance? Provide an example
Since IOS lack the capacity to enforce compliance with their rules, he believes they are toothless, and thus, most states, especially the big players, will prioritize their own national security interests over the rules of international institutions, making cooperation even more fraught. For instance, despite the UNSC and UNGA's condemnation of the Iraq invasion in 2003, the US and its allies proceeded with military action, demonstrating that power states can bypass IOs when their interests are at stake and that IOs often fail to constrain the behaviour of great powers, rendering them ineffective in the face of national interests. In essence states will still do what they want if they think it is in the best interest of their national security.
Although the P5 seemingly have such a dominant control of international instiutitons -what is Stedman's theory concerning soft-balancing and how does it explain why countries would even want to join the UN? Provide an example of countries using the UNGA to soft balance.
Stedman suggests that countries seek to join the UNGA in order to soft balance against the world hegemon, the USA, in order to counterbalance their dominance in international affairs. Soft balancing refers to a non-military way for smaller states to undermine larger states. The UNGA, in particular, is chosen because every country has a say, and together, they can collectively voice their concerns and preferences against larger countries. For instance, suppose you were in Canada. There is no way to militarily balance against the US, they are far too powerful and can invade the cities of Canada. The only solution is to soft balance.
For instance, the UNGA's overwhelming support of the resolution demanding Israel end its occupation in Palestine on September 19, 2024, demonstrates a clear pushback against American hegemony, attempting to subdue their strongest ally in the Middle East and mitigate the US's supportive stance of Israel.
What happens when the P5 cannot reach an agreement? What is the power of abstention?
The P5 abstaining is treated like an impartial agreement, which allows the permanent members to show disagreement without blocking a resolution. For instance, Russia's abstention during the UNSC's handling of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon allowed for the tribunal to be created despite its broader disagreement.
What is Finnemore's argument about humanitarian intervention? Provide an example to illustrate. What have been the biggest changes to the evolving conception of humanity? What has been an evolution concerning what is considered legitimate and successful humanitarian intervention? What might be a hindrance concerning sovereignty and the UNSC?
Finnemore argues that humanitarian intervention cannot be understood through a traditionalist realist scope wherein states are only concerned with relative gains. She argues that there are economic or military benefits achieved through most humanitarian intervention efforts, be they in Somalia and Cambodia, which realism predicts as necessary for actions. Rather she believes that states participate in humanitarian intervention based on their evolving normative context of what constitutes a human- meaning that the motivation is more about moral responsibility.
For instance, NATO could have attempted to take Milosevic during their bombardments of Kosovo in the 90s; however, only focused on Kosovo.
The biggest evolutions to the concept of humanity were 1) Woodrow Wilson's right to self-determination, which evolved the concept of sovereignty and humanity 2) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which made it so everyone was considered human 3) the 50s-60s period of decolonization. These together helped establish that everyone possess certain inalienable rights by virtue of being human,
1) Legitimate humanitarian intervention only is legitiamte if it is done multilaterally. UNilaterally it doers not convey the same legitimacy eg Russia's intervention in Georgia vs UN/NATO's interventions in the 1990s.
2) The norm of success has changed, being able to bring elections and stop violence suffices rather than having to engage in a complete overhaul of a country's systems. Hence why Bosnia is considered a success.
The norm of sovereignty and the notion that a state loses its monopoly can be challenged if it allows humanitarian intervention by letting in various armies. Secondly, the UNSC, especially the elite pact / p5, have a disproportionate amount of power in determining who gets saved via article 7, so they might make decisions according to their national interests and geopolitical dynamics rather than a collective commitment to human rights.
what do Louis and Maertens realize concerning staff members understanding of what they are doing while working in IOS? How do Barnett and Duvall respond and provide an example? As a result what might be an inherent issue with the way experts are treated in Ios.
Louis and Maertens believe that those working in international organizations are effectively part of bureaucracies. As a result, these workers do not necessarily recognize what they are doing as political but instead just see themselves as doing a mundane job. This works to bolster IOS's supposed neutrality as not only are they experts in their fields working on behalf of multilateralism, but they also do not view their jobs as political, meaning they will not let ideology drag them into anything.
Barnett and Duvall however by bringing in a sociological approach disagree suggesting that although Ios are bureaucracies, that does not mean they are objective. Often, ideas and understandings are spread amongst workers, and since it is impossible to be 100% objective, it is unlikely the workers are as well. Therefore, this may pose an issue, as the status of Ios as neutral organizations that provide scientific solutions to social issues might actually end up hiding problems and providing unfeasible solutions because they are tied with ideology. For instance, the IMF and World Bank pushed economic liberalization on Global South countries in order to receive loans however these measures ultimately ruined these Global South countries' comparative advantage.
