Justice and the Sovereign State

While it is certainly possible and advisable for sovereign states to reach global agreements that benefit all parties involved, progression toward a concurrence can only be made with compromise that does not threaten the sovereign state’s power and exercise of power. A sovereign state, in a democratic sense, must both represent and protect its people and make decisions with other countries on mutual interests. Yet, in order to be sovereign, a state must be known and recognized as sovereign by the other member states of the global society, and therefore, must also act with authority and power over its “possessions” in order to maintain its position. As a result, even and balanced agreements between sovereign states might be scarce since they are complex to negotiate as each nation competes with another for resources, economic development, market share, and wealth. However, global agreements, in the true meaning of the term, are of utmost importance and made regularly, either bilateral (between two countries, such as the USA and Mexico) or multilateral (between several countries, such as the European Union). Even though there is no higher law that safeguards the justice of decisions being made, agreements between countries can still be attained on the premise of extreme need and desperation, or political and economical advancement. For example, Great Britain could increase its financial aid to Ethiopia, but is it going to stretch its resources beyond the range of comfort just to be generous? Great Britain would lend a “reasonable” amount, as expected from a wealthy nation, in a form and against financial terms that would be, of course, acceptable by Ethiopia, and that would be seen as politically correct and considerate. An agreement and compromise is made, in technical terms, yet the element of justice is drastically absent.

Because sovereign states determine their own law and execute legislation in their territories, they will interact and negotiate with other sovereign states on a basis of power, producing agreements that directly correspond in balance to the power and sovereignty of that particular state, resulting in the best deal they can negotiate for themselves. For example, most western European countries and the USA have trade tariffs in place that protect and subsidize their own agricultural industries, guaranteeing them access to the global market and thus securing a profit. However, these trade barriers make it extremely difficult for poorer, third world nations to compete in the global market place and get a fair price for their agricultural products, which make up a large part of their economy, thus choking their development. Agreements they are, yet fair? In many ways they are not. Legally, “there is no law without sovereignty,” but globally and politically speaking, in sovereignty there is no law.

Global Agreements; Mission Possible

Change happens in extremely small increments over many years especially when it is change for the better. You can effect change very quickly if you bomb a city but to build up a community takes many years and much hard work. It is the same way in the international community with global agreements, but rest assured it does happen. Despite the sovereign identity of each state, global agreements are possible though they might not seem in themselves to provide monumental change or any significant change at all.

According to http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml there are 192 member states in the United Nations who all “accept the obligations of the Charter” (Basic Facts About the United Nations). Subsequently each of these sovereign states has agreed to accept the obligations of the UN Charter and to act upon those obligations should it be necessary. This agreement exists between almost all nations of the world and therefore it could certainly be classified as a global agreement. Additionally the nations involved are truly sovereign because they have the right to run their internal affairs as they see fit and the United Nations cannot send troops into a state without the consent of that state which emphasizes that states are sovereign even within this international organization.

While this global agreement may not seem to make significant progress on its own as the UN has no enforcing power when it comes to the norms of international relations, it is an agreement between almost every nation on the planet and in that fact alone it has significant power. This agreement provides a common framework on which to build the future of international cooperation. Getting nations with such varying cultural identities to agree on anything is a monumental step upon which we can build further global agreement and cooperation. If all states see their identity within an international framework such as the United Nations disputes can be more easily resolved because states would be less likely to attack those they see as similar to themselves even in some small way. Even though not all states agree on every issue there are some fundamental issues on which all nations agree such as the need for clean water, a secure food supply, and individual security. Therefore basic global agreements are possible within the framework of national sovereignty possessed by each nation.

Erica Peterson

A greater global unity is possible!

I strongly believe that it is not only possible for sovereign states to reach global agreement, but that it would be in their best interest to do so. If a collective effort was made by all the nations of the world to solve the plethora of issues facing humanity today, such as environmental destruction, overpopulation, poverty, oppression, and injustice, people everywhere would benefit. There are several examples of when sovereign states reached global agreement. One such example was the 1970s campaign by the World Health Organization (WHO) to eradicate smallpox. Through a combined effort of the nations, a deadly disease that had ravaged the human population for centuries was completely eliminated from nature, a feat which has not yet been repeated to this day¹.

Another example of a global agreement seems to be the de facto consensus between sovereign states that nuclear weapons, although powerful politico-military bargaining chips, are so overwhelmingly destructive that their use should be avoided at all costs. Since the introduction of nuclear weapons in 1945, only eight nations – the United States, the Russian Federation, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel – possess nuclear weapons, compared with the nineteen nations – Australia, Egypt, Sweden, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Romania, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Yugoslavia, Algeria, Syria, Libya, Italy, Japan, Germany, and Norway – that decided to abandon their nuclear weapon programs and ambitions. In addition to these nations, four other nations – South Africa, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan – possessed nuclear weapons but chose to sign on to the NPT and disarm². As of today, North Korea and Iran are the only nations exhibiting significant nuclear weapons ambitions.

Although I strongly believe that nation-states can reach global consensus, I feel that current international and domestic sociopolitical atmospheres present a problematic ideological bloc to humankind’s progressive advancement on a global scale. However, I do not view this bloc as impassible and am confident in the many efforts that exist to begin to “break through,” such as the great number of grassroots movements promoting social justice, education and healthcare reform, gender equality, racial harmony, and other progressive agendas. I am also encouraged by the fact that there are many others out there who, like me, share my vision of a better future for humanity and will work for the advancement of the common good.

-Gregory Proulx

Sources:

¹ “Smallpox Disease Overview.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 30 Dec. 2004. 5 Sept. 2007. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/overview/disease-facts.asp.

² “Nuclear Weapons Programs Worldwide: An Historical Overview.” Institute for Science and International Security. 5 Sept. 2007. http://www.isis-online.org/mapproject/introduction.html.

