A level politics > Global quick notes II > Flashcards

Global quick notes II Flashcards

(91 cards)

Study These Flashcards
1
Q

3

Realist thinker - Morgenthau

A
  • Key idea: “State egoism” – states act in their own national interest.
  • View of human nature: Selfish, power-seeking.
  • Impact: Underpins realist scepticism of cooperation in IR.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

4

Realist thinker - Hobbes

A
  • State of nature: “Nasty, brutish and short” – war of all against all, and ‘every man is the enemy of every man’
  • Solution: Strong, central authority to maintain order.
  • Impact: Justifies need for state sovereignty and power politics.
  • 1651, Leviathan
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

2

Liberal thinker - Keohane

A
  • Theory: Complex interdependence – globalisation links states, reduces conflict.
  • View: Cooperation is rational in a globalised world.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Realist thinker - Machiavelli

A
  • View of humans: “Insatiable, arrogant, crafty and shifting.”
  • Relevance: Foundation for realist distrust in international cooperation.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

4

Realist thinker - Waltz

A
  • Neo-realist
    Type: Defensive realist
  • Theory: Balance of Power; Bipolarity (e.g., Cold War) ensures stability.
  • Anarchy: System lacks a central authority – constant security dilemma.
  • Quote: “Interdependence promotes war as well as peace.”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Realist thinker - Mearshemier

A
  • Type: Offensive realist
  • Theory: States aim for hegemony; conflict is inevitable due to competition.
  • Hegemonic Stability Theory: Dominance by a single power maintains order.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

3

Liberal thinker - Nye

A
  • Soft power: Influence through culture, values, diplomacy.
  • Smart power: Blend of hard and soft power.
  • Critique of hard power: Especially US reliance in the 2000s.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

3

Liberal thinker - Fukuyama

A
  • Claim: Liberal democracy is the final stage of ideological evolution.
  • Support: Democratic Peace Theory – democracies don’t go to war with each other.
  • Concept: Republican liberalism → expansion of “zones of peace.”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

3

Other liberal thinkers

A
  • Richard Cobden

Idea: “Eternal bonds of peace” through free trade and commercial interdependence.

  • Woodrow Wilson

Ideal: International rule of law and collective security (e.g., UN).

Quote: Turn the “jungle” of IR into a “zoo.”

  • Ohmae

Concepts:

Hollow state: States no longer central economic actors.

Globalisation: Undermines state sovereignty – non-state actors gain power.

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

3

SOVEREIGNTY

A
  • Peace of Westphalia (1648):

Principle: States are sovereign – non-intervention in internal affairs.

  • Montevideo Convention (1933):

Defines a state by:

Permanent population

Defined territory

Government

Capacity for foreign relations

  • UK Context:

A.V. Dicey: Popular vs legislative sovereignty.

Brexit: Reclaim of sovereignty from the EU.

Devolved Assemblies: e.g., Scottish Parliament = de facto internal sovereignty.

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

3

Challenges to sovereignty

A
  • Globalisation
  • Supranational Bodies: WTO, ICC, IMF, EU
  • Examples:

France forced to accept British beef (2002)

Apple fined over Irish tax deal (2016)

US steel tariffs dropped after WTO ruling (2003)

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

2

Hyperglobalists (Liberals):

A
  • Claims:

Borderless world, rise of non-state actors (TNCs, NGOs, global civil society).

Global governance > national sovereignty.

Interdependence = less conflict, more cooperation.

  • Economic impacts:

TNCs like Apple: If a country, would be 55th richest.

NICs (China, India, Brazil, etc.): Used globalisation for development.

Strategies: Import substitution & export-oriented growth.

Impact: Increased GDP per capita.-

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

3

Globalisation Sceptics (Realists):

A
  • Claim: Sovereignty persists – IOs created by states for states.
  • Global governance: A tool of state interests.
  • Kenneth Waltz: Interdependence can increase conflict.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

4

INEQUALITY & GLOBALISATION

A
  • Core/Periphery Model (World Systems Theory):

Core (North): HQ of TNCs, high-tech production

Periphery (South): Raw materials, agriculture

Semi-periphery (East): Manufacturing hubs (e.g., China, India)

  • Trade Inequality:

Criticism: Free trade favours rich states.

Evidence: Agricultural protectionism by US/EU, WTO pressure on the South.

