POS 160 Final Exam Study Guide With Answers Part B
POS 160 Final Exam Study Guide With Answers Part B POS 160
Popular in Global Politics and and Issues
Popular in Political Science
This 13 page Study Guide was uploaded by Shantel Marekera on Sunday May 1, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to POS 160 at Arizona State University taught by Berliner in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 299 views. For similar materials see Global Politics and and Issues in Political Science at Arizona State University.
Reviews for POS 160 Final Exam Study Guide With Answers Part B
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 05/01/16
POS 160 Final Exam Study Guide Part B QUESTION Why is it so challenging for international human rights treaties to make a difference? Explain how three different approaches would each answer this question. ANSWER 1. Int’l law just doesn’t matter (Realists). No enforcement means agreements are “cheap talk.” This view is mainly propounded by realists International law is dependent on self-help, because there is no third party enforcement. Thus the burden of enforcement often rests of politically powerless individuals and groups who have been abused in the first place (victims) this is because the politically powerful countries are not interested in penalizing violators of human rights if they have no direct gain/ benefit But they are not willing to take actions to enforce this treaty in reality if lack of enforcement does not directly affect them For example Rwandan genocide was against Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, but the P5 in the United Nations Security Council was not willing to intervene because they were not directly impacted 2.“Managerial” explanation This explanation says that almost all countries want to comply to international human right treaties, but those that do not fail to because they lack the resources, bureaucratic capacity, or control of their own soldiers/police. This mainly applies to developing or third world countries that are struggling with their economies For example Zambia 3. “Expressive” treaties explanation: Countries sign in order to appear to conform with global norms, even as they continue abuses. (States being duplicitous) Hence states use human rights treaties as a form of window dressing to hide their dubious practices against human rights. 4. Or domestic situation of ratifiers. Two types: •Weak dictatorships facing domestic opposition: They ratify treaties to appease more moderate opponents/ gain credibility with international community, at the same time as they continue abuses to attempt to control or punish more extreme opponents. This is mainly because one way for the dictator to maintain control is to undermine dissent, for which torture is a useful tactic. An example of this is multiparty democracies that sign the CAT (Convention against Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment) but yet continue using torture above average rates. For example, in the case of Paul Biya’s despotic rule in Cameron, levels of torture were rated as infrequent and isolated, but once multi parties were allowed in 1992 cases involving torture actually increased drastically “Good” democracies that already don’t violate Human Rights very much may not want to sign human rights treaties. -This is because they already have constitutional laws that promote human rights at home, hence they have less need to bind themselves to international treaties. For example, USA has its own Bill of Rights and Democratic Institutions that protect human rights that is why it is reluctant to sign treaties with international bodies such as ICCPR. QUESTION What is the “boomerang model” and what can it achieve? What actors are involved and how? How does this model lead to changes in state behavior? ANSWER The boomerang model is a process through which NGOs in one state are able to activate transnational linkages to bring pressure from other states in their own governments. -It was proposed by Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink The actors involved include mainly NGOs and non-democratic governments. -Since NGOs in non-democratic countries are unable to influence their own governments, they activate their own transnational network and bring their plight to the attention of other NGOs and individuals in other countries. These individuals and NGOs in turn press the government or other international institutions into action. -For example, the anti- apartheid movement in South Africa NGOs appealed to foreign TANS ( transnational advocacy networks). In turn these TANs particularly in Western countries appealed to their governments, who placed sanctions on South Africa until they ended apartheid. This model involves domestic NGOs using the help of external NGOs and individuals to exert more pressure on the government to change an existing policy or law than the pressure they would be able to exert on the government on their own. -Assistance from TANs is more effective because they are viewed as principled actors with strongly held normative beliefs. Therefore, they have more credibility when they speak against something than domestic NGOs have on their own. QUESTION . What does it mean for a good to be “excludable”? What does it mean for a good to be “rival”? Explain three of the four types of goods that are defined by different combinations of excludable/non-excludable and rival/nonrival, and give an example