Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Global Issues - International Policy
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Global Issues - International Policy

1,427
views

Published on

Short introduction to international policy vs state sovereignty

Short introduction to international policy vs state sovereignty


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,427
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
90
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. GLOBAL ISSUES INTERNATIONAL SECURITY State sovereignty vs. international governance
  • 2. Who am I?
    • Matthias Archie
      • [email_address]
    • Tasks (within bachelor in the Social/Public safety and security)
      • Sociology
      • Internationalisation
        • Security in an international perspective
        • Study trip to Berlin
        • Erasmus exchange
        • Intensive Programme ‘A better tomorrow’
      • Other
    • Who are you?
  • 3. Aim of this lecture
    • Introduction to international security
      • Tension between
        • State sovereignty
        • International governance
      • Short overview of international organisations
  • 4. Contents
    • Introduction
    • Humanitarian intervention
    • Democracy & good governance
    • International criminal tribunals
    • Conclusions
  • 5. State sovereignty International policy
  • 6. 1. Introduction
    • Classical ‘Law of Nations’
      • National sovereignty (freedom of governance)
      • States = hermetically closed entities
    • Peace of Westfalen (1648) (after the Thirty Years' War and the Eighty Years' War)
      • Norm of non-intervention
        • ‘ one state cannot interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination’
      • Co-existence, but hardly cooperation
  • 7. 1. Introduction
    • Globalization (20 th century)
      • Interdependence
      • Rise of international organisations
    • Trend
      • States are concerned about the internal activity of other states
        • Out of self interest (ex. economical, ecological, …)
        • Universal basic norms (ex. human rights)
  • 8. 1. Introduction
    • End of the Cold War
      • The international community becomes more and more assertive
        • Political and moral
        • Even military intervention
  • 9. 1. Introduction
    • Three intervention possibilities
      • Humanitarian intervention
      • Building democracy and good governance
      • Penal sanctions
  • 10. 2. Humanitarian intervention
    • Legal according to international law?
      • ‘ the armed interference in a sovereign state by another with the stated objective of ending or reducing suffering within the first state ’
      • Suffering
        • civil war
        • humanitarian crisis
        • crimes by the state, including genocide
  • 11. 2. Humanitarian intervention
      • Opponents
        • It violates the sovereignty of the State
      • Defenders
        • States loose their sovereignty if they violate human rights
  • 12. 2. Humanitarian intervention
    • Influence of globalization on International Law
      • Classical international law
        • Every state is sovereign and equal
        • The international community can’t intervene in internal affairs
      • New discourse
        • Intervention is possible in certain affairs like …
          • Genocide
          • War crimes
          • Crimes against humanity
  • 13. 2. Humanitarian intervention
    • New terminology
      • ‘ Responsibility to protect’
        • From the point of view of those seeking or needing support, rather than those who may be considering intervention
        • The primary responsibility rests with the state concerned (international intervention must be an exception)
        • Also
          • Responsibility to Prevent
          • Responsibility to Rebuild
  • 14. 2. Humanitarian intervention
    • ICISS
      • International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
      • Criteria for humanitarian intervention
        • Only military intervention
          • Large-scale loss of life and ethnic cleansing
          • This is the last option (first: prevention, political or economical sanctions, …)
  • 15. 2. Humanitarian intervention
        • Also humanitarian intervention when
          • Exposure of the population to mass starvation and/or civil war because of
            • Situations of state collapse
            • Overwhelming natural or environmental catastrophes
      • BUT: states often have other motives to intervene
        • Examples …
  • 16.  
  • 17. 2. Humanitarian intervention
      • Question?
        • Do States have überhaupt the right to intervene without the UN Security Council authorization?
        • UN Security Council
          • Is the only organ with the power to authorize the use of force
        • Problem
          • The Security Council is selective and inconsistent
            • For example: no intervention in Kosovo en Darfur (although the criteria were fulfilled)
  • 18. 2. Humanitarian intervention
      • Dilemma
        • Can the NATO, EU, African Union, … intervene nevertheless unilaterally (without UN authorization)?
          • If they don’t: thousands of victims
        • BUT: it’s damaging the multilateral UN system
  • 19. Talking Darfur to Death The world has been discussing the genocide in Darfur for more than three years. But some 200,000 deaths later, it has yet to take effective action to force the Sudanese government to stop sponsoring the mass murder, rape, torture and forcible evictions being carried out on its orders in the region. The United Nations has repeatedly disgraced itself by its halfhearted and inadequate response to the gravest human rights challenge it has faced since it failed the same genocide test in Rwanda more than a decade ago. The New York Times, march 21, 2007