  • Rural Poverty:

¾ of people living on <$1/day in rural areas.

Global demand disrupts subsistence farming.

  • Institutions Undermining Sovereignty:

IMF/WB SAPs: Force policy changes for aid.

WTO tribunals: Enforce trade rulings (e.g., US 2003 tariff case).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

4

CONCLUSION for realists and liberals

A
  • Realists emphasize anarchy, state-centric power, and sovereignty.
  • Liberals argue for interdependence, cooperation, and diminishing state control.
  • Globalisation is both a force of integration and a source of inequality/conflict.
  • Sovereignty is increasingly conditional, shared, and challenged—especially economically and culturally.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

4

Erosion of State Sovereignty

A
  • Economic Power of MNCs: Multinationals often have greater resources than many states, and can pressure governments to lower taxes and labour protections (e.g. Vauxhall in 2007).
  • Capital Mobility: Events like Black Wednesday (1992) show how markets can undermine national economic policies, demonstrating the shift of power from states to markets.
  • Cyber and Communications Globalisation: States struggle to control information—e.g. Germany’s laws on Holocaust denial are bypassed via foreign-hosted websites; jihadist propaganda has used the internet effectively (e.g. 7/7 bombers, ISIS on Twitter).
  • Global Crime and Disease: Transnational challenges (terrorism, trafficking, pandemics) highlight the limitations of national borders in a globalised world.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

4

Persistence of State Power

A
  • Military Sovereignty: States like Russia (Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2022) and Syria retain military dominance and act in their self-interest.
  • Domestic Autonomy: Countries retain control over laws, taxation, human rights, and borders (e.g. UK migration policy).
  • Technological Censorship: Authoritarian states like China and Iran actively restrict global information flows, asserting sovereignty online.
  • Global Crisis Management: States lead responses to global financial crises and climate change through IGOs like the IMF or UN.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

4

Cultural Globalisation and Homogenisation

A
  • Americanisation: The dominance of US products, language (English), and celebrities has led to fears of cultural imperialism (‘McDonaldisation’, ‘Starbucks culture’).
  • Liberal Ideological Spread: The rise of individualism, democracy, and human rights is linked to the global reach of US-backed institutions.
  • Reverse Cultural Flow: Globalisation also spreads non-Western culture to the West—through food, medicine, religion—leading to hybridisation or ‘glocalisation’ (e.g. Bollywood, Al-Jazeera).
  • Cultural Resistance: Anti-globalisation protests (e.g. against McDonald’s) and Huntington’s “clash of civilisations” thesis reflect polarisation rather than homogenisation.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

2

Role of International Organisations

A
  • Conflict Mitigation: UN and IGOs have fostered peace agreements and collective responses to climate and nuclear issues (e.g. Iran Deal, Paris Accord).
  • Global Governance Limitations: States often prioritise sovereignty over global cooperation (e.g. US rejection of the Kyoto Protocol).
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

4

Debate: Hard Power vs Soft Power

A
  • Soft Power: Joseph Nye’s concept highlights attraction through culture, diplomacy, and values (e.g. Obama’s approach post-Bush era).
  • Hard Power: Realists emphasize military/economic coercion (e.g. NATO in Kosovo, sanctions on Iran).
  • Smart Power: Hillary Clinton’s synthesis of soft and hard power is advocated as a balanced strategy.
  • Realist View: An anarchic world necessitates military preparedness (e.g. NATO protection of Baltic states).
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

2

Democratic Peace Theory vs Realism

A
  • Liberal View: Democracies don’t go to war with each other; EU seen as a peace zone.
  • Realist Response: States act in self-interest regardless of system type (e.g. Trump’s foreign policy, Iraq War, Putin’s actions in Ukraine).
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

2

Global Governance & State Cooperation

A
  • Multilateralism vs Sovereignty:

Brexit (UK, 2016–2020): Departure from the EU shows states can reclaim sovereignty.

Kyoto Treaty: US refusal (2001) shows limits of global environmental cooperation.

  • State-led Crisis Response:

Asian Financial Crisis (1997–98): IMF bailouts led by state-backed institutions.

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

Globalisation conclusion

A

Globalisation both challenges and reinforces state power. While transnational forces—economic, cultural, technological—undermine aspects of sovereignty, states adapt, resist, and remain central actors in the international system. The balance between soft and hard power, the tension between liberalism and realism, and the cultural interplay of global homogenisation vs local resilience are crucial to understanding the 21st-century world order.