for each. ANSWER Excludable goods: A good or service is called excludable if it is possible to prevent people who have not paid for it from having access to it. Non excludable , a good or service is non-excludable if non-paying consumers cannot be prevented from accessing it. Eg no one can be excluded from enjoying the benefits of low emissions of CFCs in the atmosphere, even the countries that did not directly contribute to it Rival (subtractable) good is a good whose consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers. Non rival goods A good is non rival if its consumption by one person does not diminish the quality of the good available for use by others -For example, in the case of ozone depletion, the greater UV radiation does not diminish the greater quantity of UV radiation that might also harm a second a person. Hence, one individual employment of Examples Ozone layer- non excludable+ non rival Public goods arise partly from nature This comes from the fact that we all have one atmosphere Public goods are produced by social practice and law For example the Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1997 creates a carbon trading system that privatizes the public good that previously existed. Before it, the environment 1. What were the Montreal Protocol and Kyoto Protocol, and what problems were each aimed at addressing? Which one was more successful at achieving its goals? Explain three possible reasons for this difference ANSWER Montreal protocol This is an international treaty signed in 1989 designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of a number of CFCs and other chemical compounds. 196 countries signed and agreed to it Kyoto protocol The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits State Parties to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, based on the premise that (a) global warming exists and (b) man-made CO emi2sions have caused it. 191 countries signed and agreed to it The Montreal protocol was more successful at achieving its goals -The type of standard created by the institution This is because it was clear and demanded every country to completely eliminate CFCs, and any country that did not abide by it were punished. However, Montreal did not have specific demands for states to abide by. It was more aspirational. -Timeline of the problem Came at a time when the effects of the problem were clear and thus prompted people to take immediate action Scientists had proven that with increased use of CFCs, the hole in the ozone layer was getting bigger and bigger. Hence, this was a threat that moved a lot of countries to action because they could visualize the outcome of the problem -Support for the institution It had total support from the USA unlike Montreal The US refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol, although it actively supports the Montreal protocol, for example in 2015 co-jointly with Canada and Mexico, the USA submitted a proposal to the Montreal protocol to eliminate byproduct emissions of HFCs As the most powerful and influential country in the world, its lack of support for the Kyoto protocol has contributed to the failure of this protocol QUESTION What are two ways in which international institutions can promote cooperation on environmental issues? Explain each, and give a specific example of each from international environmental agreements discussed in the textbook (examples must be from two different agreements). Choose one of the ways of promoting cooperation, and discuss how it relates to the recent Paris climate agreement. ANSWER Setting standards and verifying compliance This means that international institutions set clear standards of behavior expected from every individual state, and this makes it easier to makes states accountable. In addition, they follow up on all the states and ensure that the standards they set are clearly being followed. For example the Montreal protocol specified that it wanted to completely phase out CFCs, and followed up to punish any states that were not following the set standard it created. Another example- at the 1954 Convention on Pollution Prevention . countries set standards that discharges will be no more than 100 parts oil per million parts seawater. These clear standards made it easier to punish states that deviate from this standard Resolving disputes This means they can help to solve any conflicts regarding cooperation on environmental issues. For example Kyoto protocol has a Compliance Committee has a facilitative and an enforcement branch, and all of them all work concurrently to ensure all states abide by the standards agreed to by the protocol Last part of the question -International students can help promote cooperation on environmental issues by setting standards and verifying compliance among all member states This relates to the recent Paris agreement because the Paris agreement has managed to set clear standards that countries should follow. For example it agreed to 1. To keep global temperatures "well below" 2.0C (3.6F) above pre-industrial times and "endeavor to limit" them even more, to 1.5C 2. To limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the same levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100 3. To review each country's contribution to cutting emissions every five years so they scale up to the challenge 4. For rich countries to help poorer nations by providing "climate finance" to adapt to climate change and switch to