Final Exam Study Guide
Final Exam Study Guide INR3003
Popular in Intro to International Affairs
Popular in International Studies
This 19 page Study Guide was uploaded by Beatriz Arteaga on Friday December 4, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to INR3003 at Florida State University taught by Whitney Bendeck in Summer 2015. Since its upload, it has received 204 views. For similar materials see Intro to International Affairs in International Studies at Florida State University.
Reviews for Final Exam Study Guide
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: 12/04/15
Final Exam Study Guide: INR3003 Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, and Proliferation I. Why Don't We Use Our Nuclear Weapons? A. Destructiveness? * Firebombing, Daisy Cutter … - The point of weapons is so that they ARE destructive - Allies used Firebombing on Japan and Germany - Daisy cutter: bomb explodes before it hits the ground; greater impact on surrounding area B. Battlefield Utility? * Tactical Nuclear Weapon - Still nuclear, but much less impact than an original nuclear bomb - We have them, but don't use them C. They're Wrong/Immoral - Morally wrong to use nuclear weapons 1. "Nuclear Taboo" - Nina Tannenwald - Everything about the weapons is considered "taboo", even threatening to use them 2. Human Tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - First time we used atom bomb - Were hoping they would surrender before actually dropping the bombs - US thought the bombs were the weapons of the future - Perception of the weapons changed; so did world opinion - At the surface, damage looked the same as firebombing damage - Shadows were burned into walls; RADIATION effects is what impacted perception the most, people kept dying afterwards, birth defects for humans and animals, loss of intelligence in humans - A balance of power turned into balance of terror: US and Soviet Union both being nuclear powers II. Effects on Policy A. NPT (1968) - US, GB, France, Russia, China = NPT recognizes and these 5 are committed to non-use - Also cannot help anyone become a nuclear weapon state - States not recognized: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Israel, and Iran B. Biological (1972) and Chemical Weapons (1993) - Weapons sought to eradicate C. Disarmament vs. Deterrence - Disarmament: best way to create a safe world is to disarm EVERYONE; not realistic - Deterrence: the more/stronger weapons, the greater the change other power will not attack (deter them) - To have deterrence you have to be able to survive to first strike to respond to the enemy (second strike capability) - Nuclear Triad: maintained nuclear capabilities in three realms; land, air, and at sea - Led to a period of détente; maintain weapons but control them, cooling off period = balance of capabilities - Mutual vulnerability: maintain this by limiting defensive capabilities - If both sides are vulnerable to attack, who is going to start a war? III. Arms Control History (see slide) * From MAD to MAP - Mutual Assured Destruction to Mutual Assured Protection - With MAD, we limited our defenses; MAP, we shifted to reducing nuclear arsenals and focused on protection - SALT: Strategic Arms Limitation Tox - President GW. Bush threw out ABM (anti-ballistic missile) treaty because of N. Korea - SALT II: Again, addressed ICBM, but also their delivery system and not increasing it; also reducing number of nuclear weapons. Was not ratified by Congress - Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: the END of nuclear testing - START: Strategic Arms Reduction Tox, opposite of SALT IV. Nuclear Proliferation - Spread of offensive nuclear capabilities to states not recognized by NPT as nuclear weapon states - Controlling the spread * Realists on Weak/New States - Some realists think nuclear weapons maintained peace because deterrence - Realists were the dominant voice in the Cold War - Believe nuclear weapons need to be in the hands of a STRONG and STABLE state - Nuclear weapon in a weak state would be a disaster: deterrence only exists under certain conditions 1. Need a strong and stable government which most new states did not have 2. Possession of advanced technology and communication system 3. Must possess stock piles spread out amongst MULTIPLE locations 4. State must have control over corruption, sabotage, and accidents 5. There must be security - If right conditions are not there, weapon might make state more vulnerable to war V. Constructivism and the nuclear norm of non-use - Norm = constructivism - Moral codes - As states we have norms and values that we share, these determine our behavior Additional Terms: Balance of Terror, First Strike, Second Strike Capability, Nuclear