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

3

Global Communication vs State Control

A
  • Undesirable Content Access:

Germany: Holocaust denial material illegal domestically but accessible via US-hosted websites.

Islamist Propaganda: Groups like ISIS use platforms (e.g. Twitter, YouTube) to radicalise individuals globally.

  • Arab Spring (2011):

Tunisia: Protest videos shared online undermined state control over information, aiding coordination.

‘5 Star Jihad’ Accounts: Glorify jihadism using luxury imagery to attract youth (sports cars, wealth, etc.).

  • State Response:

China: Uses the “Great Firewall” to block foreign internet content.

Iran: Bans satellite dishes, censors internet to curb “immoral” Western influence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
# 5 Power of Global Capital & MNCs over States
- Black Wednesday (UK, 1992): Currency speculators forced the UK out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM); key example of markets overpowering state economic sovereignty. - MNC Wealth: Many Multinational Corporations (MNCs) are wealthier than small or developing states. - GM/Vauxhall (UK, 2007): UK government offered subsidies to secure car production in Ellesmere Port, highlighting state reliance on MNCs for employment. - Race to the Bottom: Developing states may suppress trade unions or keep social costs low to attract MNC investment. - Global South: Risks labour rights being undermined due to corporate pressures.
23
# 4 Globalisation & Transboundary Threats
- Pollution & Global Warming: Driven by industrialisation and freer trade. - Pandemics: SARS, AIDS, COVID-19: Global mobility facilitates rapid disease spread. - Terrorism: 9/11 (2001): Attackers coordinated from US and Germany; used planes as weapons. ISIS & Boko Haram (2015): Boko Haram pledged allegiance to ISIS, showing global jihadist network enabled by globalisation. - Organised Crime: Easier smuggling of drugs, people, and arms due to transport and finance networks.
24
# 4 State Sovereignty – Still Relevant
- Military Power: Russia (Georgia, 2008): Protected South Ossetia, asserting sovereignty via force. Syria (Assad Regime): Used military against rebels/ISIS to reassert control. - Policy Control: Tax, Legal Systems, Rights: UK vs Saudi Arabia (gay rights, religious freedom) – vast legal-cultural differences remain. - Migration Control: UK: Maintains border restrictions for asylum seekers and economic migrants. - New States: Kosovo (2008): Declaration of independence highlights enduring statehood demand.
25
# 2 Backlash Against Globalisation
- Clash of Civilisations: Samuel Huntington: Predicted cultural conflict post-Cold War, esp. West vs Islam/China. - Anti-Globalisation Protests: Targets: McDonalds, Starbucks, Nike. Groups Involved: Socialists, trade unionists, environmentalists. Movements: Direct action (historically violent), Occupy Movement (post-2011).
25
# 3 Cultural Globalisation
- Global Products & Celebrities: Examples: Starbucks, iPhones, Barbie, Beyonce, Justin Bieber. Language: English dominates internet (50%), radio (40%), and global communication. - Cultural Americanisation: McDonaldisation: Spread of US consumer capitalism. Western Cultural Dominance: Palestinian youths wearing NBA apparel reflects this. Washington Consensus: US-led neoliberal model promoted via IMF/World Bank. - Liberal Democratic Spread: Arab Spring (2011): Seen as spread of liberal democratic ideals (Fukuyama's 'End of History' thesis).
26
# 2 Hybridisation & Glocalisation
- Reverse Cultural Flows: Bollywood, Al Jazeera: Non-Western media adapting global formats. - Glocalisation: Global ideas adapted to local contexts. Example: McDonald’s menus in India reflecting local dietary preferences.
26
# 2 Hard Power vs Soft Power
- Soft Power (Joseph Nye, 1990): Influence through culture, ideas, democracy. Obama (post-Bush era): Shift towards moral high ground to rebuild global trust. Bush’s Iraq War damaged US soft power – Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, civilian deaths. - Hard Power: Gulf War (1991): Military liberated Kuwait. Bosnia (1995): NATO forced Dayton Accord via airstrikes. Kosovo (1999): Military action stopped ethnic cleansing. Crimea (2014) & Ukraine (2022): Russia’s use of military power to assert influence.
27
# 3 Realist Theories
- Kenneth Waltz: Anarchic international system compels self-help behaviour. - Hans Morgenthau: States pursue power for self-interest (state egoism). - Examples: Iraq Invasion (2003) – unilateral US action. Trump’s Paris Agreement Exit (2017) – prioritised national interest. John Mearsheimer (Offensive Realism): States will pursue power aggressively to secure survival. Criticism of US inaction in Ukraine pre-2014.