renewable energy. Hence, this has extremely helped countries to uphold these standards in a bid to avoid punishment. QUESTION Some academics and policymakers argue that developing countries should specialize in producing primary products for export on world markets. Others argue that this is a bad idea, for a variety of different reasons. Explain the argument in favor of such specialization, and explain one of the arguments against it. Which do you find more convincing, and why? Use at least one specific country example in your answer. [[Note that this combines material from both the trade and development sections of the course.] SOLUTION Comparative advantage -According to the Heckscher Ohlin theory, countries will export goods that make intensive use of their abundant factors of production, and import goods that make intensive use of their scarce factors -Thus, since most developing are rich in natural resources and cheap labor, they can just focus on producing the primary products, also because they don't have the capital to purchase specialized machinery required to manufacture primary products into secondary products. - For example, South Africa is rich in gold, diamond and chrome. Hence, they could just focus on extracting those minerals for export on the world market -Then the country can just import manufactured products from other countries at a cheap price HOWEVER, It is not always a good idea to focus on the production of one product because this reduces the diversity of a country’s economy. It leads to dependence on income coming from one source and when that source of economy is affected negatively by something, then a country’s economy is drastically affected. For example, Iraq specializes in exporting its oil, Zambia focuses on copper production, when the prices of oil or copper drop in the international market, then the economies of these countries are severely affected Another example is that of Sudan Sudan’s economy is heavily dependant on agriculture. But in 1998, there was a severe famine that affected Sudan’s agriculture sector. Up to now, the effects of the 1998 famine can still be felt- as the country is still extremely poor Part c of question I believe developing countries should not specialize in the production of primary products only for reasons mentioned in part b. A country should try to produce most goods on its own to also reduce interdependence on other countries. -From a realist perspective, all states are guided by self interest Hence, developing countries should not rely on importing manufactured products from developed countries. What if they have a conflict with those countries? For example that's why the US has a lot of protectionism policies around their agricultural sector- because they do not want to rely solely on imports -Developing countries should also realize that the prices of primary products is volatile, hence their economies will never be stable. And this will also make it hard for countries like this to plan ahead, because the prices of primary products is never stable. Furthermore, prices tend to go down over time for primary goods relative to manufactured goods. As income goes up in the world, the demand for manufactured products goes up faster than the demand of primary products. -Thus by specializing in only primary products, developing countries will be putting themselves in a trap that they will not be able to free themselves from. QUESTION . Why are trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership so controversial? Explain one argument in favor of the TPP and one argument against it, drawing on relevant material in the readings. Which do you find more persuasive, and why? ANSWER Trade agreements like the TPP are so controversial because 1. Most Americans are against it because they believe it gives corporations more power than the government, thus it compromises national sovereignty because corporations will be able to sue the US governments for lost profits if the laws in USA adversely affect the sales of their products within the USA. 2. It has the potential to outsource thousands of American jobs to countries in Asia, where the workers work for a fraction of what US workers make. , hence most Americans don't like it because it would mean more manufacturing jobs moved overseas and the continued decline of the middle class due to the continuation of low wages. 3. It was carried out in secret, which made the public skeptical. For example, in Australia even senators could not easily access the contents of the agreement. Argument for TPP It will boost trade, increase jobs and improve standards of living among member countries. -The agreements aims to reduce 18,000 tariffs. Tariffs on all U.S. manufactured goods and almost all U.S. farm products would be eliminated completely, with most eliminations occurring immediately. Hence, it will expand the exports (by creating duty free markets) of every individual country in the TPP and create a globalized economy in which all countries benefit and all countries have policies that benefit the whole globe. Arguments against PPT The TPP threatens American sovereignty because it will allow foreign corporations to sue every time they encounter an American law that they don't agree with. An example might be a foreign company suing the US government because they are opposed to the Clean Air Act or any other type of environmental protection legislation.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'