International Relations and Global Issues PDF

International Relations; understanding the relations of the states in the world Study began after First World War (1914-1918) International Security International Political Economy Ways to see the world Global Terrorism Index GDP per capita Life expectancy Hunger Index World’s...

International Relations; understanding the relations of the states in the world Study began after First World War (1914-1918) International Security International Political Economy Ways to see the world Global Terrorism Index GDP per capita Life expectancy Hunger Index World’s Economy US Largest - similarly purchasing power (China higher) Public Dept Subjective well-being/happiness Food Waste Light Pollution (high in north america, western Europe) Solid Waste Pollution (MSW - Municipal Solid Waste) Pollution - CO2 emissions Physician - how many doctors, Russia has a lot, australia Tuberculosis rate - infectious, deadly Travel and Tourism Economy Population Social Network Freedom of Press Politics and history are inextricably linked WW2 - 1939-1945 (China says 1937/1991 cus of Japanese invasion) WW2 in Europe linked to WW1 cus Germany asked to pay high xx making them angry (Hitler) The Thirty Years War 1618-1648 Religious war Between Catholics and Protestants (people who protest) (e.g. could be Christian) From france, spain, sweden (werent considered modern states at that time) Treaty signed: Peace of Westphalia 1648 - Beginning of sovereign states (cus they began to get out of influence of the Pope/approval of church) Age of Iron (TV Programme) In the Holy Roman Empire, 2000 castles, 1500 towns and 18000 villages were all torn by the Swedish army  8 million people killed (about 1/3 of the Empire population) Sweden got a lot of places and indemnity of 5 million thalers ( 㳗⊹执⹊) from the Empire and rose to become a great power United Provinces of the Netherlands (Dutch Republic) and Swiss Confederacy formally became independent Protestantism and Catholicism became equal Religion was not a reason for the future war A new Europe was formed. European powers began to see and treated each other equally and fairly When the Peace was signed, no one declared victory Europe in 17th and 18th Century 1648, The beginning of sovereign nation - states Industrialization (18th C, England) and 19th C, US The Enlightenment, (late 18th C): reason and enquiry Market and Capitalism began to develop Imperialism began ; a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means, historically rule of emperor Colonisation British came to Asia - Hong Kong, India, Singapore, etc… ,, France and Dutch also came → Increasing immigrants over the world, moved to places like US Chinese also moved to the US for slavery in mid 19th century They were looking for gold in San Fransisco (Old Gold Mountain) + Australia, Melbourne (New Gold Mountain) Chinese immigrants in classes being prepared for naturalisation cus less gold was found Railway formed, Chinese workers were used because the labour was hard (Many killed) Discrimination/Racism e.g. US passed a law that banned Chinese immigrants (their only law based on an ethnicity) World War 1 European war (only fought in europe) A war of 2 camps: the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary (catch up these notes slide 7) First ‘modern’ industrialised war because of use of tanks, chemical weapons, aircrafts New states began to establish after ww1 League of Nations 1920  Proposed by the US but they left - the congress, senate didn't approve (for us to join an international - senates must aprove) Poland formed Germany and SU signed a Non – aggression Pact in Aug 1939 to divide Poland and the Baltic states Germany, Italy and Japan signed the Tripartite Pact on 27 September 1940 (Axis Power) Both The SU and the US were attacked by Germany and Japan in June and December 1941 - Pearl Habour in Hawaii because they wanted to destroy american smth so that they can get oil/resources more smoothly Germany attacked June 1941, lost cus of weather June 6th 1944 - D-Day - align power began to fight back Conferences Cairo Conference - deal with Asia, specifically Japan Yalta Conference Feb 1945 - Soviet Union, UK, US Potsdam churchhill was not reelectedm riisevelt died so did not return Mao never attended Cairo conference The signing of the Instrument of Surrender on USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay, 2 September 1945 by General Douglas McArthur on behalf of the Allied Powers and the Japanese Foreign Minister, Mamoru Shigemitsu, which finally signified the end of WWII Significancce of World War 2 The biggest military confrontation in human history, > 90 million combatants mobilized, with 40 – 60 million killed, including civilian Truly global war: Europe, Africa, Asia More civilians killed than in WWI (holocausts) The world’s first use of nuclear weapons A turning point in history: the beginning of the decolonization processes in Asia and Africa and new international organization: UN US & USSR coming into the scene and the beginning of the Cold War Many states began declaring independence Decolonization in Africa and Asia Cold War 1945-1991 Division of Europe Churchill’s Sinews of Peace address delivered on March 5, 1946 at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri: 1st time “Iron Curtain” and changed the west towards the threat of communism Berlin wall began to be built to divide germany cus many east germans trying to fled to west Collective security Korean War 1950-1953 Telegram from the soviet union to china Instead of sending official troops, they sent ‘volunteers’ (CPV; Chinese People of Volunteers) to not start a war Cuba Vietnam War 1966-1976 - US lost The Brezhnev Docterine 1968 Arms race between the US and USSR The ABM treaty regulated antiballistic missiles limited each side to only one ABM deployment area (i.e., missile-launching site) and 100 interceptor missiles. Why? A Gist: Many of the arms limitation treaties focused on reducing the no. of nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles Signed SALT (Strategic arms limitations talk) 1972, anti-ballistic missiles - do not fire missiles SALT II 1979 (not ratified by the US) Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan 1979 Abandoned the Brezhnev Doctrine Adopted the Sinatra Doctrine (allowingto “do it on their own way” without intervening) → Soviet union would not interfere with europe End of cold war, berlin wall fall Detente ; a policy of decreasing cold war tensions 1st Gulf War Began in Jan 1991 World politics the textbook charles a raymond and charles w kegley find ebook Lecture 2 International Theories All these theories talk about 1. Power and Security (Realism) 2. Economic and Material Welfare (Liberalism) 3. Ideological Goals (Constructivism) Liberalsim Constructivisim Realism; driven by self-interest (dominant theory in IR, focused on conflicts and war) ○ Classical realism vs. Structural realism Classical Realism ○ Classical realism; state behaviour (individual level of analysis) → Human nature is universal, stable & egalitarian (people are equal and deserve equal rights) → Human beings are identically motivated Consider individual levels Unit of Analysis: States (States are the only important actors) States are rational Unitary Actor Assumption (1 Voice); the government speaks with one voice for the state as a whole International society is one of Anarchy (no one can control states (they say that UN, WTO, etc… cannot command states) Thucydided’s Trap; (definition) China does not pursue hegemonism Hegemonism; control by the strongest and most powerful group, especially the strongest and most powerful country In IR, things recur and repeat, thus politics must respond to the demands of necessity, not law and morality (e.g. even if not legal, may still have to do it) e.g. this why Russia invade Ukraine, US invade afghanistan, Iraq Utopian; also assumes that morality is important and people will act according to media pressure. Besides they also argue that personal interests = social interests and world values = states’ value 6 important principles in IR Politics roots in human nature National interest defined in terms of power The exercise of power is permanent Universal moral principles cannot be used