28
# 3 Economic Globalisation & Peace
- Thomas Friedman – Dell Theory: Global trade reduces war likelihood between states with mutual economic ties. E.g. EU, ASEAN – strong trade links, low inter-state conflict. - Smart Power (Hillary Clinton): Mix of hard & soft power for strategic outcomes. - Sanctions as Hard Power: Iran (2015): Nuclear deal achieved via economic pressure. Burma (2000s): EU sanctions led to partial democratisation. North Korea: UN sanctions to halt nuclear ambitions.
29
# 2 Security & Military Alliances
- NATO: Key security mechanism. Article 5: Collective defence – vital for Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) post-2014. Israel: Constant security threat environment – military readiness essential. - Ukraine Conflict: NATO aid crucial; debates over effectiveness of Russian hard power.
30
# 3 Failed & Rogue States
- Iran: Nuclear ambitions, supports Hezbollah – undermines international norms. - North Korea: Nuclear brinkmanship, threats to stability. - Failed States: DRC: Invasions, disease, poverty. Somalia (1991), Libya (2011): Civil war fallout → terrorism, refugee crises.
31
# 2 Role of IGOs
- UN: Paris Climate Agreement (2015): Multilateral environmental cooperation. Iran Deal (2015): Nuclear non-proliferation success. - WTO, ICC: Forums for peaceful conflict resolution, rule enforcement in global trade/law.
32
# 3 REALIST PERSPECTIVE: Cold War as a Classic Bipolar Power Struggle 1. Superpower Competition
- US vs USSR: Bipolar world with two dominant poles (USA = capitalism/democracy; USSR = communism/central planning). - Military build-up: Reagan’s Second Cold War (1981–1989): Vast increase in US defence spending (+$1.7 trillion) aimed at pressuring USSR. Strategic Defense Initiative (1983) escalated the arms race. - Impact: Forced USSR to divert scarce resources to match US, accelerating its economic decline.
33
# 3 REALIST PERSPECTIVE: Cold War as a Classic Bipolar Power Struggle MAD
- MAD ensured no direct war: Despite crises (e.g., Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962), nuclear deterrence prevented major war. - ‘Balance of terror’ stabilised relations after 1962. - Hot Line (1963), SALT I (1972), SALT II (1979) = examples of managed rivalry.
34
# 3 REALIST PERSPECTIVE: Cold War as a Classic Bipolar Power Struggle Proxy wars
- Bipolar structure led to superpowers fighting indirectly: Vietnam War (1955–75): US involvement to contain communism. Afghanistan (1979–89): USSR invasion; US supported mujahideen. Angola, Arab-Israeli conflicts, Korea – client states armed by superpowers. - Impact: High global instability outside the superpower core; proxy wars worsened by Cold War dynamics.
35
# 3 LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE: The Collapse from Within and Rise of Cooperation 1. Internal Decay of the USSR
- Centrally planned economy failed: Inefficient, stagnating by the 1980s. - Consumer shortages & lack of innovation undermined legitimacy. - Gorbachev's reforms (Glasnost and Perestroika from 1985) aimed to revive system but triggered collapse.
36
# 3 LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE: The Collapse from Within and Rise of Cooperation Ideological & Cultural Pressures
- Western cultural appeal: Exposure to Western consumerism and democratic ideas via media, tourism. Massive influence of religion in Poland; John Paul II (elected 1978) galvanised resistance. - Solidarity Movement (Poland, 1980+): First independent trade union in Soviet Bloc – crushed, but later revived. - Impact: Growing civil society and desire for democratic freedoms in Eastern Europe.
37
# 4 LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE: The Collapse from Within and Rise of Cooperation
- Positive US response to Gorbachev: Summits with Reagan (Reykjavik 1986, Washington 1987). - INF Treaty (1987): First arms reduction agreement. - Peaceful revolutions (1989): Fall of Berlin Wall; democratic transitions in Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. - Role of international institutions: EC (now EU), NATO absorbed former Soviet bloc states peacefully.
38
# 3 Combination View
- Military pressure (esp. Reagan era) exacerbated systemic weaknesses. - Western liberal ideas & domestic protest delegitimised authoritarian regimes. - Democratisation in Eastern Europe post-1989 validates liberal optimism.
39
