# data[].attributes.headline
Interests of the different perspectives:

# data[].attributes.subject
Interests of the different perspectives:

# data[].attributes.body
Classic (early) realism: fixed.
Liberalism: fixed. (states expect to get benefits from long term cooperation)
Constructivism: Interest are socially constructed through interaction (endogeinity of interests)

# data[].attributes.body
1. To calibrate interests (liberalism.)

2. Reduce transaction costs.

3. Democracies are more peaceful towards other democracies.

# data[].attributes.body
Realism: Relative gains
Liberalism: Cooperation + interdependence = progress (everybody gains)

# data[].attributes.body
What made it emerge in the 20th Century?  WWI? WWII?

The delusion of the League of Nations

Human nature realism: Human nature is to dominate (Morgenthau.)

Structural realism: The anarchic system. In the absence of a central authority states have no choice but to defend themselves. (Waltz 1970s)

Offensive realism: The best defence is to attack.
Mersheimer: It is not billiard balls... Domestic lobying shape US Foreign Policy (Israel)

In the light of Chinese recent actions Japan wants its own army. (becoming more muscular)

From a 'defensive realism' perspective, what would China do?

Nothing! there's no need to do anything because Shinzo Abe is stepping down.

# data[].attributes.body
The League of Nations: One for all and all for one! * U.S didn't join

From the security perspective, what is the type of security of The League of Nations?

Answer: Collective Security.

So, after all that happened in the WW2, what can we say about Collective Security?

IT IS BS

# data[].attributes.body
1. Midterm exams: There would be 4 questions. The student must choose 2. One of the questions will be related to class contents.

2. Midterms will cover the cumulated readings and class contents until the previous session of the exam date.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Hegemony. John Bolton mentioned "we did not use our moment to cease our dominance" referring to the moment of the pax-americana.

# data[].attributes.body
Reading: International Institutions: Two Approaches
Author(s): Robert O. Keohane

Two views:

Rationalism: Institutions exists because they bring gains for states. Rationalism is ahistorical. States seek to maximize their gains.

Reflective: The cultural variations of the world shapes insitutions.  "one for all, all for one." They assume that there's much more than gains and costs behind the motivations to construe institutions.
In the reflective view, the interest is to overwhelm enemies by using the international community.

# data[].attributes.body
Some things have change since Keohane's paper (1988.) The constructivists can't provide demonstrable hypotheses to undermine realist assumptions.

Constructivism can't predict which norms will prevail and last.

What is a norm?
An intersubjective understanding about proper conduct in a particular issue.

Are there bad norms?
This can only be defined by an external party. Those who believe in the norm don't recognize the badness of a norm. i.e., slavery was widely accepted until 19-20 Century.

Example: Torture
Torture has been forbidden even before 9-11. It has been considered a ius cogens (an imperative norm.) States have systematically violated this norm throughout history (during Cold War, Guantanamo).

-Why is it that only after 9-11 there was a debate on it?
-Why is it that even being a ius cogens norm, states still violate it?

States violate this norm, but will never admit they violated the norm. States would say "it is an isolated case" "we did not do it"

They don't acknowledge it because it carries shame and opprobrium.

Rationalist argument for torture
Colin Powell (a moderate realist):

"we should treat our detainees with respect, expecting that the enemy treats our soldiers the same way if detained"

Realist argument. What would Donald Rumsfeld say?

"They are animals, they don't care, they don't believe in what we believe"

Constructivist argument.

"Our values don't allow us to torture, we are better than that"

The constructivist argument is the best response to this dilemma.

Actors of norms in constructivism: States, civil society. Example: Which countries advocate for humanitarian intervention and aid in the Global South?

Nordic-Scandinavian countries. They participate in peacekeeping operations out of altruism, they feel responsible for the ethics within the international society.

How do realists and constructivist gain power?

Constructivist: Distribution of ideas, persuade and become powerful

Realist: Distribution of power.

# data[].attributes.headline
International system, international society and international community

# data[].attributes.subject
International system, international society and international community

# data[].attributes.body
What is sovereignty?
- Domestic: No challenge to domestic actors.
- External: Principle of non-intervention. UN Charter chapter 7

Before 20th Century, the intervention was part of the freedom of countries to exert their power.

What would justify the intervention?
1. Self defence.
2. UN authorized action.

What is the international system?
The international system is the landscape of interactions between states.
What is the international society?
The international society is a sort of social club of "good practices." associated with the ENGLISH SCHOOL.