to judge the actions of states Political realism refuces to identity, moral law governs the universe Politics is an autonomous sphere Classical Realism on Leaders National leaders have the responsibility and prudence to ensure the survival of the state and its interests, i.e. reason of state → can lead to war Good intentions and convictions do not matter in IR as compared with the consequences of actions To leaders: good political consequences often require morally questionable, or even evil means If one side gains, the other side loses What would be the outcome if the realist emphasizes so much on the repetition of history, international anarchy, “national interest defined as power” and the lack of universal moral principles in IR? Recurrence of war Self-preservation Hard to imagine peaceful coexistence Sovereign state vs international society (outside the sovereign state, = nothing because there is no supranational government/organisation that can go over) ICC (has arrested african leaders) doesnt count cus they try individuals and reply on cooperation of states, cannot command states Thus, National security*** increase budget for military The US’s total military budget is larger than the combined total of the next 9 largest military budgets If states keep building military strength = security dilemma Neoliberalism/ Structural Realism Also includes defensive and offensive realist Doesnt consider individual, just anaarchical state says its not evil nature of humans that causes competition Waltz; the internal structures of different states are similar → thus they are not important in IR Waltz’s perception of the international system Domestic structures do not have a large role in international systems At the system level, it is the fundamental structure of anarchy that shapes the behaviour of states or units, not their internal make-up Classical realism; history and individuals Structural realism; the fact that no one can control states (anarchy) is what causes conflict → Thus, to Waltz, the only fundamental element in the international system is the distribution of capabilities across states, i.e. bipolarity (safer e.g. cold war, wars were not at a large scale (localised wars)) or multipolarity (difficult for many leaders to collaborate) → Bipolarity or multipolarity (systemic configurations) “are regularly produced by the balance of power, which counteracts excessive accumulation of power, even provoking war Balance of power an automatic mechanism  an unintentional and inevitable outcome under anarchy A balance of power situation where states are in equilibrium Defensive Realism (Waltz) The rise of new powers = a potential challenge to their long term domination over the global order In a multipolar system: Control hard Calculating far less certain Bipolar systems are more stable Offensive Realist (J. Mearsheimer) ; patterns of behavior that cause states to act aggressively towards one another: fear, self help and power maximization. 5 assumptions The international system is anarchic Great powers possess offensive military capability states can never be certain about other state's intentions Survival is the main goal of great powers Great powers are rational actors Great powers are contend with the status quo, have no interest inf fighting or competing for power V.s. Anarchy; assume the worst about each other → compete for power → States try to maximise power in order to improve the odds of surviving → states seek to extend their hegemony e.g. US “Offensive realism offers important insights into China’s rise. My argument in a nutshell is that if China continues to grow economically, it will attempt to dominate Asia the way the United States dominates the Western Hemisphere. The United States, however, will go to enormous lengths to prevent China from achieving regional hegemony. Most of Beijing’s neighbours, including India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Russia, and Vietnam, will join with the United States to contain Chinese power. The result will be an intense security competition with considerable potential for war. In short, China’s rise is unlikely to be tranquil (peaceful).” Will Russia really join hands with the US to contain China? Once a state achieves regional hegemony → further aim: to prevent other great powers from dominating their geographical regions. E.g. Russia vs Ukraine, South China Sea dispute Defensive; states focus on its own security vs. Offensive (Neo) Realism; states focus on maximizing power (question is this under classical realism or structural realism) The offensive nature of building hegemony is a dangerous method → But there are drawbacks of neorealism e.g. Russian invasion invaded cause of domestic factors of Ukraine (first Russia invaded Crimea which was previously under Ukraine) Realists won't consider the fact that there can be other people in states when invading Summary of Realists Survival in IR is of paramount relevance Anarchy → uncertainty of others’ intentions build up military strength thru self help security dilemma When it mixes with the scarcity of resources → peaceful and just solutions to political conflict difficult to achieve → war International organisations (IO) IO; A representation of states’ interests / dictated by states → The most powerful states make the rules and maintain the institutions that shape international life, e.g. WTO: a western liberal and capitalist game Liberalism View of anarchy; States will have the chance to cooperate and form mutual beneficial deals with each other Consider economy Why under security dilemma, states still willing to join IOs? Freedom, human rights, reason progress, toleration ; conditions for international cooperation Assumptions States are not the only important one Plural perspective States are major actor  States existed in anarchy States; rational actors → will consider CBA (cost benefit analysis) The existinace of IOs change states calculations about war and peace The interdependence/interconnectedness among states and non-states actors: a moderating effect on states’ behaviour E.g. ASEAN – when you communicate with others, you may have a different mindset Some IOs also have requirements E.g. EU require states must be democratic to join Organisations → opportunities for wider and deeper strategic interactions between states → build trust, confidence / remove some of the elements of fear ○ Liberalist; factors at individual / state – society levels crucial ○ Neo Realist: mainly anarchy and distribution of capabilities International agenda of realists and liberals Realist Liberalist Military - security issues Political issues Social issues Economic issues Environental issues Three schools of throught in liberalsim Democratic peace theory (democracies rarely go to war with each other) - Democracies view other democratic states as more legitimate than non-democracies; fighting them is thus considered illegitimate - Democracies are more responsive to lobby and interest groups - ‘pacific-foreign-policymaking-public’ hypothesis because democratic states are more responsive to popular opinion, the chances of resorting to the use of force with other democracies are lower - The ‘extension’ hypothesis.Good norms of internal behavior become translated into good (pacific) norms of external action, building trust and cooperative tendencies. This is where emotion comes in to support the initial rationalism driving democratic decision – making - The ‘zone of peace’ hypothesis: wars still occur against ‘outsiders’ existing on the fringes of the zone of peace. Democracies more often resort to war with nondemocracies because ‘the bond of moral solidarity that constraints power politics in inter-democracy relations is simply a priori absent in democracy-non-democracy relations” Commercial liberalism ; commerce (free trade) promotes peace Liberals; MNCs and other business firms are important in IR. Governmental bureaucracies and even local churches can now play an important part in IR [a pluralist approach] Institutionalism International Regimes; “Implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors expectations converge in a given area of IR” Liberals: IOs as actors / mediators facilitate states to cooperate on matters of common interest E.g. states