# 2 Cold War = Bipolar Realist System with Liberal End
- Realist features: Bipolarity → predictability & stability. MAD = no great power war. Alliance blocs were cohesive and long-lasting. - Liberal features: Collapse resulted more from internal failures and popular pressure than from military defeat. Ending involved negotiation, diplomacy, and cooperation—not conquest.
40
# 4 Liberal Gains
- Democratisation: Poland, Hungary, Czechia join NATO/EU. - Globalisation: Former Eastern Bloc states integrate into world economy. - Multilateralism: G20, WTO, UN peacekeeping expanded. - China’s 2008 stimulus: Showed global cooperation (Beijing invested $586bn to stabilise global demand).
41
# 3 Realist Persistence
- US as sole military superpower: Unipolarity post-1991, but challenged. - Russia’s resurgence: Ukraine invasion (2014 Crimea, 2022 full-scale war): Assertive nationalism. Syria intervention (2015+): Projection of power vs US indecision. Still retains nuclear parity. - China’s rise: Overtook Japan (2010) as world’s 2nd largest economy. Largest army + major naval and missile build-up. Cyberwarfare & assertiveness over Taiwan, South China Sea. Impact: Increasing multipolarity + return of strategic competition.
42
# 5 China economic Power
- Massive growth: Lifted 400m out of poverty; world’s second-largest economy. - Limitations: GDP per capita lags behind developed countries. - Demographic challenges: One-child policy → ageing population, shrinking workforce. - Corruption & inequality: State capitalism benefits Party insiders; rural poverty persists. - Global role: Major player in trade, UN peacekeeping, and climate negotiations (e.g. Paris Accord).
43
# 4 China military capabilities
- Rising defence budget, but still far behind the US in global power projection. - Naval limitations: Limited aircraft carriers; mostly coastal capability. - Lack of combat experience. - Asymmetric strategy: Aims to deter US intervention (e.g. Taiwan) via targeted capabilities like satellite disruption.
44
# 4 Political System & Internal Challenges
- One-party state: Political opposition banned; media tightly controlled. - Rising unrest: Growing urban middle class & discontented workers. - Harsh on dissent: Crackdowns after Arab Spring; sensitive to global criticism (e.g. Nobel Peace Prize). - Corruption & nepotism: Resentment toward elites and officials’ children.
45
# 4 International Relations
- Passive past role → now more assertive globally. - P5 leader in UN peacekeeping (e.g. Mali). - Prefers multilateralism: Often acts with states like India, Brazil. - Strategic cooperation: Works with West on climate change, terrorism, and non-proliferation.
46
# 3 Global Perception & Soft Power
- Stresses peaceful rise: No colonial history; respects sovereignty. - Welcomed by some: Authoritarian regimes (e.g. Sudan, Venezuela) prefer China's non-interventionist stance. - Criticism: Undermines human rights efforts by backing repressive regimes (e.g. Myanmar, Sudan).
46
# 3 Sovereignty vs. Cooperation
- States are reluctant to surrender sovereignty. - Supranational bodies (e.g. the EU) enable effective decision-making but provoke sovereignty concerns (e.g. UK’s pushback against Brussels). - Intergovernmental bodies (e.g. WTO) often produce weak or stalled decisions (e.g. Doha Round).
46
# 4 China vs the USA
- Economic interdependence: China is a major US creditor; US is China’s biggest export market. - Possible new Cold War: Risk if US tries to contain China’s rise. - Ideological clash: US promotes democracy; China supports authoritarian capitalism. - Regional tensions: Neighbours like Japan, India, and Taiwan worry about China’s rise → potential arms race.
46
# 3 Global Order & Multipolarity
- Multipolarity emerging: No single global hegemon → mix of major powers (US, China, EU, India, etc.). - Stability debate: Liberal view: Interdependence (e.g. trade) promotes peace. Realist view: Risk of chaos, arms races, and power struggles (e.g. pre-WWI scenario). - Global governance efforts: UN, G20, WTO, IMF, and treaties try to manage global issues (climate change, security, trade).
47
# 2 Effectiveness of Global Institutions
- Global financial institutions (IMF, World Bank) dominated by rich countries failed to prevent the 2007–09 financial crisis. - Post-crisis international cooperation mitigated damage but failed to resolve deeper issues.
48