Triad, Balance of Capabilities, Mutual Vulnerability, ICBM: Inter Continental Ballistic Missile, SDI: Reagan, "Star Wars", Strategic Defense Initiative (in space) The Clash of Civilizations? I. Post-Cold War Environment • Samuel Huntington - Huntington sees us potentially moving in a negative direction - Believes that our focus is changing; increasingly becoming civilizational - Huntington sees the world that we're moving into, "fundamentally different than the one from the past" - Also believes that it will be fundamentally THREATENING; we will clash (very large clashes) II. What are the Civilizations? - Civilizational level = BROADEST level - Huntington gives 7 definite civilization, and 2 others - Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Orthodox, Latin America - #8 and #9 (possible): Sub-Saharan Africa and Buddhist III. Conflict Becomes Civilizational • From Princes, to Peoples, to Ideologies, to Civilizations - Nationalism is what sparked the first idea of "community" - Nationalistic wars: French Revolution, Napoleonic wars, WWI - Interwar years Italy Germany and Spain all became Fascist powers; ended after WWII - Russia became first Communist country; 1917 Bolshevik revolution - Huntington would say Cold War was an ideological war between democracy and communism: democracy won - Democracy is a WESTERN ideology; Fukuyama believed EVERYONE should adopt it, Huntington believes it is Western only and cannot be applied to everybody IV. Why Has Civilizational Identity Increased in the Age of Globalization? - Liberals believe that globalization is bringing us closer together = more cooperation - Huntington believes this contact helps to highlight how we are DIFFERENT from each other - Huntington identifies that we are more aware of our RELIGIOUS differences - Globalization has caused religious fundamentalism (going back to our roots) V. Why Might We Have a Clash of Civilizations? A. Western Power - Other nations reject Western power and dominance - People tend to go back to their original ideas B. Basic Differences - Differences between us can be basic but DEEPLY ENGRAINED - Some of these differences are fundamental - Can overcome differences of language (surface), but a lot harder to overcome differences in religion C. Immutable Culture - Cannot be easily changed; deeply engrained D. "Us" versus "Them" - Goal of globalization was to develop a single ideology to unite everybody - But Huntington points out the differences that keeps us from coming together - There are clear lines of demarcation E. Kin-Country Syndrome - What helps conflicts become civilizational? - "When things intensify between two states, they are more likely to get support from other states within their civilization" - Ex. U.S. and Great Britain VI. Huntington's Predictions... - There is probably going to be conflict, especially cross civilizational - Published 1993, "common conflict was going to be within Western and Islamic", Islamic and Confucius civilizations come together - Conflicts to reject Western hegemity Clash of Civilizations Part II I. Islam vs. the West • Islam's "Bloody Borders" - There has always been a conflict with Islam - Rise of Islam, the Crusades, rise of the Ottoman Empire, the last of the Islamic Caliphates - West rises through industrialization, expands, and pushes back on Islam - Huntington says there were not civilizational clashes - Points out that conflict is likely to erupt on fault lines of civilizations, specifically points of Islamic fault lines, “bloody borders” - For example, border with Israel/Arab, India/Pakistan, and Russia/Chechnya II. Critiques of the Clash of Civilizations A. Essentialism * Africa and Islam - Saying that the people within lines on the map are "essentially" the same - Huntington has grouped people who might not share the same characteristics - For example: Western civilization = Christian religion (not accurate) - Huntington identifies a "potential" African civilization: Geography, agriculture, skin color - African region is the MOST diverse in the entire world - Also identifies an "Islamic civilization", which is VERY large: Huntington uses religion as the commonality - A lot of differences within the "Islamic civilization": Language, customs, even other religions within the area (Christianity, Judaism) - Edward Said, renamed "Clash of Ignorance", attacks Huntington as being a racist - Huntington NEVER says we are the same, only essentially B. Too Monolithic - "West of the rest" statement - Focuses too much on differences and not enough on similarities C. Can it be measured? - There is no way to prove/measure Huntington's view D. Liberal Critique - Does not leave enough room for cooperation/mutual understanding