a and b are hostile but after both joining the UN, they have more chances to talk Does liberalism always work? Not nessicarily League of nations Great depression Does not from military perspective, but rather economic perspective (that's why IOs are important) Constructivism Anarchy is what states make of it, the social construction of power politics There is no world view, they try to understand why certain ideas, beliefs come into be ; How ideas are constructed as they are known/understood/perceived over time It is not about portraying an image, but an approach to interpretive understanding E.g. not saying cus they want power, will lead to war Constructivists; world politics about different kinds of claims, and about the struggles between people making different and competing kinds of identity claims In history → A series of unintended/unforeseen consequences → ;ead to construtivism E.g. After world war, friend or foe, easy in the cold war period e.g. america see russia as enemy and vise versa Bipolarity, according to neo-realists, should be the most stable - something unpredicted happened → the cold war stopped cus of the fall of communiism in europe and somewhere, An increasing trend of humanitarian intervention Globalization: challenge the explanatory power of the existing IR theory To the realists: State interest = national security and survival To the liberals: State interest = economic interests Constructivism problematises the identities and interests of states Constructivists: how some so called “truth” / “facts” about identities and interests are constructed overtime. Reality to the Constructivist is socially constructed Values and ideas are created by human beings who are shaped by their social ties and identities Values and Ideas VS Social ties and identities Ideas; a product of social construction The method the constructivists use in “understanding” an identity is called “intersubjectivity” Constructivists: one’s identity not only comes before interests; it also forms the basis of interests Constructivists: identities matter for policy making, not only through the definition of interest, also about what is appropriate Republicans Democratic Conservative Liberal Limited welfare/ reduce taxation of the Social welfare/increase taxation of the rich rich freedom/tolerance/climate-friendly Limited government Climate skeptic An identity → a role → action People see US as world peace → lead US troops to go ant “protect those in need” Since US represents democracy and human rights → democracy or human rights should also be core to the others e.g. thats why US is so concerned with Hong Kong Identity is not just about ‘self’,its also about those who are ‘not self’ E.g. because we are free/democratic/capitalist, thus those who are not will be treated differently Statement “States like these (North Korea, Iran and Iraq), and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil” What is the implication of this from the constructivist perspective? Means that US thinks they are righteous and the redeemer Many examples e.g. Protestants and Catholics, Capitalism and Communism, Developed Countries and Less Developed Countries These ideas are codified into rules and norms that govern interactions between entities in IR Constructivists are also interested in identity change e.g. before soviet union, now russia, are they thought of as large of a treat as they were back then Constructivists: IOs can socialize states to accept certain political goals and values, presence of IOs is one way to make states change their identity over time An IO is like a club: “the longer and the more successfully it runs, the more will its underlying norms and principles become part of the identity of its members” For identities to change radically, there must be external shock, e.g. WWII or 9/11 Constructivists’ View of Anarchy: Very Thick One with values, rules and norms and others for states to internalize in order to make their claims stick. Values, Rules, Norms and Institutions (institutions = some kind of mechanism / formal organizations) [e.g. BOP / Red Cross] available in international society In addition, the norms and rules of IOs will also sooner or later spill over to socialize states It means that the present international society / system can be changed in the future (unlike the realist / liberal ideas that it is rather constant) A change in beliefs→ a change in the everyday practices of people → affect people’s beliefs about what an identity is → all breakthroughs begin with a change in belief E.g. germany and france were enemies for long time and they settled their conflicts militarily But after joined EU, → change in the beliefs and identity Social construction; how do we have the understanding of certain ideas Lecture 3 Levels and Actors in IR Individual level Ordinary citizens + individual decision-makers (e.g. national leaders), focus: characteristic of people and decision-making Their behaviours, political attitudes, beliefs etc State level Decision-making units + other attributes, e.g. government type, level of economic and military power focus: actors’ foreign policies. Global level Interactions of states and non–state actors whose behaviours ultimately shape the international political system ‘satisficing’ (bounded rationality)” = given the limited time, alternatives,making the best decision they can 5 reasons for rationality to diminish in decision-making processes A need to form governing coalitions, including individuals with divergent views (A coalition government is a government formed jointly by more than one political party.) The winner in the general election can choose. E.g. The UK government is labour government, before was conservative. Labour government is not coalition because they won a large majority of seats, no need to consider forming a coalition with other parties. Deep disagreement preventing a decision to be made E.g. disagreements with different minister, rationality can be affected Inconsistencies grow as different factions come to power Majorities shift among competitors for power with different preferences Divergent and inconsistent bureaucratic interests and perspectives influence decisions State level it examines actors such as states, and agencies such as Foreign Office etc Considers Political systems, national wealth, ideology, military power, territory, population, social identities e.g. religion, ethnicity and government organization Questions in this level Is democracy more peaceful Will powerful states act differently Will ethnic and religious diversities lead to conflict Global level Structural factors, e.g. power, wealth etc, as a whole Observers believe that there are things that can only be understood at this level because of the interaction of the members, e.g. the Cold War States Domestic/Internal influences Vs External influences State definition Processes sovereignty (supreme authority) Exercise both internal and external instruments of legitimate violence (viz.. police and armed forces) (viz. = in other words) Are territorial by imposing material (borders) and immaterial (citizenship) barriers Sovereignty Sovereignty therefore includes: territory, authority, and recognition. It conveys a sense of legitimacy It describes and justifies the notion that states should not intervene in the internal affairs of other states. 5 basic social values of states (states are expected to provide these to their people) Security Freedom Order Justice Welfare A State refers to the political unit of an entire territory. A state has three components. Effective government - can control internally Territorial - physical boundary Population - people Other attributes 1648: Treaty of Westphalia (beginning of sovereignty) 179 ambassadors (representing 194 states) attended Beginning of sovereignty Loyalty to the king/ruler Legitimacy resided in the state Each territory: no longer multiple loyalties and authorities. There was only one: loyalty to the king / prince → Domestically, the doctrine means that a single authority had the legitimate right to issue decisions and obligatory commands → Externally, it conferred autonomy and independence International recognition micronations/microstates; they say they are a state, but no international recognition IR perspective, it is the external perspective of states that is emphasized “A state is externally sovereign “when it is recognized as such by the international community’” (Daddow, 2017: 46) From IR perspective: Common Aspect for States: Sovereignty Non common aspects: military strength, population size, economic power, areas, languages, ethnicities, religions (but they are not that much emphasized in IR) Implication? Is the term sovereignty outdated? Yes because Permeable borders e.g. economic sovereignty redundant Rise of non–state actors e.g. TNCs / NGOs/MNCs Collective dilemma e.g. Many issues cannot be solved by a single state, e.g. terrorism, climate change etc → states may need to sacrifice some of their sovereign rights International human rights e.g. Humanitarian intervention Problems of humanitarian intervention ~ poses acute dilemmas and strikes to the heart of IR: sovereignty ~ violates both the sovereignty and the territorial integrity → hotly contested Should internal state matters remain internal state matters in a globalized world? What types of intervention are ethical and effective? Do the supposedly ethical ends of an intervention justify the means? Who decides when it is ethical to undertake intervention? When is a state in such disarray that external intervention is desirable? What is a ‘grave humanitarian’ crisis and how does it relate to genocide and human atrocities Which states or organizations are responsible for picking up the prices after the ‘intervention’ phase is over?” No because The myth of the “borderless world” e.g. states only choose to engage in global economy for their own benefit State remain dominant e.g. State still being the most important player; states exercise power that no other actors can Pooled sovereignty e.g.IOs are formed by states and by working together with states, sovereignty of states can be pooled together for greater capacity Enduring attraction of the nation-state Nationalism can still make states survive Some non-state actors in IR MNCs Individuals IGOs NGOs Civil societies e.g. religious societies and mass media etc There are many issues that states cannot / don’t want to settle by themselves, e.g. tsunami, human rights etc → NGOs publicize causes, condemns abuses and pressure governments NGOs Why are NGOs important in IR? Knowledge and local needs and customs E.g. Treaty; The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) Ngos will also attend these meetings, not just state officials NGO representatives act as diplomats who, in contrast to government diplomats, represent constituencies that are not bound by territory but by common values, knowledge and /or interests related to specific issue. NGO vs Diplomat NGOs as diplomats “perform many of the same functions as state delegates: they represent the interests of their constituencies, they engage in information exchange, they negotiate, and they provide policy advice. Not affilitated with governments → nost pose a threat to the state Are they important actors if they dont have a lot of power? MNCs ; MNCs are businesses that extend across state borders, with subsidiaries (wholly or substantially owned companies) and employees in one or more other states Many MNCs are not only more powerful than NGOs but are also more influential than many states → In terms of foreign assets, Wal-mart is larger than Israel, Poland and Greece; Mitsubishi is bigger than Indonesia; and Toyota is larger than Norway Largest companies are mostly from US  The main target of MNCs is to make money, through FDIs and FPIs (buying stocks and bonds)* foreign direct investment, foreign portfolio investment? They can control a lot of the worlds wealth cus they are big → more jobs created Outsourcing: The Case of HP: Computer conceptualization and design in Singapore Engineered and manufactured many parts in Taiwan Assembled the computer in Australia, China, India and Singapore → cus its cheaper Some MNCs are state owned → implies that states are also concerned, can expand their influence Traditionally, mass media are crucial sources of political information The media can be said to play three broad political roles, or sets of roles The First Role: Information – relayer (gatekeeping, agenda setting, watchdog) The media, particularly, have played an important role called agenda setting, in selecting which news to cover and how much to cover, what to think about(what stories to think about, not how to think about it), how to think Media bias The media and vietnam war  The media would honestly talk about american soldiers → caused social movement/protest ‘say no to vietnam war’, these people originated from univeristy Power Security Justice Power Three dimensions of power 1. Observational power (Robert Dahl) A can make B do something that B would not originally do 2. Prevention (Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz) A has power if can prevent something from coming into agenda 3. Interests, beliefs (StevenLukes) A has power id able to make some believe his interests Power has two aspects: A set of national attributes (or capabilities) and A process of exercising influence = ability to overcome obstacles and influence outcomes 1. Deterrence Dont do it otherwise you will face consequences (the military) 2. Compellence More national attributes (or capabilities) = wide policy choices/activites Capabilities could be physical object, talent or quality etc Capability Credibility (to be discussed) Sources of state’s power Soft power Economy Geography (include location and size) Population Natural resources Technical and scientific abilities Military Power is concrete, measurable and predictable Geographical Power Shorter route = less expensive = goods are cheaper = market advantage 1. china and the strait of malacca to china  2. US warships made 92 trips through the Taiwan Strait since 2007 (Taiwan Strait case) → US did it to show that on terms of international law, they have a right to pass through 3. Japanese vessel joins Austrailia and New Zealand in its first Taiwan Strait transit 4. First and Second Island Chain (China) If Taiwan falls into hands of chinese, this is dangerous for westernered becuase china can advance east (america direction) → Geopolitical mentality ; military relaist approach from america to establish friendship so it wont be easy for china to expand eastwards 5. China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) connects Xinjiang to the Pakistani port of Gwadar → can get petroleom easier The Multan Sukkur Motorway (also have railway between gwadar and kashi) is one of the largest investments in the China Pakistan Economic Corridor However, there is a reported huge investment loss of china in gwadar 6. The Strait of Hormuz 2 Oil tankers were attacked in the Strait of Hormuz in May 2019. Saudi Arabia claimed that the sabotage attack was done by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen (8 year war of Iraq and Iran in this region, the strait became blocked) 7. Geopolitics: The Arctic Region It was frozen in winter, making it hard for ships to pass through but now with global warming, the ships can pass thus many great powers (finland, sweden, russia, us, greenland, even china) claim to have a right to pass through and compete as they want to take over The Northern Sea Route shortens things Natural resources as power Populatin is also an “asset” for economy power (with military weapon advancement, do you really need that many soldiers so no for military power) Venezuela’s economy slumped because of a fall of the oil prices over the years Supply of Natural Gas by Russia to the European States → cause them to not want to fight russia so much European states value environment and want to reduce greenhouse gas so they dont want to rely on coal, petroleum, like to focus on renewable Other country; nuclear energy (renewable/clean energy) risky if smth goes wrong but many use it cus hard to find replacement in short run (not widespread nowadays tho) Miliary Power 1. (pseudo military power?) More than 200+ fishing boats gathered in Niu’ E Jiao [Whitsun Reef to the Philippines], the largest number of Chinese fishing boats gathered at the Sprately in history Other intangible “powers” Leadership quality eadership quality de ○ maintain people’s loyalty ○ maintain people’s support ○ motivation ability Cohesion of the state when under threat Intelligence ability Willingness to sacrifice Skills and efficiency of the administrative organs of a administrative organs of state, e.g. raising tax, mobilizing people Morale of the state Soft Power a staple of daily democratic politics not merely the same as influence more than just persuasion or the ability to move people by argument attractive power 3 sources Culture Political values Foreign policies Social media, netflix, nba, Korea Food Movies Taekwondo Kpop Japense people cleaned the world cup stadium in russia → A chinese team imitated what the japanese did Tiktok as a soft power Spent a lot of money to pay representatives of US house to promote tiktok (one from democratic, one from republican) China spends some $10bn a year on building up soft power, one of the most extravagant programmes of state-sponsored image-building the world has ever seen. The US only spent $670m on public diplomacy in 2014 Government cannot manufacture soft power. Much of the US soft power had sprung from its civil society Smart Power A need to “focus on the smart use of power to promote U.S. interests through a stable grid of allies, institutions, and norms.” E.g. promote military Sharp power (not a good term, invented by the west to talk about enemy states e.g. china and russia) ;effect of limiting free expression and distorting the political environment E.g. theft, media networks spreading propaganda, bots, cyber offence Mostly seen in CAMP Sectors: Culture, academia, media, and publishing Sharp Power @ academia: The Case of China Quarterly An announcement was sent that the 300+ articles would be taken down Most of the articles in question relate to topics deemed sensitive, such as the Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen Square, Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, and date back to the 1960s In the evening, same day, they argued that they did something wrong and they will put back the articles Wikipedia blocked 18 Chinese accounts from being able to edit the contents of Wiki “TikTok had accomplished something no other Chinese company had done: it had created a globally appealing breakthrough social media technology. And it was the first Chinese company to hit No. 1 in Apple’s US App store.” → shaping and changing beliefs of americans, belief that china is gathering info The powerful system allows TikTok to learn what content users like faster than other apps By Apr 2020, > 2 billion downloads Indian government banned the app in Apr 2020 for stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users’ data Ordered by the US government to sell its US operation to an American company It’s also placed under investigation in Australia Soft power could be turned to sharp power and pose a security threat to others if it is not managed properly! Security Deterrence assumes that actors are rational 3 C of deterrence 1. Communication 2. Capability 3. Credibility E.g. of deterrence 1. North korea issues military threat as tensions with south korea rise Arms race → security dilemma (interpretation and response) 2. Cuban crisis 1962 First there is dilemma of interpretation motives, intentions, weapons as ambiguous symbols Dilemma of responce  Military, reassurance, Balance of power Realists: Balance of power is crucial for peace to be maintained Liberalists: IOs, a framework Constructivists: sharing knowledge and practices (i.e. changing the way we think about ideas / concepts), such as by forming security communities, e.g. NATO, in which states trust one another Aircraft carrier smth smth ; cannot just have aircraft, need other things (e.g. ship) cus has weak defence so you keep building more Nuclear weapons is a wmd (weapons of mass destruction) 1. nuclear/atomic 2. Biological 3. Chemical US invaded afghanistan cus us claimed iraq had wmd, even though iraq says they did not They overthrew afhanistan government and put a weak us one, still couldnt find the wmd Security council in UN China uk us france russia Other countries e.g. india, pakistan, israel, iran, north korea Taiwan doesnt have its own sovereignty, japan no control over military (controlled by US) China tested a an icbm missile (the first time in 44 years) Second strike capability; can you strike first knowing that they will be completely destroyed otherwise they can strike back Reduction of Armed Forces in China: cus increased tech advancement INF treaty In Feb 2019, the US announced her decision to pull out from the INF Treaty (The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) Early on, she also claimed that Russia had already violated the Treaty. What’s so big deal with it? “Mounted on mobile launchers based in the European part of the Soviet Union, the SS-20s could strike targets anywhere in western Europe in less than 10 minutes.” But finally us (under trump) said they will not keep the treaty, cus claimed china was not a signatory state South korea; THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) Opposed by china cus the rader system covers china and japan People claim that sk has no use for it, and it was actually made for us to keep watch on china Cyber security Not expensive e.g. need some computer, size of state is irrelevant as it can be done by small states Can disseminate fear, propaganda, obtain valuable information, recruit people The US Justice Department has indicted five members of the Chinese military on charges of hacking into computers and stealing valuable trade secrets from leading steel, nuclear plant and solar power firms Justice Traditional international justice:upholding the principles of state sovereignty, the norm of non–interference and in war (just war theory, reason and conduct of war conforming to principles of justice]) Realist; need to survive thus its okay to do some immoral things Ethics in IR 2 moral arguments in Western political culture: Immanuel Kant [Kantian tradition] → only do correct things Jeremy Bentham [Utilitarian tradition] → achieve the greatest happiness of greatest number of people Judging moral arguments: 1) by the motives or intentions involved 2) by the means used, and 3) by their consequences or net effects. Global Village: more people are emphasizing interconnectedness, about global values / universal moral values Cosmopolitanism : there are universal values applied to everyone, regardless of their nationality, race or religions etc. there is a single moral community, in that people have obligations towards all other people in the world E.g. In IR: international human rights, In IR: international human rights, arguing that the rich (states / people ) arguing that the rich (states / people ) should help the poor (states / people) should help the poor (states / people because the international order is because the international order is structured so as to benefit some people structured so as to benefit some peo and areas at the expense of others E.g. global warming Lecture 5 Intergovernmental Organisations (IGO) ;Traditionally: formal institutions whose member are states (IGOs) IGOs can be classified by rules of membership; some universal (e.g. UN) and some restricted (e.g. EU) IGOs can also be categorised by their purpose. Some are multi/general purpose organisations e.g. UN and some are more specific e.g. WHO ASEAN smth vietnam, china not official member Pocesses International legal personality ;Have capacity to act under international law → Have many of the same privileges of sates e.g. reach agreements/sue in national courts Realists (unit; states); IO are extension of the hegemon (hegemon;big power, extension of big powers interests) (do not see states and IO as same, less important than states) Hegemonic Stability Theory Includes… A state (hegemon; big) forms IOs Provides incentives to join Bears cost of maintaining it → Once formed, hegemony further strengthened Real-Life Examples NATO (military organisation) formed in 1940s to prevent communisation → rival organisation; war zone pack (disband) AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) 57 members One aim; finance the One Belt One Road programs proposed by China → to promote trade and investment opportunities Some states were echoing