# 4 Theoretical Divide
- Realists: Skeptical of cooperation; states pursue relative gains. - Liberals: More optimistic; point to successes (e.g. 2015 Paris Agreement). - UN peacekeeping offers mixed evidence—success in East Timor vs. failure in Rwanda. - North-South Divide IMF/World Bank accused of advancing Northern (developed world) interests at the South’s expense—e.g., through trade liberalisation and structural adjustment.
49
# 2 Intergovernmentalism
- Pros: States retain sovereignty and democratic control. Examples: NAFTA—economic cooperation without political integration. - Cons: Decision-making is slow or ineffective. Outcomes often reflect lowest common denominator. Examples: Failed WTO Doha Round, weak Copenhagen climate deal.
50
# 2 Supranationalism
- Pros: Centralised decision-making can bypass national vetoes. Enforceable rules promote fairness and effectiveness. Examples: EU Commission & ECJ can compel member compliance. - Cons: Can be seen as undemocratic and detached from citizens. Powerful states often break rules with little consequence (e.g. France, Germany breaching EU fiscal rules). Example: Greece misled EU over its finances, exposing enforcement weaknesses.
50
# 2 UN Peacekeeping and Global Security Traditional Role
- Originally to monitor ceasefires and facilitate state withdrawal (e.g. Arab-Israeli conflicts). - Continued in Ethiopia (2000).
51
# 3 UN Post-1990s Expansion
- Missions increasingly intervene in civil wars and complex internal conflicts. - Peace enforcement (under Chapter VII) more common: e.g. Congo 2013, Libya 2011. - Mandate expanded to include peace-building (e.g. elections, disarmament, humanitarian aid).
52
# 2 UN successes, failures, and conditions
- Successes vs. Failures Successes: East Timor (1999), Ethiopia-Eritrea (2000), Gulf War (1991). Failures: Rwanda (1994), Bosnia (Srebrenica massacre), Somalia. - Key Conditions for Success Unity among UNSC members: Enables swift action (e.g. 1991 Gulf War). Workable mandates: Clear, realistic, and well-resourced. Effective command structures: Often better handled by regional or major powers under UN authority (e.g. NATO in Kosovo). Warring parties' cooperation: Ceasefires can only be monitored if both sides are willing (e.g. failure in Somalia and Sierra Leone).
53
# 4 Critical Limitations of the UN
- No standing army or resources—must rely on member states. - Permanent members’ veto often paralyses action (e.g. Syria, Georgia, Kosovo). - Sovereignty principle often prevents intervention unless host state agrees (e.g. Darfur, Sudan). - Power politics: Major operations depend on superpower interest, especially the US.
54
A BEAUTIFUL UN Conclusion
- The UN’s ability to prevent crises and uphold its founding aims remains deeply constrained by political divisions, structural inertia, and a lack of resources. While the concept of a UN rapid reaction force holds promise—and could have transformed outcomes in Rwanda, Bosnia, or Darfur—it remains unrealized due to member state resistance. The endorsement of R2P marked a shift in international norms, but its selective application underscores ongoing power politics in global governance. - Yet despite its flaws, the UN remains indispensable. It provides a platform for global dialogue, delivers humanitarian aid, supports sustainable development, and tackles transnational threats from pandemics to climate change. To become more effective in its core mission of maintaining peace and security, the UN will need bold structural reforms, stronger financial commitments from its members, and renewed political will—especially from the major powers that currently limit its effectiveness.
55
# 4 🚨 Boutros-Ghali’s Agenda for Peace (1992)
- Proposed a UN standing army for rapid crisis response. - Could have prevented Rwanda genocide (1994): 800,000+ killed. - No political support from member states; idea not implemented. - Some troops now on standby via UN Standby Arrangements System, but it's voluntary and limited.
56
# 4 ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P)
- Endorsed by UNSC in 2006 after 2005 General Assembly. - Allows intervention when states fail to prevent atrocities. Successful in Libya (2011) – stopped Benghazi massacre. - Failed in Darfur (2003–07) – Sudan blocked access, China vetoed action. - Ignored in Syria – Russia/China blocked action despite mass killings.
56
# 3 Problems with UNSC
- Reflects 1945 power structure – excludes India, Brazil, Japan, Germany, Africa. - P5 veto leads to deadlock (e.g. Syria, Ukraine, Myanmar). - Reform proposals fail due to regional rivalries and P5 resistance.
57
# 4 When the UNSC Works:
- Korea (1950) – US-led coalition with UN backing. - Gulf War (1991) – Iraq expelled from Kuwait. - East Timor (1999–2002) – UN restored order before independence. - Lebanon (2006) – UN peacekeepers helped maintain ceasefire.