  • 20. Mr. Lonely There was the “war of the Yugoslav succession” in the 1990s, when the United Nations refused serious strikes against the Serbs — even after the massacre at Srebrenica in 1995, which left 7,400 dead in the “greatest atrocity in Europe since World War II.” When the world did act against Serbia in 1999, it did so not through the United Nations, but the United States and NATO, and then without the blessing of the Security Council. The New York Times, December 10, 2006
  • 21. 2. Humanitarian intervention
    • Two other types of intervention
      • Pro-democratic intervention
      • Pre-emptive self-defense
  • 22. 2. Humanitarian intervention
    • Pro-democratic intervention
      • Intervention of a State or international community
        • Unilateral
        • Based on an invitation of a (democratic) government to intervene
        • After authorization of the UNSC
      • in order to protect democracy
      • Examples:
        • Grenada (by the US)
        • Panama (by the US)
        • Haiti (by the US, after authorization)
  • 23. 2. Humanitarian intervention
    • Preventive self-defense
      • Unilateral
      • Traditional right of self-defence
        • ‘… an entitlement to use armed force in order to defend itself against an attack, to repel the attackers, and to expel them from its territory’
        • ‘… initiation of military action based on a perceived imminent attack and identifies clear advantages in striking first’
      • National interests
        • In stead of the interests of the civilians
      • Recent famous example …
  • 24. 2. Humanitarian intervention
      • Illegal
        • If it appears that the attacked state never wanted to attack the intervening State
      • International terrorism
        • Better solution
          • Removing feeding floor
          • Specific sanctions
          • Better cooperation
  • 25. 3. Democracy and good governance
    • International law
      • From co-existence to cooperation
    • International organizations
      • Did not dare to intervene in ‘the way’ their Member States were governed
      • There were too large ideological differences
  • 26. 3. Democracy and good governance
      • After the Cold War
        • Less ideological differences
        • More and more democratic constitutional states (from the 1990s)
  • 27. 3. Democracy and good governance
    • Democratic reforms
      • Necessary condition for a good governance:
        • transparency of the decision-making process,
        • the access to government documents,
        • the fight against the corruption,
        • a good functioning bureaucracy,
        • an efficient financial control,
        • reporting and evaluation systems.
  • 28. 3. Democracy and good governance
      • International Monetary Fund and the World Bank
        • Pioneers
        • Attached as firsts conditions of `good governance’ to get financial aid
        • From the1990s
          • Anti-corruption
          • Human rights
          • Participation of citizens
          • Transparency
  • 29. 3. Democracy and good governance
        • Important concept: `ownership’
          • No all determining conditions
          • But space to stipulate their own policy strategy
  • 30. 3. Democracy and good governance
      • Also other international organizations
        • EU
          • Treaty of Amsterdam (1997)
            • `[EU] is founded… on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the constitutional state, which principles the Member States have in common’
          • Only democratic countries can join
        • UN and OSCE (Organization for Security & Co-operation in Europe)
          • Assists states in building a constitutional framework
          • Supports free and fair elections
  • 31. 3. Democracy and good governance
        • Provisional UN government
          • 3 regions in Croatia (1996-1998) (after Balkan war)
          • East-Timor (1999)
          • Kosovo (after military campaign of NATO in 1999)
        • Kosovo: 4 pillars
          • Police and Justice : UN
          • Civil Administration : UN
          • Democratization and Institution Building : OSCE
          • Reconstruction and Economic Development : EU
          • Since 2001: provisional self-government
          • At this moment: big discussion within the UN about the future of Kosovo
  • 32. 4. International criminal tribunals
    • Core
      • When the international community failed to prevent serious crimes
      • Possibility to exercise jurisdiction over persons who are responsible for these serious crimes
    • Generally
      • It helps the reconstruction of the country + international justice
  • 33. 4. International criminal tribunals
    • International criminal tribunals
      • To put an end to impunity of
        • War crime
        • Crime against humanity
        • Genocide
      • Aim
        • To exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes
        • To to help the victims themselves obtain justice
        • To discourage future criminals
        • To contribute to the peace in the touched areas
  • 34. 4. International criminal tribunals
  • 35. 4. International criminal tribunals
      • International Criminal Court
        • The Hague
        • 2002
        • 104 states
        • Not
          • The US, China, Russia
        • Complementarity principle
          • The first responsibility at national Courts ( the ICC is a court of last resort)
  • 36. 5. Conclusions
    • Tension between globalization and localization
      • Overall values
        • Admirable
        • But, sometimes inconsistent
          • Budgetary
          • Lack of political will
          • Pragmatism
      • Consequence
        • `Responsibility to protect’ only an emerging standard
      • Important question!
        • What’s the international community worth if the largest member (the US) doesn’t always accept the basic values and norms?
        • Whats’s the UN Security Council worth if one of it’s permanent members uses frequently its veto (ex. China in Darfur)?
  • 37. 5. Conclusions
      • Danger
        • Elitist globalization without local anchoring
      • Therefore very important:
        • Always the first responsibility at the state itself
  • 38.  

×