Reflections: Two Weeks and Goin' Strong

Although we have been together as a class for only two weeks and have yet to explore the subject of world politics in the depth that we undoubtedly will, I feel very glad to have chosen to take this class. Everyone in class is very friendly, and I am happy to be part of this unique educational community. The class discussions we have had so far have been very impressive because people have been careful to avoid conflict and have treated each other with a high level of respect. I enjoyed hearing Supriya and Gunperi give their views of their home countries – views that are vastly different from the traditional Western ones which we are presented with every day. I have also enjoyed all the activities we have been doing, such as visiting RFK Stadium and Anacostia, learning about the waterfront redevelopment plan, and going to see the Nationals vs. Giants game. Throughout these two weeks, I have been happily surprised by the number of deep, eloquent, and respectful conversations I have had with my peers over a wide variety of pressing social and political issues – nuclear power with Gunperi, human nature and social progress with Megan, the prevention of genocide with Rachel, socialism with Sarah, and so on. I am quite ecstatic because I know there will be many more of these conversations to come! Another aspect of class that I was impressive with was the issue of bringing a new student into our community. Professor Jackson described the situation and why the student wanted to join, and then, in the spirit of participatory democracy, said that it was the class’s choice whether we wanted to bring a new student into our community. The vote was a unanimous yes. I feel extremely lucky and honored to be part of such a welcoming, respectful, and progressive community, and am looking forward to the wonderful experience ahead of us!

-Gregory Proulx

Reflections

Looking back on our first week of class and activities together, I feel very privileged to be part of a dynamic and inquisitive class. In only two short weeks we have made the transition into a new chapter of life and have shared personal accounts in class that encourage each person to examine his own beliefs, possibly even drawing one to form new resolutions. Gunperi spoke of the importance of positively representing her homeland to other countries, which is a strong part of the foundation to “relating” to other countries in the broad aspect of world politics. It is an element that I feel is central to a goal of better understanding, and as a result, more effective action among people in society to the benefit of all. It is we, the people, who collectively form a voting society that determines the rules and regulations and, therefore, how we live. We, consequently, have the responsibility to accurately represent and give justice to our country, striving to change and better that with which we do not necessarily agree. We really are not so different from each other in our quest for the knowledge that can help us solidify our visions and reach our objectives. In light of Labor Day, I think our class exemplifies the work force and the desire to achieve, which is a characteristic so defining of our country. The simple asking of a question in class, making of a statement, or the expression of a thought leads to a multitude of branches with different leaves that can all lead to revelations and new affirmations, in effect, the fuel for progression. Meeting with an RFK stadium executive and learning about the proposed plan for the Anacostian river led our class to ask questions and be actively engaged in a current event that is but one of similar issues in the larger scale of our world. The desire and willingness to learn and work in the respectful environment thus created, struck me as the cohesive binder amongst us.

Refection Week 1

Upon reading the blog posts this week on the most important issue in world politics it was tempting to immediately judge and say, “well, that’s not the most important issue, this is.” After taking some time to reflect I realized that the beauty of world politics is that we can all be right. Perhaps is no “most important” issue but only important issues. The most important issue can be poverty, education, sovereignty, religion, oil, and all of the other ideas people brought forward rolled into one. All of our ideas are interconnected and hence perhaps the greatest issue in world politics is all of them combined. However we each pointed out specific issues in world politics that we thought particularly important which reveals each of our unique problem solving strategies. We each asserted that the world could be “fixed” if only the problem we identified were solved. We are all here because of our unique views and the world needs all of us working for the greater good of humanity in our own way. So when the debates get heated, as they undoubtedly will, let’s remember that just because we disagree that does not mean that any of us are wrong, or right for that matter.

On a different note, Sunday Gunperi, Sam, and I had an interesting world politics moment that happened outside of the classroom. We were sitting on the Quad trying to get some reading done but it was difficult because we were distracted by the beauty of nature. Nevertheless our minds were still in world politics mode so we came up with metaphors for how nature could explain world politics. We discussed how the squirrels were chasing each another because one was jealous of the other’s stash of acorns and how that symbolized the struggle for power and wealth in today’s society. We discussed how we all share the land (the grass) and yet we partition it up without regard for its natural boundaries. Our model was a little simplistic, yes, but it helped me put a model to the theoretical discussions we were having in class. Moreover it showed world politics not as a quest to save the world but simply a quest to understand a little bit more about it and I think that should be our goal.

This week has been a whirlwind of activity and it’s easy to get lost in the “things” you did but I think World Politics has taught me a lot about myself, my classmates, and the world in just one week. I cannot imagine what it will teach me in the course of a semester but I’m eager to find out.
Erica Peterson

Reflection (week 1)

What can I say about this week? Though I still cannot claim to be a fan of baseball, I now at least understand the basic rules of the game. To be honest I can’t say that I found the game to be all that eventful (or relevant) but I still had a great time, I definitely miss working with kids.
In the classroom there were a few things that really set in with me. I think the biggest is perhaps the difference between tolerance and acceptance. I had never really thought of how much these two terms vary, but now that I think about it there truly is an astronomical difference. So, to correct my earlier statement: I believe that people should be educated worldwide on how to tolerate all other people as they are. If mankind managed this feat the planet would be so much better off.
The other thing that was clear in class this week was the fact that we really are a living learning community. We are all going home to the same place, so regardless of what may happen in discussion/debate I think it is really important that we remember that it is only a class discussion and that we are a community. Nobody likes getting worked up (that I know of), but at the end of the day there shouldn’t be any hard feelings or grudges. There are two stellar sayings I know: “leave it at the door” and “don’t go to bed angry”. I think those are some pretty good words to live by.