57
# 2 🌍 UN’s Broader Roles & Achievements 🌐 Global Cooperation
- UN is only truly global body with near-universal legitimacy. Helps solve issues states can’t tackle alone. - Key Agencies & Achievements WHO: Eradicated smallpox; works on AIDS, Ebola, COVID-19. UNHCR: Refugee support. WFP: Food aid during crises. UNFCCC: Coordinates climate talks (e.g., COP/Durban 2011). ICC (2003): Tries war crimes/genocide (limited support).
58
# 2 Failures of UN
- Inefficiency & Scandals Oil-for-Food scandal (Volcker Report, 2005) → major mismanagement. UNESCO criticised for bureaucracy. Human Rights Commission had rights-abusing members (replaced by Council in 2006). - Chronic Underfunding UN budget = ~$5 billion, far below needs. Many states in arrears, esp. US (withholds funding at times). Peacekeeping under-resourced (e.g. Mali, Sierra Leone until UK stepped in).
59
# 2 🔄 Reform for UN Challenges ⚙️ Reform Proposals
- Calls to: Expand UNSC to include rising powers and the Global South. Make peacekeeping more effective. Reduce HQ waste & corruption. - Barriers Reform requires 2/3 General Assembly + all P5 approval. Vested interests & regional rivalries block change. Many states resist interventionism (fear R2P could be used against them).
60
IMF & World Bank ROLES
Roles: World Bank: Provides development loans. IMF: Manages global economic stability, helps with debt crises and financial shocks.
61
# 5 IMF and World Bank Criticisms:
- Northern dominance: Voting power favors rich countries (e.g., US has veto). - Leadership imbalance: Traditionally led by Americans (WB) and Europeans (IMF). - Washington Consensus: Promotes neoliberal policies (privatisation, trade liberalisation, austerity). Accused of harming local economies and social welfare in the South. Benefits Northern TNCs and banks. - Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs): Loan conditions force Southern countries into economic reforms (tariff cuts, privatisation, spending cuts). Led to unemployment, loss of subsidies, vulnerability to capital flight. Accused of deepening poverty and ignoring successful state-led development (e.g., South Korea). - Debt servicing: Until recently, full repayment demanded, diverting funds from health and education.
62
# 3 IMF and World Bank reforms
- Debt relief and poverty reduction initiatives introduced post-1990s. - IMF now accepts some capital controls. - Critics argue fundamental neoliberal stance remains unchanged.
63
# 2 WTO role
- Oversees trade rules, resolves disputes, promotes liberalisation (Doha Round). - Successor to GATT, established in 1995.
63
# 3 WTO defence
- WTO gives poorer countries more leverage in multilateral vs. bilateral talks. - Emerging powers like BRICs shifting balance. - Trade liberalisation could boost development more than aid.
63
# 5 WTO Criticisms:
- Northern dominance: US, EU, Japan shape agenda. - Developing countries disadvantaged: Under-represented at meetings. Fewer resources to participate in dispute resolution. - Unfair trade practices: Rich nations maintain tariffs against Southern exports. IMF/WB pressure South to open markets to subsidised Northern exports (e.g., agriculture). - TRIPS Agreement: Protects patents, hindering affordable production in the South. - Environmental & social neglect: Ignores labour and environmental standards (e.g., US shrimp-dolphin case, banana quota dispute).
64
# 2 NATO role and importance
- Role: Military alliance, provides collective security. Expanded mission post-Cold War: peacekeeping (e.g., Balkans), enforcing (e.g., Libya, Afghanistan). - Importance: Links US military power to European security. Reassures E. Europe against Russian aggression. Encourages democracy via membership (e.g., 12 E. European members joined 1999–2009).
65
# 4 NATO issues
- US-European tensions: Unequal burden-sharing, especially in Afghanistan. US turning focus to Asia, EU cuts defence budgets. - Overexpansion risk: Too many weak military members. Georgia/Ukraine membership controversial due to Russian opposition. - Russia relations: Crimea annexation revived fears in Eastern Europe. Balance needed between deterrence and diplomacy. - EU defence role: France supports stronger EU role; must avoid rivalry with NATO.
66
# 3 North–South Divide Economic Imbalance:
- North: 20% of global population, consumes 60% of production. - South: 80% of population, only 40% of consumption. - Vicious cycle in South: low income → low saving → low investment → low growth.
