POLI 150 Notes Week 4: 9/13/16-9/15/16
POLI 150 Notes Week 4: 9/13/16-9/15/16 POLI 150
Popular in International Relations
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Political Science
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Hadley Ashford on Thursday September 15, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to POLI 150 at University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill taught by Menevis Cilizoglu in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 24 views. For similar materials see International Relations in Political Science at University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill.
Reviews for POLI 150 Notes Week 4: 9/13/16-9/15/16
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: 09/15/16
POLI 150 Notes Week 4: 9/13/16-9/15/16 9/13/16 - Current events: US and Russia agree to ceasefire agreement o Terms of agreement are vague o Includes caveats and unenforceable provisions o Aleppo citizens say violence still going on after agreement went into effect o After 7 days of compliance, US and Russia will agree on joint decision to fight against ISIS o Cooperation difficult when either side has incentives to defect Uncertainty from unenforceable provisions less trust and incentive to defect US and Russia don’t have complete control over ceasefire Only stops violence between Syrian government and rebels o Is a United Syria realistic after ceasefire? Ceasefire is only a small step Need real peace agreement and enforcement before fighting will end completely “united” Syria is also a vague concept For many people it means democratic elections, which isn’t necessarily realistic o Issue with ceasefire: Actual violence not between Russia and US, so can’t guarantee compliance of Syrian government and rebels But, have very strong influence over each group o Other incentives to defect: Uncertainty about life after ceasefire, but certainty about mutual defection because would be status quo, no huge incentive to comply Worst case scenario= defect-comply (for either side), huge incentive to avoid this outcome by both defecting No discouragement from defection because agreement not enforceable - League of Nations set up after WWI by winners of war o Winners had more say in organization o Failed because WWII happened - UN created after WWII to prevent another world war o Diplomatic negotiations and peaceful interactions between member states provided by UN meant to prevent most conflict - UN Charter: outlines main goals of UN, similar to US Constitution o Specifies rules/workings of each individual organization under UN - Collective security: common interest in global security o Ideal goal= no wars ever o Idea that threat to any nation is a threat to entire international community - Collective security does not equal collective defense o Collective security promotes global peace (UN) o Collective defense pledges that if one member country attacked, all other members have obligation to help (NATO) - Collective security very difficult to achieve o Very idealistic view o UN system very complicated and crowded Difficult to coordinate actions Hard to get rid of obsolete organizations Would require restructuring/amending UN Charter Some organizations backed by private donors/groups Don’t want to publicly cut funding for certain agencies because would make them look bad- ex. don’t want to imply that safety of dolphins isn’t important - General Assembly: contains all recognized countries in the world o Vote on resolutions: written documents that outline results of discussion/agreements o Each resolution requires different voting policies (majority, unanimous, etc.) o Resolutions become treaties, but only affect those that agree to it o Each country gets one vote equality of vote - Secretary General: current one is Bon ki-moon from South Korea o Doesn’t have individual vote o Presides over GA meetings o Brings issues to GA floor - Security Council: consists of 5 permanent members (P5) and 10 non-permanent members that rotate o P5: Russia, US, UK, France, China o 10 non-permanent members: try to get even representation across world- reps from each region of world, don’t all change at same time o P5 have veto power o Passing resolutions: unanimous decision from P5 and majority from others o Purpose of UNSC is to act when there is a breach in international security o Resolutions include military action and sanctions o US and Russia are main ones that veto resolutions Veto more during different time periods o Countries in P5 can also abstain from voting Shows that they don’t want to be involved, but don’t necessarily want to block resolution Happens often with peacekeeping missions- countries support mission, but don’t want to use resources/contribute o P5 members have incentive to free-ride because can have a lot of power without contributing Russia free-rides, also knows that money given may not go to things that serve Russian interests o Incentive to contribute to keep hegemonic status, opens doors outside of Security Council (US does this)- other countries look up to highest contributor o Putting money into UN can accomplish more/be more effective than just keeping it in own country Ex. peacekeeping missions: wouldn’t be able to do those under US government, but can with UN- put money in to UN to promote missions 9/15/16 - Current event: Obama met with new leader of Burma/Myanmar o Promised to lift sanctions put in place to discourage human rights violations o Looked like Burma/Myanmar is taking steps toward democracy o Related to benign hegemony Do sanctions invalidate US as benign hegemon? No, because US was trying to promote human rights and sanctions are peaceful, Invasion would invalidate benign hegemony Why did US choose to impose sanctions instead of just negotiating? Negotiations wouldn’t have worked because obvious that Burmese government doesn’t care about international opinion. Sanctions have more discouragement for defection than negotiations (game theory) o Lifting of sanctions is form of signaling from US that they now recognize Burma as equal/sovereign nation - Main challenges for UN: o Identity: inefficient structure, difficult to coordinate all parts o Relevance: other institutions/organizations are more effective and used more often than UN (ex. African Union, EU, some NGO’s) o Authority: unable to enforce policies o Performance: too overextended, too ambitious, stretched resources - Sovereignty historical background: o Thirty Years War (1618-1648): conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Central Europe, ended in Treaty of Westphalia o Treaty of Westphalia: each individual territory gets to choose religion for within their own boundaries Agreement to respect territorial boundaries of other states Established norm against interfering in other nation’s domestic affairs - Conventional sovereignty: o Individual government gets to decide all internal aspects of nations (internal) o Idea of non-interference of other states in domestic policy and territorial integrity (external) - Controversies about sovereignty: o Government assistance: foreign aid, IMF bailouts, help with development Usually comes with expectation of policy change Strings attached Some say it is a violation of conventional sovereignty: strings attached forces countries to change policies, domestic interference Counter-argument: when no strings attached, doesn’t violate sovereignty, countries agree to accept strings attached/give up sovereignty o EU structure/policies: Countries in EU have single currency No border control: can travel freely between countries No trade barriers Common foreign policy/security policy: coordinate this with each other Acquis communautaire: European Law- all countries agree to adopt it Constitution for Europe: unratified and currently failing Does EU violate sovereignty of members? Some say members willingly delegate portion of sovereignty to EU Members have choice to join, so not really a violation Can be seen as method expressing sovereignty: exercising free will of determining own domestic policy - Globalization changes conventional definition of sovereignty - Krasner’s definition of sovereignty: o Internal o External o Peace: respecting rule of law o If don’t have third requirement, don’t have right to first two o Must have all three to be considered sovereign state o Slightly vague: where do you draw the line? Protocol to determine peacefulness not always followed or enforced Passing resolutions in Security Council to intervene is difficult because different countries have different interests and interpret sovereignty definition differently to promote own self-interest Ex. Rwandan genocide: US classified Rwanda as sovereign country (didn’t declare genocide), so justified non-intervention - March and Revkin reading (about ISIS): o Main argument: ISIS elected caliphate to appear to be legitimate state Caliphate= religious leader and government leader o What actions by ISIS suggest it has state-building ambitions? Create/enforce sharia law that resembles state law Try to acquire territory to be internationally considered a state Don’t have legitimate claim to territory, so can’t officially be considered state Difficult to implement Islamic law in contested territory o What are motivations for ISIS to resemble state: Gain Muslim support base: people more likely to be on board with institutional structures Incentivize allegiance by providing certain provisions: education, security, incomes
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'