China's call (UK joined first i think, more and more western states joined but they had reservations cus they wondered if US was gonna join, US did not join) → can say china’s interests can be further extended Realists argue; Effectiveness of an IO = function of State’s power Criticism; dept trap diplomacy; some of these developing countries fail to return money, state will have opportunity to take over businesses in that country (Brahma Chellaney) Other international organisations dealing with banks World Bank, smth else i forgot However, the collapse and decline of the hegemon would affect the formation and maintenance of IO UN Formed by the US Rise of USSR and CHina → challenge the US power in the UN Un security council’s role questionable between 1949-1990, except the korean war Some other failure cases; Vietnam (1966), Afghanistan (1979(, Grendada (1984) Realists; collective security works only when the powerful states want them to work (=power politics) → When great powers wish to use force, no organisation is going to stop them The decline of the US and the Gulf War (iraq), leader’s role weakened America fought alone against vietnam, but not Iraq (they asked for help cus no longer that strong) international cooperation to the realists Must have common problems/interests E.g. 1815 concert of Europe, no IOs (napoleon created a chaotic situation, other states worked together to defeat him) Realists; low politics only (non controversial matters where states have common interests) state s only agree on international rules of arenas of low politics Avoid undesirable consequences (Need to have global standards) high politics; national security, order for survival of state Low politics (politics and common interests)  Transport Telecommunication Postal union (Universal postal union; had dispute of hk and us cus cost of sending letter from hk to us less expensive than latter) Publishing The great powers and realists; IO (intervening role) by great powers → further their interests in IR To small states (check slides) 1. Mechanism for great-power collusion i.e. use IOs to control/influence other states 2. IOs are useful to make minor adjustments within existing order 3. IOs; agents of international socialisation legitimizing the existing order 4. IOs can be a brass ring for states to become important internationally by creating/controllign them Liberalist; the optimist; IOs, constructive in international stability and global welfare 1. The importance of military force in IR has waned Conventional weapons have become so destructive that their usefulness to achieve foreign policy goals has declined 2. Spread of democracy+rule of law government → less resoirting to war to settle disputes Democratic peace theory 3. Socities are much more linked together → they increasingly see themselves as part of a greater whole 4 assumptions of liberalism 1. States and non state actos, business, even civilaisn are important in IR 2. States are not nessicariliy unitary and rational → different units compete with each other → units try to lobby/control the government (plualists) military unitary assumption idk i couldnt understand 3. IR is conflict and cooperation because of human nature States are interconnected through trade and finance → incentives for states to cooperate with each other because they rely on each other 4. A variety of issues can come to dominate smth Functionalism; states cooperation spillover → states would learn behavior and practices from one another – IOs; socialize elites (bad thing cus they think the same) Liberal institutionalists; io serve the states interests + IO require hegemonic power to create Realists version of IO LIberal Instiutionalists version of IO → e.g. successful in limiting north korea? Cut transaction and information costs Promote transparency States cooperation → accustomed to using IOs to achieve goals/settle disputes → abandon power - maximising behaviour in the long run Good thing cus Can learn → peace can be maintained Trump (realist) asked other members to pay more in NATO, trump puts america first, he withdrews from TVP Constructivists Ideas (of the IGOs) Beliefs Values Norms Identities How do internarional norms change/shape states behavior and vise versa Contstrutivtst approach is centered on explaining change; showing how key concepts used to explain IR have changed over time E.g. how does the norm of “nonuse of force in IR” affect the decisions of the US invasion in IRaq, or how the US invasion of IRaq shaped and changed the international norm for other actors e.g. the UN officials Norm of not immediately fight, but start to negotiate first (peaceful means on settling disputes) E.g. Iraq and US, why did US invade in 2003, how its invasion shaped the corm for other actors after, did it provide some insight to UN officials e.g. maybe use of force should be considered as more acceptable 2. One group of construtivists is interested in knowing how IOs can socialise states and decision makers about their appropriate expected behavior (how is there spillover effect ) For instance, … (copy from slide) World bank - when u adopt these policies, u will become richer (spreading its value system to developing countries) IGOS have berucrati c values Expected behavior Group identity Prganisation norms → shape smth (copy slide) IOs may influence (copy slide) Put a star for the third point Secretariat; administrative unit of the IO to help in opperate effectively (can have diff names) 2 cases of International organsations UN; largest igo in the world The UN is a response towards what had happened in the world: the WWII, the Axis Power and the Failure of the League of Nations, fomed in 1940s 1942, 26 allied nations against axis powers - signed the declaration by united nations 1945 united charter 6 principles of the UN Yellow, green, purple one not really followed, in theory its a violation HQ in New york Other main office in vienna , austria Geneva, switzerland Nairobi, kenya 15 specialised agencies Legally independent Have separate budgets, member, rules and personnel Sidetrack; China was reported cancelling the $78m debt owed by Cameroon in 2019 in exchange of the later withdrawing her candidate for the directorship of FAO in the UN. FAO director is chinese now China used to be head of 4 so some claim they exert too much influence, some say chinese only 1.2 per cent of the total so they are under represetned IEC: Set standards for power generation and transmission, home appliances, semiconductors, fiber optics, batteries, nanotechnology, and other technologies (low politics) China wants Global rule making Gain a voice in china Security council in UN USA, UK, France, China and Russia (permanant members) P5  E10 will serve for two years and replace 5 of them No regular meetings, but can be called immediately 9/15 member say yes + no veto Russia veto most After cold war, it plays a ore assertive role Factors explaining the expanded role of SC in the post cold war era 1. Collapse of the SU → superpower rivalry reduced 2. Spread of armed conflicts in the 1990s and 2000s 3. New interpretation of “threats” → before was national security (still), new insecurities emerged, e.g. poverty, disease, oppression and proliferation, global warming etc. Check which recent un meeting is there Korean War On Veto Power Rethinking on Veto Power: The Case of the SU in Korean War What explain the disappearing from voting of the SU in the UNSC concerning the sending of troops to Korea in 1950? Accidental Vs Intentional? North korea almost took over whole of south except busan, thats when US intervened and sent troops (UN and US troops) Russia representative was absent that there was no veto and UNSC could send troops → absent because if the whole project was shut down, US would send troops to korean war cus US fears NK becoming too powerful and expansion of communism in asia North korea (no nuclear weapons rn) could probably lose if US and SK worked together cus US has nuclear weapon only china (CPV; chinese people of volunteers, sent cus got asked by russia, ussr did not)and ussr would help NK, china did send help The general assembly General debate ⅔ must agree Make recommendations on many topics, no coercive authority President who rotates among 5 groups of country e.g. african, asian to ensure equality Observer states; vatican city, palestine (right now Philemon Yang maximum 5 year, 2 term) Antonia guterries (securtary general, also rotates) UN economic and social council International court of Justice (ICJ) 15 judges elected by SC and GA for 9 renewable terms Base in netherland They try states, not individuals E.g. A Case of 2011 The dispute over the Preah Vihear Temple between Cambodia and Thailand. Finally, the ICJ declared that the temple belonged to Cambodia The ICJ has asked for immediate cease fire of Russia in Ukraine 13 of the 15 judges voted for, with only the Russian and Chinese justices voted against (power politics) Trusteeship council no longer there UN Peacekeeping 1. Conflict prevention Diplomacy, peace negotiations, 2. Conflict Give pressure to make them stop, e.g. sending troops to intervene, will not participate in conflict eg. to help either side, usually just there to keep peace 3. Peacebuilding Different countries send their soldiers to participate in UN peacekeeping, always wear blue hat Neutral 3rd party Ceasefires, buffer zones Other duties: electoral assistance, training local police, humanitarian action, landmines → prevent, contain and moderate of hostilities UN Peacekeeping was first born after the Arab – Israeli War in 1948. A group of unarmed military observers arrived in the Middle East as the first UN peacekeepers The basic tasks of UN Peacekeeping operations fall into 2 categories: 1. military observer missions composed of relatively a small number of unarmed officers, will carry out such tasks as monitoring ceasefires, verifying troops withdrawals or execution of the related agreement. 2. ceasefire observations Peacekeeping forces, armed with light weapons for self-defense, will be deployed to carry out such tasks as ceasefire observation, so as to ease the tension and create conditions for the settlement of disputes. 3 major principles Consent of the parties; Impartiality; Non-use of force except in selfdefence and defence of the mandate Have become multidimensional and complicated, not only mainintain peace but also help with electric stuff, political process, Police men of different regions might also be sent to be a UN peacekeeper e.g. NYPD The 8 died in Haiti’s earthquake in 2010 2 killed in South Sudan, Jul 2016 Sixteen Chinese military peacekeepers have sacrificed their lives as of Sep 2020 Peacekeeping budget is like double of regular budget , 600M Bangladesh, nepal, india, rwanda, pakistan, egpt, ghana (china ranked 10) sent most troops (south asia, africa) (most are developing countries) US gives most money for UNPK expenses, china, japan (mostly developed states pay but no giv soldier) Those who pay, rarely play. Those who play rarely pay. China the only one who supported physically anf fiscally (monetarily) Total of 71 operations have been done 11 are still undergoing in 2024 States not willing to send members to harder cases Some states are more effective and desirable Police is harder to recruit than military Sexual misconduct to both country and women in forces Not a lot of women in forces Why do states need to spend so much money to maintain peacekeeping activities? 1. Security States tend to provide peacekeepers when they believe this promotes their broader national security interests (can be physically close to countries willing to send troops, so u can maintain the conflict so it doesnt spread to ur country) The level of perceived threat could be a major driver of contribution decisions Geographical proximity plays a prominent role for states to provide peacekeepers  Larger powers might view their security interests in more global terms e.g. US scared that russia-ukrain conflict affects geo-strategic caluclations of US 2. Institutional Providing peacekeepers can stem from motives related to the state’s armed forces, security sector or bureaucracy ~ provides invaluable overseas experience, how other states operate Keep armed forces occupied outside the state [rather than meddling in domestic affairs] e.g. burma is still under military intervention controlling their government, thailand when thailand became democratic, there has been lot of military intervention if they are not happy with civilian government, then they overthrow Providing a prestigious role → insulating them from significant cuts brought by Post – Cold War peace ~ can help rehabilitate the armed forces after authoritarian rule 3. Normative (whether is is correct) States believe that it is the right thing to provide peacekeepers internationally ~ seen as Global good Samaritans / good international citizens Good Samaritans identify with suffering of others Æ contribute to promote greater goods ~ seen as good international citizens for the UN system the most legitimate to manage conflict 4. Economic economic incentives are an important rationale for providing UN peacekeepers ~ receive economic subsidy for sending troops, 4 major beneficiaries are here: #1 National governments, esp. LDC (support national budgets) gov gets monet then allocates #2 National defence and security sectors (augment their budgets) their national defense is strengthned cus they can get weapons, funding #3 Individuals, esp. military and police officers (thru mission subsistence allowance) #4 Private firms and national corporations (thru procurement contracts etc) can get contracts e.g. can also get more thru corruption 5. Political : states want to fulfill other political objectives, e.g. greater respect and authority in international institutions, esp. the UN because: #1 ~ pressure / persuasion by allies, great powers etc developing countries not very influential, want to be respected #2: ~ enhance states’ national prestige #3: ~ may strengthen their bid to acquire a (non – ) permanent seat on UNSC (un might be reformed) How do realists see peacekeeping? cus they are permanent member rather then cus they big power Liberalism and peacekeeping It emphasizes that democratic states are more likely to participate in peace operations Increased no. of states participation in peacekeeping after the Cold War is related to the spread of democracy Democratic peace theory Democratic states are more readily to accept that individuals have inalienable rights that must be protected and promoted everywhere Democratic governments have a shared interest in creating the conditions in which “peace, prosperity and democracy” can thrive → otherwise an authoritarian regime can start Democracies are thought to be more likely to join IOs and to cooperate with each other to achieve common goals, e.g. peace and security Liberal Institutionalists argue that peacekeeping operations could 1. spread the risks and costs  2. offer advantages of scale and efficiency 3. provides political legitimacy (seen as a responsible partner/helper,neighbour ) through the legitimating functions of IOs 4. dilutes potential opposition and allows states to monitor and control the behaviour of other participants e.g. Maybe they wanna join EU, many who join are non-democratic states Construtivism in peacekeeping All interests are socially constructed What are state interests Thus a state needs first to know its identity, values and shared norms (are state interests locally, regionally and globally different ) before it can tell its interests → do they effect interests We cannot know what we want until we know who we are (knowing its identity) We cannot know what we want until we know what we cherish (knowing its value) We cannot know what we want until we know what it is appropriate for an actor with a given identity to want (knowing the norms) To understand variation in peacekeeping contributions one must first understand variation in the way states construct their interests They will question the claims and the related identity of the state E.g. if china sees herself as a major global responsible state/power, thats why she pays more and sends more troops Peacebuilding Peacebuilding usually succeeds peacekeeping Reforming the UN Un will be 80 years old Many agree un needs reforming but they disagree on what kind of reform needed and the purpose: DC: more productivity & efficiency, better coordination, improved management etc LDC: greater economic and political equity + enhanced participation in key decision making; more power within the system, greater equity Reform of the UNSC Original Design of UNSC: an effective institutionalizing the global power Needed p5 and needed incentive, their interests taken care of to get them to join → veto power Reality: rise and fall of the great powers e.g. that time britain and france were great powers but not anymore e.g. germany and japan are more economically powerful now Un went from 51 members to 193 members but still only 5 permanent members Which countries should be added? India? Pakistan would vote against Germany? Italy vote against brazil ? argentina Japan? South korea and north korea 54 African states Instead of focusing on the impossibility, which requires to amend the UN Charter, one should shift to Non-Amendment Reform Veto → impossible find reform that p5 agrees GA; general assembly Remember why soviet union was absent , did not wanna fight america in korean war? Check again. If not UN, US would send troops, china would join and cus soveirt and china are pals, soviet would have to join. These two incidents, both being vetoed by a UNSC member, provided the best chance to consider the non amendment reform mentioned above. Actions proposed are: To Pass a Framework Resolution of Automatic Consequences for Grave Charter Violations To Strengthen Chapter VI (a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting) To Establish a Special Tribunal to Try the Crime of Aggression (want to make a new court) To Establish a Reparation Mechanism UN financing problem The payment scale is based on a country’s ability to pay, national income and populations and it will be reviewed every 3 years Other budget considerations: per capita income, any economic dislocation (e.g. from war), and members’ ability to obtain foreign currencies etc The specialized organizations (15 e.g. imf, who with their own budget): Separate budgets, from voluntary contributions by governments, individuals and institutions Un most budget Not all member states pay on time, very lenient punishment for not paying on time US owes most to Un cus always pay late China, together with some other 39 states, have paid their assessments by 7 May 2019. The UN Secretary General informed the UN member states in Jan 2019 that they owed a total of US$2 billion for the PKO budget, among which 1/3 was from the US, which was US$776 million. The US also owed US$381 million for the UN regular budget Used to be japan and us the most, but now china and us (us always top) EU (regional IO) Restore your economy e.g. build factories, ingage in trade (increase export to earn foreign reserve, decrease import cus need to pay others) Thus treaties were signed to reduce these hurdles Treaty of masstrict made the EU 1. ECSC: European Coal and Steel Community 2. EEC: European Economic Community 3. Euratom: European Atomic Energy Community Britain left, UK gave a referendum thinking people would wanna stay but ppl voted to leave so they accidentally left. This prime minister stepped down. Had to pay 30billion to leave → tell others not to leave Meetings Held twice a year The Council of the EU (Council of the Ministers) is mainly a decision making body. It will pass laws (together with the E Parliament in some cases) How does EU Council vote? Not simplified majority voting The Council uses qualified majority voting (QMV). This means that in order to have a decision passed by the Council: At least 55% of the member states must agree and the member states in agreement must represent at least 65% of the EU population. E.g. if u more economically powerful, contribute more, etc… u have more weighting The European Commission has 27 members and is the executive arm of EU. Most EU proposals and initiatives emanate from here. (= they will propose bills to the Council of EU and the European Parliament to pass) → It also has the power to execute EU policies after they have been approved by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. It is also given the responsibility for implementing the treaties creating the EU The European Parliament (current 720): responsible for overseeing the Commission and approving its budget. It has more than 700 MEPs who are directly elected by member state citizens. Besides, it also can co – legislate with the Council of European Union in some cases Civilians can vote who gets in european parlimenet, and this is where laws gets passed The European Court of Justice 3 Criteria for Joining the EU: 1. Democracy and Rule of Law, 2. Functioning Market Economy 3. Ability to Implement EU Laws Enlargement ; more and more sttaes wanna join EU Turkey wants to join Cus of syria conflict, many syrians went to europe, caused refugee problem to germany,fracne and greece Turkey is a member of NATO (military organisation established after second world war, has war zone pack but collapsed) In 2019, trade war of turkey and US, turkish currency went low low Would turkey leave nato or still want to join eu (prolly EU cus US not there) Albania and serbia also want to join. Turkey has big problem tho cus turkey is an islamic state and few years ago they almost went through a coup, their gov was overthrown and they thought US was behind it. US and turkey relation soured, EU and US friends so will eu accept turkey Years ago greece triggered some slide Economic dept crisis Turkey willing to accept immigrants from mainly africa There is a rise of european populist political parties, uphold nationalism aka no immigrants Working class are main targets of populist parties Will brexit weaken eu as an IO? Core 1: Extremely unlikely to leave, e.g. Ireland Core 2: Very unlikely to leave, but more likely than core 1 states, e.g. France and Germany (if they leave, eu will collapse) Core 3: Most susceptible to a leave vote, e.g. Italy (many want to leave) and Greece Extra Theoretical Approach 2: Constructivism  Explanation of constructivism: emphasis on social constructs and identities. Application: Case Study: Shifts in Afghan identity and international perceptions post-withdrawal. Examination of narratives used by the Taliban and international actors. Constructivism: Difficulty in measuring the influence of identities and norms. The principle of equality (or egalitarianism) is based on the idea that all humans are inherently equal, and that the right course of action is that which reduces the amount of inequality. While it is evident that the Earth’s current society is unequal, the effects of climate change will exacerbate these inequalities. In order to minimize inequality, therefore, DCs would have to invest heavily in LDCs. However, a stringent application of equality, as Page [11, p. 564] notes, introduces the “leveling down” problem. In the context of climate change, this means that DCs would be “levelled down” if they invest heavily in LDCs on the basis of equality. Because of this potential negative outcome for DCs levelling down problem, equality alone cannot serve as a comprehensive tool for assigning the responsibilities of climate financing. Another principle of justice we may look into is priority. Prioritarianism holds the view that, if there are people who are worse off than others, it is our moral obligation to help them. It differs from egalitarianism in that it does not state that all individuals have to be made equal. Rather, the emphasis is on improving the plight of the worst off, even if the outcome does not necessarily result in everyone being equal. The advantage of prioritarianism is that it avoids the “leveling down” problem of egalitarianism. When applying prioritarianism to the issue of distributive justice in climate change, it would imply that DCs should shoulder most of the costs of climate change because they have a moral obligation to help the people in LDCs, who would be made even worse off because of its effects. This is probably more in line with our conventional way of thinking; therefore, prioritarianism may offer greater promise for making a convincing moral argument regarding climate financing. Developed nations have a heavy responsibility to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change. As Friedman notes, allowing developing countries to grow their economies with less burden is pivotal in reducing poverty