66
# 3 North-South Divide Neo-colonialism Theory:
- North still dominates politically & economically despite Southern independence. - TNCs extract profits, avoid taxes, support corrupt elites. - Enclave economies (e.g., oil/mining) benefit few.
67
# 2 North-South Divide Terms of Trade:
- South exports low-value commodities with price volatility. - North exports high-value goods & protects its markets.
67
# 5 North-South Divide Counter arguments
- Not all Southern issues caused by the North (e.g., internal corruption, bad governance). - Some Southern countries (e.g., S. Korea, China, India) succeeded by engaging with global system. - TNCs provide jobs, technology, and development (despite criticisms). - South now investing in the North (e.g., Tata owns UK firms). - Global power shift accelerated post-2008 financial crisis.
68
# 5 Human rights criticisms and cultural relativity:
- Western communitarians argue rights depend on societal context and culture. - Some Global South critics see human rights as Western-centric, not universal. - Muslim countries sometimes reject rights conflicting with Sharia law (e.g., freedom to change religion). - Asian states (e.g., China) promote "Asian values," prioritizing social stability over individual freedoms like speech. - Political critiques view human rights enforcement as cultural imperialism or neo-colonialism used by powerful states for control.
68
# 4 Human Rights: Concept and Challenges Origin and Nature:
- Human rights were formally recognized in the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. - They reflect liberal values, are considered inherent, universal, and absolute (cannot be overridden by national laws). - Include civil rights (e.g., freedom of speech) and social, economic, and cultural rights (e.g., right to education, trade union membership). - The Universal Declaration is not legally binding, but treaties like the European Convention on Human Rights are.
69
# 4 International War Crimes Tribunal Achievements:
- Some key figures prosecuted (e.g., Milosevic, Karadzic, Mladic, Taylor). - Victims have a platform to voice their experiences. - Legal precedents: genocide includes rape, heads of government held accountable. - Potential deterrent effect for future atrocities.
69
# 3 International War Crimes Tribunals Post-1990s Trials:
- UN tribunals for Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR). - Hybrid courts in Sierra Leone, Cambodia, and Iraq. - Focus on crimes against humanity and war crimes.
70
# 4 International War Crimes Tribunals Limitations
- Low conviction numbers compared to scale of atrocities. - Accusations of "victor’s justice" by defendants and critics. - Expensive and slow processes. - Preference for a permanent, neutral court like the ICC suggested.
71
# 4 The International Criminal Court (ICC) Role and Jurisdiction:
- Permanent court established by treaty in 1998. - Tries genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity; crimes of aggression pending ratification. - Jurisdiction limited to nationals or territory of states party to the treaty or UN Security Council referrals. - Operates as court of last resort.
72
# 5 ICC Limitations
- Major powers (US, China, Russia, India) are not parties, limiting reach. - Can be blocked by unanimous UN Security Council votes. - No independent enforcement; relies on states for arrests. - Seen as selective and neo-colonial, focusing mostly on African conflicts. - Difficulty in managing complex conflicts and identifying responsible parties.
73
# 4 Intervention and Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Liberal Interventionist View:
- Human rights are indivisible; international community has duty to protect vulnerable groups. - Sovereignty should not shield states committing genocide or ethnic cleansing. - Refugee flows and regional instability justify intervention. - Legal precedents increasingly reject state immunity for war crimes.
74
# 5 R2P Realist Critique:
- States act in national interest, not obligated to sacrifice troops for others’ rights. - R2P can be misused by powerful states (e.g., US in Iraq) as pretext for imperialism. - Western hypocrisy and double standards undermine legitimacy. - Interventions risk worsening conflicts, causing more deaths and instability. - Growing wariness post-Iraq and Afghanistan regarding intervention (e.g., Syria crisis).
A level politics
flashcards
Decks in class (59)
# Cards
Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2026 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions