Reconsideration to reform the Security Council

The United Nations was formed up in 1945. It is the world's largest intergovernmental organization. Its purpose is to maintain international peace and security.  However, when we look the situations going on around the world, the United Nations has not able to achieve its purposes. I wondered why the United Nations is not able to achieve its purpose if 193 member states work together to promote peace and security. But, after the class discussion, I understood that the vital issue such as peace and security is left to the consideration of the Security Council. Interestingly, the Security Council is under the control of only five select Permanent members states which include USA, Britain, China, Russia, and France. All resolutions in the Security Councils are under the control of these five permanent member states. So, it is time to reform the United Nations Security Council to distribute equal representations and equal distribution of power to its member states.

We know peace and security are vital issues. But these critical issues are left to the consideration of the Security Council. However, the Security Council is mainly under the control of five permanent states, which include Russia, USA, China, France and Britain. Which means that the vital issue of peace and security is under the considerations of these five permanent member states, while the rest of the United Nations member states are simply watching their actions. These significant roles entitled only to the permanent member states undermines the power of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security around the world.

To make the United Nations more effective, the United Nations must reconsider to reform the Security Council. They need to provide equal representations and equal distribution of power among United Nations member states. For instance, till today there is no permanent member states from Africa and Latin America in the Security Council.  The United Nations general assembly elected ten non-permanent members to the security council for two years term.  However, these ten non-permanent members are not fully effective as compare to the other five permanent member states.

Another problem is the veto power. Allowing the five permanent member states to block the adoption of any resolution. For the resolution to be passed, nine members of the security member have to vote for it. However, if one of the five permanent member states vetoes the resolution, it is considered to be null and void. This shows that these five countries have the power to do anything they want to. This issue weakened the United Nations to promote global peace. For instance, over the past decades, the Russia has used its veto power multiple times to avoid scrutiny over its action in Ukraine or its action to protect its allies such as the Syrian regime from the United Nations pressure.  On the other hand, the United States has used its veto power multiple times to protect its allies, Israel from sanctions. Not only that, these five permanent member states act according to their interest even outside the legal consent of the United Nations. For instance, the invasion of the United States in Iraq in 2003.

To conclude, I strongly support that it is time for the United Nations to reform the Security Council. It is time to reconsider the unfair representations and the unfair distribution of power among United Nations member states. If it gives fair representations and fair distribution of power to its members, the world would have been more peaceful and secured. The reason that negates the United Nations to achieve its purpose is that the real power to maintain international peace and security is under the consideration of the few permanent member states.

Embedded Liberalism and TNCs by Zachary Henry

After World War II, the global economy started to shift more to a neoliberal policy, rather than an embedded economy. This policy change had cause global trade, finance, and business to become more desensitized to the negative effects that having a free market has on society and the environment. This illegitimacy of global systems is extremely bad for the world economy moving forward into the future. Rather, the world should move toward a more embedded economy described in embedded liberalism. More specifically, Transnational Corporations like Coca-Cola in India are businesses that need checks and balances in the new global economy to help preserve social systems and the environment.

Transnational corporations employ strategies and tactics that undermine the legitimacy of the global market. These bodies can work nearly completely unrestricted due to the power they have globally compared to the local government enforcing the laws. The few laws that are in place for TNCs are outdated to times directly after the second world war, and are virtually obsolete for the economic systems in place today. Even if companies like Coca-Cola do get confronted, they have multiple exit strategies they can use even after abusing their power in the region.

TNCs upset the social order, power, and environment of the countries they are in. They displace people and land that they are building on in other countries. In India, Coca-Cola has displaced Indian famers from fertile land and take away their livelihoods. Not only is their means of making money or food destroyed, but they now must work for the company or buy food from a TNC to feed themselves, only feeding the cycle that has been put in place by the TNC. Workers who now have to make their lively hood in these factories fare no better than those displaced by it. They face low-wages, violations in labor laws, and horrible and/or dangerous working conditions. TNCs typically exploit their workers, and in some extreme cases violate human rights solely to continue making a profit. These factories upset the local social systems put in place and disrupt the people who live there.

