POLS 1020 WEEK 12
POLS 1020 WEEK 12 Political science 1020
Popular in Introduction to International Relations
Popular in Political Science
verified elite notetaker
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Eunji Kim on Sunday March 27, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to Political science 1020 at Clemson University taught by Aron G. Tannenbaum in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 18 views. For similar materials see Introduction to International Relations in Political Science at Clemson University.
Reviews for POLS 1020 WEEK 12
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 03/27/16
POLS 1020 week 12 Part I (after Spring Break) Political Liberalism Review of Westphalia Sovereignty o The states is the basic unit of international relations o There is no authority higher than the state o Each state is a sovereign entity o Sovereignty means no intervention, no interfere International Law and Westphalia Sovereignty o Traditional international law supports Westphalia sovereignty o But Modern international law challenges Westphalia sovereignty What is International Law? o Customs, norms, principles, rules and other legal relations o Among states and no-state actors o That establish binding obligations Subject Matter of International Law o International business o International finance o International Environment: air, sea, space o Human rights o War Sources of International Law o International treaties, executive agreements o International customs and traditions o General principles of law recognized by civilized states o Judicial decisions of the highest courts of the major states Compare International and Domestic Law o Domestic Law Single source government Binding enforcement Punishment for lawbreakers Courts decide conflicting obligations Overall, STRONG o International Law Multiple sources No binding How do you punish a state? ICJ = Int’t Court of Justice but light docket Overall, WEAK International Law: Two Views o Peace through justice [IR LIBERAL] States would be safer is they agreed upon certain principles that would limit the jungle-like features of international relations Their freedom of activity might be limited bur so would the freedom of their enemies to attack them o Futility [REALIST] “You talking to me?”… Then talk into my good ear. States follow international law when it is in their interests to do so, States should NOT follow international law when and if it harms their important national interests In long run, sovereignty does and should trump international law Who likes international law? o IR Liberals o State Quo States o Weaker States o USA? Who doesn’t? o Realists o Revisionist States o Strong States o USA? US Ambivalence About Int’l law o US Support Running global empire US has major say US has law-based society Ex: international trade Ex: extradition of terrorists Diplomatic immunity o Doesn’t support Hampers US freedom of action International human rights groups criticize US foreign policy Ex: Iraq invasion 2003 Ex: Guantanamo prisoners Ex: drones Closer look at laws of warfare o Laws of Warfare Geneva conventions from 1890s Legal and illegal reasons for going to war Legal and illegal ways to conduct of wars Deciding to go to war: international legal perspectives o Much controversy over when going to war is justified o “Just war theory” Warfare must be declared by a competent authority There must be just cause to go to war Self-defense / repel invasion/etc. Warfare must a last resort o Aggression not justifies But no agreement on what constitutes aggression o State sovereignty still “trumps” international law Deciding how to conduct a war: international legal perspectives o Proportionality Use of force must be proportional to goals of war Who judges the degree of proportionality o Protection of non-combatants Warfare is supposed to be between military forces WWII types of bombing no longer allowed Problems if one side hides among non-combatants Warfare is legal. General Treaty for the Renunciation of War, failed to make warfare illegal. Genocide a problem from hell Genocide: The deliberate and systematic destruction in whole or in part of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group th 20 Century horrors ( not for the faint of heart) o Armenian genocide 1916-1917 o Shoah (Holocaust) early 1940s o Cambodian killing fields 1970s o [Somalia 1992-1993 averted] o Rwanda 1994 o Balkan Wars 1990s o Darfur 2003-2008 Human rights and the international criminal court “We hold these truths to be self-evident: o All men are created equal o They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights o That among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness o That to secure these rights government are instituted among men.” The International criminal court accountability under international law? o Should political leaders be held accountable for genocide, crimes against humanity committed in their countries? o If so, accountability violates Westphalia sovereignty principle of non-intervention in internal affairs of a sovereign state Humanitarian Intervention: To protect severe Instances of human rights abuses “Responsibility to Protect” o A state has a responsibility to protect its populations from mass atrocities o The international community has a responsibility to assist the state if it is unable to protect its population on its own o If the states fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Rights and Obligations o Right to intervene? o Obligation of intervene? o Who does the intervening? o Can humanitarian intervention be kept separate from political interference?