and international organization - Liberals say that post-Cold War we have seen MORE cooperation/mutual understanding within organizations - Point out, just because we have differences doesn’t mean we cannot get along E. Realist Critique - States are primarily concerned with security of the state - This "civilizational identity" is way too broad; see states as the individual F. The Global Standard Critique * Fukuyama, etc. - This is those who believe the world is moving towards a global standard; coming into conformity along WESTERN lines (universal system) - Civilizational context does not matter - Fukuyama believes the world will desire democracy as the form of government; world will continue to adopt it - Fukuyama also points out that all over the world, the Western model is emulated the most - As China has developed, they have become less communist and more capitalist (Fukuyama) - Religious governments: Yes they still exist but they hold very little appeal among their own people, contained/ repressive - Arab Spring: people began to rise up and put pressure on their government; calling for democratic values (rights, voting, etc.) - Do not see the world dividing into civilizational categories, see us being united through a political ideology being democracy III. In Huntington's Defense… - Says, he does not argue that civilizational identities is the ONLY identity - Does say that differences between civilizations are real and important - The conflict between civilizations WILL be the dominant form of conflict - By "West and the rest" he means all the other states will not stay as pawns but become ACTORS in the world Political Islam I. "Why do they hate us?" - "They" = NOT Muslim world, but the radicals within those states and move freely amongst the states as well - Was not that big of an issue until after 9/11, article “Why do they hate us?,” came shortly after - Huntington would say, "Because we have fundamental differences and because of that, we are unable to see eye to eye" - Osama Bin Laden said clearly, it was done in the name of religion (fundamental difference) - Article is problematic because it is vague in pronouns (they, us) II. Brief History of Islam - One of the newer traditions - Judea/Christian roots, all three share history, Abrahamic traditions - All three trace back to Abraham and his sons - All three see an image of Prophet - Muslims see Jesus as A prophet, Christians see him as the Messiah - Muslims see Muhammad as THE prophet; Christians see him as A prophet A. Muhammad (570-632) - Born in Mecca in Saudi Arabia; major trade oasis - Muhammad saw corruption in Mecca and felt that they needed to get back to religious foundations - 610: fled Mecca, was visited by the angel Gabriel who told him to recite; then came about the Quran - Muhammad began to preach this reform, gained followers (mainly lower middle class), and threatened the leadership of Mecca - Elite in Mecca put pressure on Muhammad causing him to flee to Medina, 622 - In Medina he raised an army and united the government; established himself as the political and military leader - Takes over Mecca and unite most of the Arabian Peninsula under his control B. Ummah - Literally means "community", created by Muhammad - He removed tribal distinctions and created a common identity amongst believers C. Five Pillars • Prayer, Shahada, Alms, Ramadan, Hajj - Cores of Islam - Prayer: five times a day facing Mecca - Shahada: "there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet," saying when one convert to Islam - Alms: giving charity to the poor - Ramadan: month of fast, 9th month of the lunar calendar - Hajj: the pilgrimage to Mecca D. Christianity vs Islam (Clash of Civilization context) - Jesus is viewed as "divine" and Muhammad is viewed as a prophet, not considered divine - Christianity only has the Bible; Islam has the Quran and also the Hadith and Sunna 1. Quran (Hadith and Sunna) - Hadith: sayings of the prophet - Sunna: the traditions based on Muhammad's life and actions 2. Islam's Relationship to the State and Role of Conquest - Jesus was never part of the same, he was seen as a threat to Jews and Romans - Role of Jesus is in opposition to the state; crucified on the offense of heresy - Muhammad, on the other hand, represented the state • Shariah - Fusion of the state and religion by Muhammad - Shariah is Islamic Law - Christians do not see "conquest" as part of Jesus's life, but Muslims see Muhammad as a conqueror - Radicals believe that they are supposed to continue this conquest (Al-Qaeda, ISIS) E. Caliphates 1. Orthodox (or "Rightly Guided") - 632-61 - Muhammad died 632, and he did not leave a successor - Caliph = successor - First Caliph was Muhammad's father in law, Abu-Bakr, started this "right guide" - Expanded Islam by diplomacy, religious conversion, and conquest a. Four Uniting Bonds - All Islam conquered territories shared these bonds: religion, language/Arabic, connection of trade/economy, and Shariah b. Legitimists (Shiites) vs. Umayyads (Sunnis) - Legitimists: believed that legitimacy flowed through Muhammad's blood line - - Only person who could serve as a Caliph needed to be directly from Muhammad's blood line - Umayyads: did not think they have to be from the blood line, but from the Quraysh tribe - Uthman was not part of the blood line meanwhile Ali was 2. Umayyad (661-750) - Sets the tone of the dominance of the Sunnis, still evident today - Capital city was Damascus - Represents the "Golden Age" of Islam and a major expansion of Muslim power and dominance - Arab language spread through Asia and Europe - Began to weaken from within; rulers became less efficient, corruption set in - 750 the Caliphate came to an end; pressure from Baghdad 3. Abbasid (750-1258) - In the beginning period, still considered Golden Age - Capital was Baghdad, biggest city at the time - Great advancements in the cultural arts: architecture, math, sciences, etc. - By the early 900s there are visible declines within this Caliphate; internal weakening, became vulnerable - Saw multiple threats • Seljuks, Crusades, and Mongols (…Mamluks) - Seljuk Turks: first threat to the Caliphate; 1055 made it to Baghdad, but did not remove the rule of the Abbasid Caliphate - Seljuk's pushed west and pushed into modern day Turkey, at the time was the Byzantine Empire - Famous battle 1071 Manzikert, Turks won and pushed out Byzantine - Byzantine asked for help, Pope answered the cry and Christians began to help the Byzantines fight back, this brings the Crusades - Final threat, Mongols: conquered everything, following the same path as the Seljuk Turks (East to West) - 1258 Mongols made it to Baghdad and that was the end of the Abbasid Caliphate - Mongols were met by Mamluks in Egypt, Mongols did not make it any further West - Mamluk Sultanate (1250-1517) 4. Ottoman Empire (1299-1923) - Established by Ottoman Turks, grew to be very powerful at a quick rate - Many reforms of Islam, modifications of Shariah; conforms to a different culture - 1517 with the fall of the Mamluks it led to a Caliphate; SO Ottoman SULTAN was also the CALIPH - This is the last Caliphate - Began to weaken when the West began to rise: Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution - West began to take away land from the Ottoman Empire through colonization and imperialism - During WWI was nicknamed the "Sick Man of Europe" - 1923, was remains from the empire is Turkey, under leadership of Mustafa Kemal/Ataturk - His goal was to unify with the West and secularize Turkey, 1924 abolished the Caliphate - This separated Turkey from the Islamic world, but it has not been accepted by the West: torn status • Goal of extremists is to reestablish a Caliphate: Goal of ISIS Quraysh: tribe Muhammad was from, Abu-Bakr: Muhammad's father in law, Umar, Uthman: Sunni Caliph pick, Ali: Shiite Caliph pick, Ataturk: father of Turkey, WWI hero Wahhabism to Militant Jihadism I. 20th Century Humiliation - Mustafa Kemal - "Ataturk" - Age of empire was coming to an end - Imposition of the Western nation-state system; artificial borders, boundary drawing - Creation of Israel in 1948; given territory - Common belief that Israel was a Western creation - United States is a consistent supporter of Israel II. Rise of Reform and Radical Islamic Extremism A. Two Types of Reform 1. Internal - Fundamentalism - Getting back to the fundamentals - Islam, for example, changes; adopts other cultures and traditions, etc. - An internal reform is simply getting back to the basics of the religion/original teachings 2. In Response to the West - Somewhat considered the "response" to be negative - Negative response can form into extremist views - Islamic extremists: wanting to go back to the Caliphate, to the "Golden Age" - As extremists grows it will change to radical movements and terrorism - Afghan War: extremists views formed into a radical movement; a reaction to Western imposition = Al-Qaeda B. Wahhabism: First reform movement, internal 1. Muhammad ibn Abd al- Wahhab (1703-92) - Man who put forth the movement, Sunni religious scholar, from Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) - Dates during the Ottoman Empire - Came to believe that Islam had been transformed by "add-ons" to the religion; was not consistent with Muhammad’s teachings - Very conservative movement based on fundamentals - Somewhat like Martin Luther's protestant reformation - Wahhab rejected modernity, therefore, the