Inherent issues might be 1) they can challenge the culture of nations through their recommendations like the ILO and its ideas concerning labour rights, 2) IOS can make recommendations that might impede a country for decades to come, but since there is no means of election, they cannot be punished 3) Ios are not especially transparent on how they reach their decisions like the World Bank and its loaning process.
What is Axelrod's shadow of the future argument concerning why countries will want to cooperate in the future? How does Mearsheimer respond to the claim of neoliberal institutionalists?
Axelrod argues that if there is a "shadow over the current interaction" between states, meaning that the players expect there to be future interactions between them, players will be more cooperative because they want to maintain a good relationship, so there is no defection in the future. Institutions facilitate this by reduction transaction costs and information sharing and punishing defectors or free riders.
Mearsheimer responds by saying that states will only accept cooperation if they benefit with relative gains and can make some sort of profit they can use their capabilities to be able to secure themselves and become more coercive. Thus states will always act in self-interest to enhance their power and security, mitigating the capacity for states to work together in the future.
Explain Thompson's theory of transmission belts - how does it work? What are the two steps in signalling intentions? provide examples to demonstrate the necessity of each.
Additionally how might going through the UN ultimately help to restrict the dramatic objectives of a coercer state?
Thomspon argues that the UN serves as a means for great powers to communicate their intentions to smaller powers because the UN is perceived as a transmission belt due to it being considered a neutral place that is autonomous and impartial, which means the information distributed by it is also impartial. Essentially, a coercer state goes through an international organization to help signal its intentions to act militarily against another actor, to both the actor it intends on acting against and third parties. In essence, this helps the coercer state to convince other countries that their interests align with their perceived collective interests rather than viewing the action as solely a coercer state initiative.
The transmission belt is a two-step process: 1) It is meant for the coercer party to signal its intentions to the leaders of third parties. This is to help alleviate the fears of third-party members by making them feel ingratiated in the decision-making process of the coercer party, giving them the illusion of control through diplomacy. In essence, the coercer state makes it seem like they need the approval of the third-party states. For instance, the US approach to the 1991 Gulf War highlights the significance of step 1, wherein the Us sought a resolution from the UNSC to invade Kuwait. Going through this multilateral framework to get approval helped ingratiate states and make them part of the process while reducing the domestic opposition and increasing the legitimization of the invasion, for it seemed now like a collective action done for the sake of international security. 2) Through using the UN as a neutral arbiter of information, the coercer state is attempting to spread their information to the public of these third-party countries in order to sympathize with the intentions of the coercer state so the public will then support their government backing of the coercer state. Ultimately, the hope is to create a favourable environment for international cooperation. This step is highly reliant on the accuracy of the information being presented. An example that demonstrates the necessity of this step is George Bush Jr's inability to get Nato approval and a UNSC resolution in support of his 2003 invasion. Because of his conflicting explanations of why he wanted to invade, he was unable to present a coherent narrative for his potential invasion, which heightened public skepticism and led to resistance and protest, which would undermine government support for the intervention.
Going through the UN can help to push back a dramatic objective from a coercer state if the facts presented are incoherent. The invasion needs to have the norm of legitimacy for people to agree with it. For instance, Bush Sr and Thatcher waited for the UN to cooperate with them while sharing their evidence and providing lots of information, which made the 1991 invasion a lot easier to advocate for. In fact, the initial goal which was to eliminate Saddam ultimately became freeing Kuwait.
In contrast, Bush Jr presented a series of differing reasons for wanting to invade Iraq in 2003, such as getting rid of WMDs, installing democracy, ending the Kurdish genocide, etc. Because of his inability to present a coherent reason for his invasion, he lacked support from other countries' public. In essence, the fewer facts presented, the fewer countries will find the proposal of your invasion as legitimate and the less likely they and their public will be in favour of your intervention and thus the greater the pushback will be. Bush's invasion for instance was never legitimized and never happened legally.
What is Charlotte Ku's main argument about the ICJ?
Institutions like the ICJ are essential for maintaining a stable international order and resolving disputes through the law, yet their effectiveness and credibility are constantly eroded by states' reluctance to comply with rulings. When powerful states especially disregard rulings, a precedent is set that encourages other states to ignore ICC rulings. For instance, states do not comply with ICJ rulings when they perceive the rulings as a counter to their national security, For instance, the USA refused to participate in Nicaragua v. US because of an unfavourable ruling regarding its actions within Nicaragua, ultimately causing it to withdraw from the ICJ' compulsory jurisdiction.