Example:
If a country takes territory by force, can, it can be still part of the international system, the U.N... but you can't be part of the International Society.

This is what George W Bush meant to do when labeling Iran, Irak and North Korea as the Axis of Evil. They don't have values that allow them to be part of the International Society.

# data[].attributes.body
Not only states are realists. International Governmental Institutions, NGOs and people working on humanitarian agencies make calculations, if they can screw the other to maximize their gains, they will.

# data[].attributes.body
What is first, second and third image?

First: Individuals (As per Human Nature Realists)
Second: Domestic structure
Third: International system (as conceived by Waltz)

Types of liberalism
Institutionalist: In an anarchic system, institutions come to calibrate interest.
Collective security (in discussion): All together can CREATE peace.
Democratic peace theory: Democracies don't fight each other.

Types of realism
Neoclassical realism: Domestic affairs do matter in the anarchic system.
Human nature: Humans want to dominate no matter the cost (Morgenthau).
Structural realism: Anarchy motivates states to defend from others.

# data[].attributes.body
Universitas: A supranational authority controls states. i.e., The Catholic church.
Societas: What we live today, an absence of a supranational authority.

Is the E.U a revived Universitas?
Yes: They have a supranational authority that controls them
No: Any member of the E.U can withdraw when they please.

However, Greece didn't leave the E.U. Comparing cost-benefits it was better to stay, but they have the sovereignty to do it. (U.K did)

# data[].attributes.body
The Peace of Westphalia set the framework to define sovereignty. However, the concept of sovereignty wasn't mentioned.

It is more likely that the Peace of Utretch few years latter did.

What is sovereignty?
- Domestic: No challenge to domestic actors.
- External: Principle of non-intervention. UN Charter chapter 7
Recognition
Permission to participate in agreements
This is the main source of international law. Therefore, sovereignty set the cornerstone for international law.

# data[].attributes.body
Anarchy is what causes the division between domestic and international politics.

If an alien would come and ask for the leader in Earth, who would he ask for?

1) The president of the U.S?
2) The Congress of the U.S?

Only the congress has the authority to declare war, however, the U.S has gotten involved in several armed confrontations overriding the Congress. Last time Congress declared war was in WWII.

Authority  ≠ Power

Authority: The exertion of legitimized will. Legitimacy is an attribute of authority.

Why is it so important? Why states follow it?
Because authority implies the legitimacy in the eyes of population. The population believe in the authority because it represents their values, beliefs and parties are expected to adhere.

Case:
Nixon in 1974s Watergate scandal. Nixon questioned the prosecutor. If Nixon hadn't accept the Supreme Court's authority there would have been an institutional crisis.

Therefore:
Authority: Legitimate purpose.
Power: Use of force.

Case:
Belarus newly elected president has the power, but lacks authority.

Authority and the UN
By signing the Charter, you give the UN the permission to exert authority in case of violation. The Security Council in behalf of the International Community execute the authority and this is considered valid.

So, why do states delegate authority?

1) For instrumental reasons: (To enhance trust in the international system, because it is less costly than war, best interest)

2) For normative reasons: It is part of states identity and value system.

# data[].attributes.body
Given the migration crisis, the E.U created an agenda for migration.

Some countries didn't accept it and rather asked for the E.U borders to be less porous. Some didn't accept the agreement and reinforced their own borders.

This constitutes a setback in humanitarian development and international law. Democratic countries are supposed to be the protectors of people's rights.

# data[].attributes.body
When is it justified?
Can the UN intervene in Belarus?

In the UN Assembly in 2005 they created the R2P doctrine (Responsibility to protect.) The international community can make use of force, but ONLY under a GROSS violation of human rights.

Perhaps what is happening in Belarus is not so bad. However, R2P is supposed to be executed when governments are not exerting RESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE.

For example, the invasion to Irak in 2003 is a case. (Even when the U.S couldn't find the weapons of massive destruction.)

If you don't adhere to RESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE, you lose your sovereignty.

# data[].attributes.body
Territorial integrity of states. In the decolonization process, the UN declared that the original colonial borders should be maintained to prevent conflicts.

Therefore, the territory is not defined by the people. That is the case of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Kosovo. After negotiations, Kosovo got separated from Serbia but before that, the original Serbian border was kept.

The UN will prioritize the original borders because the countries can't be divided to satisfy self-determination.

# data[].attributes.body
Resume arguments about Anarchy. If anarchy is socially constructed, doesn't mean that it has some degree of fixity?

# data[].attributes.body
What is it?
How the international system shapes domestic affairs.

That is to say.
f(x) = x where:
f(x) = Domestic
x = international system

Some examples of how the international system affects domestic:

1. Economically: Periphery states are dominated by core economies.

2. Militarily: Germany after the WWI and WWII.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Midterm exams: Next week 7th of October. Recommendations: Parse the time, don't spend the two hours in one question. There will be four questions. Try to quickly choose two to answer.

2. For the week after the 7th, we will need to prepare the readings for week 6 and 7 to catch up.

# data[].attributes.body
STATE CENTERED:
Neomarxism: States have self-determination (agency.)
Example: Cuba could decide to get rid of its 'colonial status'.

(Parenthesis on Marxism)
- Some marxists argue that states are a tool of capitalism.
In cases in which the state has adopted measures contrary to capitalism, it was protecting capitalism from itself (avoiding a massive protest)

Neorealists: The structure shapes states.

FARTHER FROM STATE CENTERED

Modernization: States have a ladder of development and the top of the ladder is liberal democracies.
Example: South Korea.

Dependencia: Reaction in 1960s and 1970s to modernization. The capitalism puts countries in the periphery as vassals of core states. THEY ARE NOT ISOLATED FROM THE SYSTEM
Example: US and Colombia

This theory became very popular in Latin America and Africa within radical scholars.

New Left Review: A magazine dedicated to this kind of publications.

Interdependence: States strive through the interaction with the international system.
Example: The Asian tigers?

Gerschenkronians, Moore, Hirschman, O'Donnell, and Kurth: Internal factors shape the role of countries in the international economy.

# data[].attributes.body
Both, neorealists and world system theorists differ in their ontology

Neorealist: Individualist ontology, everything is reduced to the state.

World system: holistic ontology, a wide observation of the world system.

*** BOTH THEORIES GIVE THE STATE FOR GRANTED, AS EXOGENOUS AND ANTECEDENT OF ANY FORM OF INTERACTION

Should we go inside the states?

Primitivism: In the 'world system' the states are constrained by the structure and their position (capitalistic) in the international system.

Examples that undermine either,

-Cuban revolution v.s Dominican Republic.
Why is it that there was a revolution in Cuba but there wasn't one in Dominican Republic?

*** To understand an actor, you can see it in isolation, you have to consider its interaction. That is to say, how states are formed!

S T R U C T U R A T I O N   T H E O R Y
The opposite of structuration is the reification, treat something as it is independent of the action by which is produced.

Examples:

1. How did US became a slave-trader country an antislavery?
2. How did South Africa go from being a founder of the UN to a pariah state with the apartheid.
3. When did the use of chemical weapons become a tabu?

There are no answers for that. Struturation theory may seek for answers to these because they shape and affect the international system. The basic tenet is:

States have agency, they shape the structure, but the structure also changes them.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Conducted in class time (6:30-8:30pm)
2. Includes the readings from week 1 through 5.
3. For the 14th of October, prepare readings for week 6 and 7.
4. There will be 4 questions. Choose 2 to answer.
5. Be honest. Paraphrasing or copy-pasting contents from the readings is not a good strategy.
6. 2 weeks after the midterm, we will discuss the exam, what was expected of it and its feedback.
7. Parse time and read the questions carefully. The two more common mistakes during the exam:
a) Don't read carefully and answer something that was not asked.
b) Run out of time

8. Identify which questions you would like to answer and outline the question.

9. Keep in mind:  a) bibliography b) empirical evidence c) examples.

10. There's not minimum length, however, half a page answer is certainly not good.

11. Submit your questions regarding the exam before Wednesday 7 of October before noon.

# data[].attributes.body
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F1BbB1fi9_hUDasV5cnmbojziUVXH38Y/view?usp=sharing

# data[].attributes.headline
What determined that Europe got split into East and West and why did the East went with Soviet Union?

# data[].attributes.subject
What determined that Europe got split into East and West and why did the East went with Soviet Union?

# data[].attributes.body
Geographical and ideological reasons combined.
a) In France, the communist party was very strong after WWII. The proximity to the Soviet Union would facilitate a social strike.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why did institutions prevail after the Cold War? (in reference to Nye)

# data[].attributes.subject
Why did institutions prevail after the Cold War? (in reference to Nye)

# data[].attributes.body
Once the common threat is over (communism and a nuclear war) the institutions stayed because they facilitated and reduced costs.

However, Realists would say that states never have permanent friends.

# data[].attributes.body
It was considered a threat during the early 1990s.  However, its lack of an army and failure to establish alliances with South Korea and Vietnam undermine his potential position as a great power.

The debate rose when Japan, through their trade practices, became the Worlds second economy. However academics believe that Japan is a middle power.

# data[].attributes.headline
What makes legitimate some liberation movements and others don't?

# data[].attributes.subject
What makes legitimate some liberation movements and others don't?

# data[].attributes.body
States promote and defend other states' sovereignty.

When a liberation group revels against their colonial powers, the international society expects that the rebels become the new form of government.

the INTERNATIONAL LAW was also biased in this direction. Only after a state uses their military forces to suppress its people, the international law intervenes.  But YOU HAVE TO BECOME THE NEXT POWER.

BOLIVIAN CASE
The government of Evo Morales was overthrown by a more powerful political movement. In this case the international law has no say because it is within Venezuelan borders and the opponents made their case.

VENEZUELAN CASE
Some countries support Maduro whereas others support Guaido. Here the problem is more complicated because there was an attempt to get Maduro out of office which failed, therefore, the situation remains a limbo.

# data[].attributes.headline
Was Mearsheimer claim that the army was de the decisive force too extreme?

# data[].attributes.subject
Was Mearsheimer claim that the army was de the decisive force too extreme?

# data[].attributes.body
Nowadays, (especially air bombing) has evolved and can be more precise.

It is discussed that the bombing in Japan plus the Russian attack to Manchuria was enough to make Japan surrender, thus the atomic bomb was overrated.

Apparently, it was the combination of defeats what made Japan surrender and not precisely the atomic bomb.

# data[].attributes.body
During the Clinton administration there was a  surge in enthusiasm for negotiated outcomes and participation in international institutions. It is believed that after 9-11 everything changed.

A coalition of parallel institutions began to override (Article 98 of the ICC) the agreements made in international institutions.  For example, The U.S made some agreements with countries to avoid sending American soldiers to the International Criminal Court.

THIS IS CALLED COALITIONS OF THE WILLING.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Invasion of Russia to Kiev -  Realism
2. Labeling N.Korea, Iran, Irak as the axis of evil -  Intl society
3. Japan wanting to develop an army.
4. US led force in Iraq.
5. Protection of Kurds in the Gulf War (Turkish interest)
6. East Asian countries alliance with the U.S
7. The Roman Empire versus The European Union, (Universitas versus.
8. The Bonn agreement (domestic versus international)
9. Legitimacy: The apartheid.
10. Why did Japan surrender in WWII?
11. Regional Hegemon: The U.S
There's no global hegemon.
12. Different reactions to Iraqis beheading a prisoner of war.
13. Uti possidetis juris: East Timor
14. Belarus newly elected president = legitimacy, authority
15. R2P, began with resolution 688 and further attack to Iraq (based on chemical weapons)
16. Division of Europe in Eastern and Western blocks after WWII. Why did it happen? Communist rising in France.

# data[].attributes.body
Sexual violence
This happened in international platforms in the 1990s. First was the convention on Human Rights.
The women's conference in Beijing.
PLATFORMS help the norm creation.

# data[].attributes.body
Discussions for exams, next wednesday from 5 to 6

Rules versus Norms.
Institutions create norms and behaviors.

The R2P is in a cascade effect at the moment (Finnemore)

Discussion questions:
Constitutive norms: A way to guide a new behavior as compared with before.
R2P. How is it a constitutive norm? sometimes norms can have constitutive and regulatory characteristics.

What is the constitutive element of sovereignty?
Certain obligations and rights accrue from that.
Sovereignty is a constitutive element of a state's identity.
Regulative aspect: Non interference, the ability to get in treaties.
Prescriptive aspects: DON'T INTERFERE. obligations.

Norms:
Womens suffrage
Landmines
Combatants vs civilians

Norms is understand intersubjective. There is no bad norm!  When a norm wants to challenge an old norm, under what circumstances can these norms succeed and how do we know they succeeded.

A norm that expresses an identity.  it is when it is part of who you are, it is your DNA, it is INTERNALIZED.

Some progress have been made in terms of measuring the impact of norms. To what extent a particular norm has emerged as a result of a particular event or catastrophe.

Is norm promotion correlated or be caused by power?

To what extent a particular norm affects a state. Norms affect states in different ways.

Some particular states were affected by landmines, therefore they were able to push forward the banning of landmines.

The international society, had not developed the mechanisms to advance norms. Headley Bull: Positive world order, states working together to solve problems.
Any norm that wants to expand internationally depends on the internal politics where the norm was developed.

Nowadays, norms also emerge in international platforms.  For example R2P.  In the late 90s, the "international community",  had the dilemma: We want to avoid what happened in Rwanda and what happened in Kosovo.  The SG felt that lessons learned were: we really need to measure the effects of conflict.

Genocide is committed in war or peace, and all states have an obligation to suppress it. In case of genocide the UN can take actions that they may deem necessary.
A lot has happened since 1948. The charter needs to be interpreted in actual terms.  Where is the obligation???

Genocide is a jus cogens norm. It is also a constitutive norm. This society does not tolerate genocide.

Use of force
1. Under Security Council approval
2. In self-defense

If the Security Council identifies a phenomenon as a threat to international security.
In Rwanda there was genocide and a civil war.  How many acts of genocide do you need to approve intervention?

IN RWANDA UN DIDN'T ACT. After the killing happened, UN authorized France under Operation Turquoise.

If a country was willing to intervene, would the rest of countries condemned the country for intervening? PROBABLY NOT

In Serbrenicha: UN failed to protect people in safe havens. (Bosnian Serb troops massacred)

KOSOVO
Involved the Serbian oppressing Albanians. The KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) supported by Serbian troops were killing Albanians.  The Sec Council refused to intervene militarily. The US bypassed the Security Council and bombed Serbia for 78 days and that brought Milosevich to the table for negotiation. It became a trusteeship territory and in 2009.

This unilateral use of force erodes the UN security structure. However, if they don't act, it is also seen as going against themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
Torture:
Interrogation tactics of Israel against Palestinians. This is when we knew that this was a jus cogens norm.
They are not as internalized as you think as they are.

Also the use of force.

The U.S unilaterally overthrown Saddam without UN blessing.

Use of force
1. Under Security Council approval
2. In self-defense

The national security strategy in 2002, adopted as the argument about how the international security environment has changed. They are talking about preemtive use of force. What is the difference between preemptive
Preemptive Imminent threat
Preventive, If you don't act now, it may worsen later.
THIS IS NOT ALLOW UNDER THE CHAPTER.

Kofi Annan: After winning his Nobel Prize and being reelected he mentioned that prohibition.

SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Treaties
Customary law: If you follow a practice for a period of time, you create a new norm.
Under the current scenario of terrorism, how about if all states follow US actions of preventive action? Would it become a norm?

There is a stage in which you become a law breaker

Is the US on its way of creating a new Norm?

This is an incident driven development. The evolution is enforced by cases that justify it.

How do you measure the impact of a norm?
in 2003 the US and UK bore the cost of the Iraq invasion, an illegal and illegitimate war is costly!!!!

In 1991s the UN paid most of the costs.

R2P Phases:
Prevent
React
Support of the regional?

An invasion to Venezuela would need the endorsement of the OAS.

Pacta sunt servanda. The rules must be obeyed in good faith and such norms are subject to defenses and observations.

# data[].attributes.body
Critical theory: Calls into question the prevailing order of our world.

Sith questions

1. In his article Cox states that, “[Critical Theory’s] concepts and accompanying methods of enquiry seem to lack the precision that can be achieved by problem-solving theory, which posits a fixed order as its point of reference”. Is this a problem inherent to Critical Theory that severely limits how it can inform policy? 2. At the end of his article, Cox posits possible directions for World Order in the future. One concerns the development of a counter-hegemony based on a Third World coalition against core country dominance…aiming towards the autonomous development of peripheral countries and the termination of the core peripheral relationship.” To what extent does this describe China in recent years, and how are they doing on this front?

# data[].attributes.body
What are the components of the concept of legalization

Why is it important?
More and more state interaction are taking the form of legal instruments.
Whether hard or soft law.

One of the reasons that has emerged as an important part of the focus of IR scholars is because  the interactions are taking form of legal instruments.

How can legalization structure the International System?

From the standpoint of an instrumentalist (lawyers and legal workers) what is the role of rules? do rules shape norms?

Rules provides carrots and sticks as motivators to cooperate and participate.

If rules structure politics, you start from a different premise; you try to examine and test to what extent rules shape behavior and its variations, and how rules shapes the interactions.

There are variations of legalizations; rules that are very well cemented (hard rules), for example the Charter provisions on the obligatoriety of rules. The question is on the delegation front. What is the mechanism? is there a possibility to delegate?

ICJ

ICC doesn't intervene in interstate disputes. (some individuals)

The U.S and the ICC
The U.S was one of the dominant powers in the early stages of negotiating the treaty of the ICC. When the negotiation unfolded in Rome, the U.S said: If these provision takes place I will not ratify it. Clinton passed the ball to Bush when leaving office...

What was the main objection of the U.S to unsign the ICC?The Hague act: If a US soldier commits a crime, lets say in Senegal, and if Senegal has ratified the treaty, Senegal has an obligation to send the soldier to the Hague. If that happens [the U.S would say] we will use all of our means to rescue that soldier, that is to say, invade the Hague and rescue the American soldier.

But the main reason is because the Statute provided for a prosecutor who can have its own initiative. The US revoked the visa of the current prosecutor of ICC on the grounds that he has started a preliminary investigation in the Afghan conflict which carries some misbehavior of U.S troops.

Why is international law important?

A realist would say about international law: I would make sure that the document covers my interests. I leave some vague imprecisions in de document to calibrate my obligation to abide by a particular rule. That is to say
I'm going to attach reservations...

I will abide but I will qualify the obligation that I'm undertaking by outlining certain conditions. Or I will say that a particular provision of a treaty doesn't apply or that it applies if it is not in conflict with my domestic law.

A state can abide and then disavow but there is a cost. You have to provide justification, and there are expectation of justification on being base on the argument you make.  You also have to defend your position by precedents... you have to have a powerful reason to do it. The cost in big power is EROSION OF LEGITIMACY.

For example, In 2003 Resolution 687 (from 1991)... the U.S argued that it could invade Iraq under the same resolution of the Gulf War. They had to provide evidence that there is a breach on the resolution. This was a collective resolution... he didn't have the grounds to adopt unilateral action.

The argument of the legalization (the process by which the rules are adopted) creates an expectation on this, you have to make a convincing case, if you fail to do that there is a certain penalty... If you are not a P5 your consequences would be graver.

THE PROCESS OF NEGOTIATING, DEBATING, ARGUING RULES, is a process that forces you to abide, if you don't, you have to pay the consequences.

Some rules have some obligatory but have some contingencies that relativize the application.

Is ratification of a law internalization???

The process of international law goes in a continuing process of argument and counterargument with evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Robert Cox

Realism gives for granted institutions. The assumptions are fixed.

You can't take the context in which states act as fixed. If you do that you are making the behavior of the state exogenous of historical process, and select specific historical moments to make your point.

These authors...take the world as a given

A Critical Theorist would question the structure. Given the facts that things are changing we have to understand how things that we are facing now came about, not only to understand our current predicaments, but also how can we change the dynamics of the situation, how to make it more vertical, more just and so on....

Verticality: determined by the  which position you have within the system of states

Realism verticality: Realism concerned about relative position in security,
Critical theory verticality a more holistic view.

They don't evaluate the behavior of the state in the context (history)!
Realists carefully select their historical periods to make their claim.

NOTION OF HEGEMONY IN CRITICAL THEORIST: Try to emphasize the fact that the hegemonian logic is anchor of a big extent in CONSENT. This is what makes good hegemons!

The hegemony order is also maintained through instrumental (material) benefits: Welfare, security... the system could progress to become more progressive. You create incentives for dominated see legitimacy in the structure of control. A SMART HEGEMON USES FORCE AS THE LAST RESORT.

Critical theorist would say about the institutions (Bretton Wood, the UN) that they lasted beyond the its instrumental purpose because they provide useful function.... and also because there is a certain of legitimacy; the dominated receives certain benefits and the U.S was effective in selling the liberal democratic order. THE US PLAYED ITS CARDS RIGHT

# data[].attributes.body
Constructivism versus Critical theory

There are some people that put constructivism under critical theory and it share some things with critical theory, like the rejection of rational choice.

Scholars say:

In order for constructivism to become a theory rather than a perspective, they have to develop a robust program to test their hypotheses.

A theory basically has to be a problem solving theory.... otherwise scholars are skeptical about it...

Is not clear what are the problems that critical theorists are trying to identify. Is not fair to label constructivism as a problematic theory because some scholars have developed interesting works on the nuclear weapons tabu and other transnational networks literature in NGO and symbolic politics and so on.

# data[].attributes.body
Is feminism critical theory and why?
What are the questions or topics that IR scholars are not talking about?
What is being for granted?

Is the criticism of positivist scholars who claim that one should separate from the object of study valid?
Feminist would say no.

The problem of women rights is very complicated because many abuses are not reported.  The problem of public and private space... in a masculinist view, the domestic violence should be a matter to solve inside the house.

Security:
Peacekeeping: Developed by the UN. (doesn't exist within the article)

Treaties: Until recently women were included in negotiation of treaties.
For example: What if you use rape as a form of warfare.
Raping also changes the ethnic composition of a group.

Are more equally gendered countries more peaceful?
It is debatable, there are many counterfactuals of women in power that haven't been peaceful. It also depends on international or intrastate conflict.
If there are few women in opposition, there would be more competition. REALIST wouldn't agree, gender doesn't matter here.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The exam is going to be on the 9th of December
2. Guest speaker on the 2nd of December Andy Nathan.

# data[].attributes.body
Bush's and Clinton's multilateralism

NATO: The discussion is not whether it is a collective security (it was more a collective defense organization) organization, is more of whether it becomes a collective security organization after the Cold War

Collective security organization: Pull your resources to whoever is irrupting in aggressive behavior with overwhelming force.

Collective defense organization: Established with a clearly minded threat in mind and the resources are directed to confront that specific potential aggressor.

Was Kosovo an excuse for NATO to keep existing?
Milosevich aggressive action against ex-Yugoslav Republics was a precedent for NATO intervention.
Its actions destabilize neighboring countries and put pressure on European countries through flows of migrants.

What happened in Ukraine in 2014 is considered also as U.S responsibility on containing Russia.  There were several reasons for Russians claim to Ukraine...
1. Humanitarian intervention reasons
2. Historical claims
3. Provocation of NATO (U.S) against Russia, they needed to expand Eastwards.

Libya R2P: The aim of R2P in Libya was to protect the population, not to bring overthrown the regime.
If the crisis in Libya would have been differently, maybe there would've been intervention in Syria.

Before intervening, the UN should consider whether the harm is bigger than the good...

2008: Reverse ethnic cleansing, Kosovo Albanians killing Serbians...

THE UN AS COLLECTIVE SECURITY
There is no way the UN take authorized military action. You can't take action over one of the P5 members.

Intervention in Somalia and Sierra Leone was ex post facto.

The military commission of the UN does nothing, they just meet.

# data[].attributes.headline
Refugees (Norms emerging from international organization)

# data[].attributes.subject
Refugees (Norms emerging from international organization)

# data[].attributes.body
Some countries didn't ratify the convention of UNCHR.
Turkey: Technically is not bound by the 1967 convention. "If you come from Syria, you are not entitled to refugee protection"

Torture was another case... some facts determine whether an idea becomes a norm.

IO are used as platforms for dissemination of norms.

# data[].attributes.body
In authority: People owe you some deference for a given position.

An authority: Gain through respect

You want both aligned.

# data[].attributes.body
Was a Civil War and a Genocide!

# data[].attributes.body
Midterm, from week 6 onwards.

Focus on class topics.

Use a guidance for things that we discussed in class.

Same format as in the midterm (4 questions, answer 2, 2 hours to complete)

Submit before 8:40pm.

Those who requested submit before 9:40pm.

If there are questions on the readings prior the exam, write an email and you'll get an individualized session with the teacher. Don't ask for this meeting last minute. Do it by Dec 7 2020 (the latest.)

If you need a brief response use the e-mail anytime.

Login few minutes earlier, the professor will send the exam.

# data[].attributes.body
Depending on the treaty. Are there any other parties?
Also depending on what are the monitoring assessment.
If a country fails to adhere to a conditionality with the IMF.
The ultimate penalty would be to be banned from taking loans with other organizations.
The country would lose all credibility and the only option would be a "friendly" country.
The IMF is usually considered one of the harshest one, however,  for example in Greece, the IMF wasn't as harsh. They had recognized they have made some mistakes in the calculations on the ability of the Greek goverment to be able to pay for its loan.
They argued that if Greece were to renew the memorandum of understanding, it can't proceed without giving a debt relief.
IMF was the organization that advocated to Kosovo and the toughest response came from the EU, especially Germany... Merkel was the chief advocate fearing a negative reaction from her constituencies (paying the Greek debt with Germans taxpayer's money)

# data[].attributes.body
The fax was send to the top advisor of Kofi Annan. *he was the USG for peacekeeping.
It was sent by General Romeo Dallaibe (commander of the peacekeeping force in Rwanda)

The informant was identified as Jean Pierre Interahague half Hutu half Tutsi. Married to a Tutsi woman.
He stated that he spend money to trained 300 personnel on military operations.
He claims that in 20 mins he can kill 1000 tutsis.
The cable says that the peacekeeping force was ready to act. The action was in conformance with UNAMIR resolution.