West 2. Conservative Teachings - Wahhab wanted to get rid of the "add-ons" - Wanted to get back to basics of Muhammad's teachings 3. Alliance with the Suad Family - Suad was a rising family - Would offer him safe haven and promote his teachings amongst their people, in return he would promote the family’s name - 1744, first Saudi state to be proclaimed (slowly turns into Saudi Arabia) - Exercised through the Shariah and spread though Madrasas III. Wahhabism to Jihadism A. Saudi Connections to Extremism - Saudi Arabia has always supported extremist groups (Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Taliban) - Different interpretations for that support - Wahhab was NOT an extremist, his reform was merely out of fundamentals B. Sayyid Qutb (1907-66) 1. Radical Fundamentalism - Develops extremists viewpoint - Was Western friendly until he visited the US - He also called for internal reform, he felt as if the Muslim community had been strained - Attacked leaders like Ataturk, who had abolished the Caliphate and was friendly with the West 2. Opposition to the West and Western-friendly Leaders - Thought our culture was "promiscuous" - Thought women dressed promiscuous; women and children had too much freedom - Did not agree with our family values - Experienced racism; found our culture to be violent (sports like boxing) - Left the U.S. went back to Egypt and became a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood 3. Notable Followers * Omar Rahman and Osama bin Laden - Rahman: mind behind first attack in 1993 on the World Trade Center - Osama came from a billionaire family, funded Al-Qaeda and terrorist attacks - Used Afghanistan as a training base to carry out attacks - 15/19 of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia 4. Oppositional to the Nation-State System - For Qutb, the most damaging was the Western imposition of Nation-State - Saw this as fracturing the Muslim Ummah - Attacked secular governments (separation of church and state) - Saw these as destructive GOAL: Specifically called for commitment of the destruction of the Nation-States and Western leaders who control them Militant Jihadism to International Terrorism I. Afghan War (1979-1989): Soviet/Afghan war & a US proxy war. No victory and resource draining for everyone A. Deobandi Fundamentalism - Originated in Northern India in 1867 under British rule. There was no protection from the state being under foreign rule. Promotes militant Jihad to protect Islam. 1. Presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan - Deobandi schools spread imposing strict form of the Sharia law - The fundamentalists continuously crosses Paki-Afghan borders - State militaries can't easily control borders, making it difficult to control the spread of Deobandi. - 1979 Marxist government came to power in Afghanistan - Promoted atheism which was not popular, considered Western ideology - The Deobandi were considered 'freedom fighters' against Soviet Marxism - Afghan refugees fled to Deobandi schools in Pakistan and taught Deobandi extremism. 2. Ties to Wahhabism - Both believe individuals are responsible for the self-learnings of the Quran a. Taliban- "Students of Islam" b. Mujahedeen- US supports the "Holy Warriors" & "Freedom Fighters" covertly through Pakistan. c. Support of Al Qaeda- Formed during the Afghan War and funded by Osama Bin Laden. d. Role of the US- The US uses the Afghan War as a proxy war against the Soviets by funding Islamic radicals to fight the Soviets. II. How Widespread is Extremist Islam? - Most Muslims are not extremists and very few adhere to Extremist Islam. However, extremist get the most attention making them seem larger than reality. A. Evidence of Dissent - There is no one voice of Islam. Many versions of Islam conflict with one another. * Example: Arab Spring The people rose up against the Islamic totalitarian government. The people wanted modernization and contemporary way of life which was not allowed within the dictatorship. Egypt was one of the countries in the Arab Spring that successfully over through the strict Islamic dictatorship and established Democracy. B. Threatened Groups - Muslim radicals pose an existential threat to other Muslim - The radicals are able to intimidate Muslims through large scale violence and violent examples on individuals who do not adhere to their beliefs, causing moderate Muslims to join through fear or force. III. So, "Why do they hate us?" - The radicals shift in strategy towards international terrorism b/c of modern imperialism, foreign policy, etc. IV. Why Terrorism? - Civilian targets are used as unconventional method of terrorism V. Intentions of Terrorism - Instilling fear-- weaken the stronger power and motivate a change in policy by showing their disdain through overwhelming force. - Sends a message of their power while creating an audience. Empowers likeminded individuals that their cause is strong and capable of impactful retaliation which helps recruit. a. Asymmetrical Warfare - The Islamic radicals are not a state. b. Demonstration Effect- Western presence in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan feeds into radical's argument that the US is more violent and murderous than the Islamic "Freedom Fighters". Concerted efforts to change the image of Western soldiers and shift the terrorist image back to the Islamic radicals. Mass media broadcasts any of these demonstrations giving either side a larger voice. VI. Transnational Terrorism - The greatest challenge is that the terrorists do not belong to one state and are transnational - Increases the difficulty through their ability to cross borders while counter terrorist efforts cannot cross borders as easily - EU allows travel throughout Europe - Modern communication allows transnational spread - Fukuyama's theory: radical retaliation is formed through the weakening of their cause. Understanding Terrorism I. Defining Terrorism - It is notoriously difficult to define because it depends on who you a, people see things through different lenses. - Fort Hood Shooter: Major Nidal Hasan, shouted Ala Akbar (God is Great) before opening fire, and had contact with Anwar al Awlaki (American born Yamani cleric who was a well-known terrorist and recruiter for Al Qaeda). - Actions labeled as “workplace violence” – many felt he was acting as a terrorist - The military was the most upset because they cannot award purple hearts to victims and this decreased their compensation. - Umar Farooq Abdulmutallab (2009), the “Underwear Bomber”: attempted to deploy a bomb in his underwear over Detroit - Interviewed by 2 FBI agents and Mirandized - Put into civilian court system (he wasn’t American); put in U.S. jail - Grey area: weren’t clear what to do with him; he also had direct connection to Awlaki (in Yemen) - Ex. Fort Hood Shooter and the “Underwear Bomber” A. Importance for us… - Yasser Arafat, previous leader of Palestine, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” - There is a logic behind this that, in their viewpoint, is completely justified and not seen as terrorism II. So, what is terrorism? - “The threatened or actual use of illegal force directed against civilian targets by non-state actors in order to attain a political and/or religious goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation.” - Problems: increasingly difficult to combat terrorism because we aren’t defending ourselves against a state and the targets of terrorism are civilians a. War vs. terrorism: - Terrorism is illegal force - Rules come from a series of Geneva Conventions that stipulate what can and cannot occur in warfare - The existence of terrorism means we might need wars of counter-terrorism not accommodated under just war tradition b. Just War Tradition (Geneva & Hague Conventions)… terrorists don’t fit 1. War can only be declared by a legitimate government - Terrorists are not part of a government so they have no authority to declare war 2. War must be declared openly so that the other country can seek diplomacy or prepare to defend itself. - Terrorists don’t give open warning of attacks. 3. War is intended only to be used as a last resort. - Terrorists haven’t attempted to negotiate in order to avoid conflict. 4. Only military targets can be intentionally attacked – never civilian targets. However, this doesn’t mean that there aren’t casualties. - Terrorists intentionally attack civilians and also hide amongst them. **The Bush administration was criticized for launching a war against the Just War Tradition** Problem: dealing with terrorists falls out of the Just War Tradition because they aren’t a legitimate government. III. Are they crazy? Are they criminals? - Better understanding terrorist makes us better informed to combat him - The greatest mistake we can make is to underestimate the enemy, “crazy” is an inaccurate label - Ted Kaczynski was an American known as the “Unabomber” and he suffered from mental illness - The solution of how to deal with mental illness doesn’t apply to terrorists - Using criminology to profile terrorists also fails. IV. Rethinking who is a terrorist - The majority of criminals know that they are criminals, but terrorists wouldn’t say that - - Criminals tend to be undereducated, poor, young adult males - Much terrorist leadership is highly educated and line up with the middle class – fascism parallel - Terrorists and criminals are two different groups of people. Be cautious about applying easy labels. V. Terrorism conclusion - Although Huntington said “Islam”, and that isn’t all of terrorism, this can be seen as a clash of civilizations - Fukuyama might say that this is a violent struggle that we would expect to see on the way to democracy International Human Rights I. Human Rights Development A. Enlightenment/Liberalism - Classical liberalism - Ideas such as freedom and the rights of an individual and concept of equality sprouted from the enlightenment - It was the French revolution when we saw these ideas move forward B. Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) - French passed the declaration; "The Rights of Man" - Inviable and natural rights of the individual - Individual rights of: freedom, liberty, equality, security, resisting oppression, owning private property , religion, though/expression/publication - 1800s ideas began to spread out of France; classical liberalism and democracy became popular movements C. Nationalism - The ideas unite people together but can also be a negative force - Can drive people to start excluding members of the community 1. Minority Issues - People who were excluded and denied the rights of the nation/community 2. The Holocaust - Millions killed because they were "unwanted" due to the spread of nationalism in Germany/Europe D. UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) - Coming out of WWII, put forth by the UN - Embody the core ideas of liberalism given by the enlightenment - Built heavily on The Rights of Man, but extended to international use - Required member to recognize and protect the inalienable rights of their citizens - There was and still is a belief that human rights are linked directly to peace and security 1. UN Human Rights Commission/Council - Responsible for human rights agreements - Human rights agreements on regional levels - Committed to human rights - Monitor human rights globally - When the UN was deemed incompetent, NATO got involved 2. International Criminal Court (1999) - First formed in 1999, didn't become operational until 2002 - US IS NOT PART OF THE ICC - Configure solutions for genocides - Nuremburg trials set the stage for the ICC E. Problems 1. Definition of Human Rights - There is no global definition - Without the agreement of human rights definition, there cannot be an international law - Amnesty International defines Human Rights as: "Basic points of freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or other status." - Also cannot come to a global agreement on the definition of genocide - LABEL OF GENOCIDE REQUIRES ACTION; IF STATES DO NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED THEY WILL NOT LABEL IT ** Raphael Lemkin made sure the word "genocide" was used on a global scale for people who are targeted for just being part of a group 2. State Relations - Individual states can respond with things such as sanctions - 1999 UN Compromise for Intervention, under what terms can the UN intervene a state's sovereignty 3. State Sovereignty - Means a state has the power to attack in its own territory; do not need to abide by other state's rules - Can put in place their own governments and policies within their own domain - States should be protected against attempted invasions by other states - Henry Nau: "When is the violation so great that another state needs to step in?" F. Rwanda - 800,000 people killed in 100 days - Belgium had been the colonial power - UN peace keepers (blue helmets) were in Rwanda - April 6th 1994: president's plane was shot down - Caused Hutu to go on a killing spree over the minority Tutsi 1. Hutu/Tutsi, UNAMIR, RPF - UN peace keepers were present but were not armed, were attacked - April 22nd, UN voted to pull peace keepers out of Rwanda; Tutsi people were left vulnerable - RPF (Tutsi's) took the capital and forced the Hutu out; 1 million Hutu seeking refuge - UN got involved again to prevent a reverse genocide 2. Where was the help? - It was not a lack of knowledge - Department of state was under direct command to not use the term "genocide" - IF the US had used the term, they would have had to intervene - Clinton apologized to Rwanda for the US's behavior and for not helping G. Responsibility to Protect (R2P) - UN secretary-general: Kofi Annan; “sovereignty should not stop humanitarian action” - R2P says: "sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens… but when they are unwilling or unable, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states" - An attempt to find middle-ground between sovereignty and intervention; UN needs the capability to intervene - R2P is not legally binding; has not been ratified by states
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'