He is not asking for permission. he is saying "it is our intention to take action".
- (headquarters) DPKO wanted to terminate his plan and argued that they were not entitled to that, (this will violate the peacekeeping mandate).

There is a clash (a need to revert) to the understanding of what peacekeeping entails, and the mandate that the peacekeeping have in Rwanda...Because UNAMIR would become not an impartial party but part of the conflict.

Why did the Secretariat stopped the mission?
NOBODY cared about Rwanda.
-The secretariat is "used to" this kind of reports.
-They didn't see how to intervene at the time.
-They already classified it as a Civil War.
-Why did the UN secretariat see it as a genocide?
- The Secretariat must call for UN organs to act. But there was the experience of Somalia (which was sponsored by the SG, we have been battered in Somalia, there were some problems in UNOPROFOR in Serbia) in order to maintain "integrity"
Organization survival led to a limited reading of the problem.
There was also no way that the SC could authorize actions. There were some countries who wanted intervention, but none of the big ones.

WHY TO EVEN WASTE TIME?

(RWANDA IT WAS NOT A FAILURE... THE GOALS SET DIDN'T HAVE THE REACH OF PEACE ENFORCEMENT, what were the policy objectives?)

THE UN ENDED UP ACCEPTING THAT IT WAS A POLICY FAILURE.

(there wasn't only a genocide against Tutsis but a double genocide. Tutsis also killed Hutus massively. The prosecutor (Clara delPonte) in this case wanted the ICTY  to investigate the other side of the genocide. She was called to be the only prosecutor. If one tries to bring the issue nowadays will be prosecuted by the government.)

If the Rwanda situation had been called GENOCIDE from the beginning would have it been different?

The UN failed in its moral responsibility.
But even if the outcome was predetermined, it is different to understand it without looking at the Secretariat, because it is THE SECRETARIAT RESPONSIBILITY

# data[].attributes.body
The UNCHR shifted to "voluntary repatriation" to "definite solution"

Where is the patological behavior?

There has been an emphasis to the legal basis of protection.
If you were to apply the law based on the original convention and protocol, what would determine the UNCHR approach to refugees?
(1951 and 1967)

There are rights approach
-Refugee status is giving case by case (individually)
The UNCHR has to make a determination
Upon evaluation of your case, the UNCHR you can:
1. Voluntary repatriation
2. Relocated
3. Integration into the asylum country.

For voluntary repatriation, the asylum seeker needs to decide whether returning to his homecountry is safe.
Asylum seekers must be provided with enough information to make an informed decision on whether to go back.

Rohingas 1994-1995---
They weren't asked for voluntary repatriation. There wasn't enough information to determine their return to Burma.
Different organizations reached different conclusions on whether the Rohingas felt safe and secure to return to Burma.
Medicines Sanc Frontiers realized that these refugees weren't safe after conducting a survey.

Arguments for the UNCHR to repatriate the refugees:
1. The camps are getting unstable.
(there is lothing, there's killing)
2. The host government could repatriate them anyway. (so what's the lesser evil)?
3. UNCHR would say: We can ensure that when people is returned, they are treated with a decent, modicum level of dignity...
* When UNCHR go and take a look at the different camps, were protected by local guards... so their judgement is biased.
4. Try to imagine what would have happened if the UNCHR wasn't involved at all? how much worse could have it been?

By the 1980s the refugee regime has been under attack. Governments have been increasingly becoming less and less tolerant each other. The global "war on terror" hasn't helped. The US government claims that the refugee regime has helped to protect and mobilize terrorists.
And these arguments have been extended to the Syrian refugee crisis in Eastern Europe.  The refugee regime in UNDER ATTACK. How can this be reversed?
The deterioration started in the 1980s.

The fears are
- Terrorism.
- Dissolve of culture.

Apparently there is no reverse for this deteriorating situation. And it is not known how it can be reversed.
States are more and more pushing their external borders further away and try to process refugees before they put foot in their countries... (before a proper evaluation)

In the U.S... (According to Human Rights law, you don't have the right to asylum, you have the right to apply and enjoy its benefits if granted)
Before deciding whether to repatriate, the US wasn't even giving evaluation of status.