These factories also have a tremendous effect on the environment in these countries as well, often ruining them. In India, the environmental effects of the Coca-Cola factories has painted a common picture seen in many situations created by TNCs. Not only does it take up land and pollute the area with industrial waste, but like in India, they contaminate local water and food sources. People and families are forced to drink a disappearing and contaminated water source to survive. Coca-Cola “turned a blind eye” to all these consequences until the Indian government could finally officially ask them to come to terms with their destruction. Only then did Coca-Cola capitulate and offer compensation to people in India.

The undermining of the legitimacy of the global market as caused by TNCs is why there is a need to embed the global economy. The economy would more effectively grow and prosper around the world if it took into consideration the societal and environmental consequences TNCs bring with them. Also, countries where these Transnational Corporations are would be able to grow more economically and be able to return more to the global economy, which, would in turn pay dividends back to those who had already had power and money to invest into these TNCs. A very similar situation would happen with the environment as well, with more resources and useful land that can be converted into more economic capital.

By utilizing a system of checks and balances on TNCs in the global economy we can further institute embedded liberalism to create a stronger economy that will consider the needs of society and the environment. Using cases such as the case of Coca-Cola in India, we can apply these policies further into international finance and the global economy to create a more prosperous system where there are more winners receiving more generous dividends.

Outside Source:https://impactsofglobalization.wikispaces.com/A+Case+Study+--+Coca-Cola+in+India

-           

International Law Limits State Sovereignty For the Right Reasons

International Law Limits State Sovereignty For the Right Reasons

by Victoria Hassan

When I think of International Law, one of the first things that comes to mind is interaction and intervention between states. However, states were formed with the notion of state sovereignty, in which it is said that every state should be free from external control or a higher authority than itself. Thus, if each state should not be subjected to a superior authority outside of its borders, the concept of International Law directly counteracts this idea of state sovereignty. This concept seems quite ironic because International Law is based on the state, whereas the state is based on state sovereignty -- creating a contradiction (Riegert).  However, this ‘violation’ of state sovereignty is necessary from time to time, especially when it comes to putting other states in danger or even putting one’s own state in danger.

For example, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations (UN) collaborate in order to ensure that states use atomic energy in a peaceful manner. The two organizations are able to inhibit a state’s use of atomic energy to what is deemed permissible in order to assure the safety of that particular state and the safety of any states that might be affected by the utilization of atomic energy. Iran’s nuclear experimentation caused the IAEA to declare the urgent need to switch to a more “multinational” approach to nuclear control within states. According to the IAEA, “IAEA inspection activities [include] reports, statements and media coverage in relation to the application of IAEA safeguards in Iran (IAEA).” This approach can be seen as directly violating the state sovereignty of Iran and the sovereignty of any other states that might exceed the permissible use of atomic energy. However, it is arguably more important to protect the wellbeing of the people (and even the condition of the Earth) that might be negatively affected by excessive nuclear experimentation, than it is to worry about interfering with the sovereignty of a state.

Another instance in which state sovereignty was broken by International Law in order to protect the lives of civilians is the 2011 military intervention in Libya. This intervention in Libya was a NATO-led coalition that aimed at putting an end to attacks against civilians and the overall Libyan Civil War. These actions can be viewed as utilizing the UN Responsibility To Protect (R2P) policy, which is often criticized for its negligence of state sovereignty. Though many might argue that military intervention in Libya was a failure, it was arguably a necessary tactic to protect the lives of innocent Libyan civilians and to tighten sanctions on the Qadhafi regime (Hamid). Additionally, it seems morally right to intervene in order to save lives, rather than to practice non-intervention in order to preserve the concept of state sovereignty. State sovereignty should be quite an insignificant concept when lives are on the line.

Yes, International Law contradicts the right to state sovereignty because International Law itself is an overarching power, limiting a state’s control of its own territory. However, International Law can, and should, be used during events in which lives are at risk. Saving innocent lives is much more critical than maintaining state sovereignty.

Works Cited

Hamid, Shadi. “Everyone Says the Libya Intervention Was a Failure. They're Wrong.”Brookings,

Brookings, 28 July 2016,

www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/04/12/everyone-says-the-libya-intervention-was-a-failure-theyre-wrong/.

IAEA. “Verification and Monitoring in Iran.” IAEA, IAEA, 14 May 2014,

www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran.

Riegert, Jason. “The Irony of International Law; How International Law Limits State

Sovereignty.” Albany Gov't Law Review Fireplace Blog, 5 Apr. 2010,

aglr.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/the-irony-of-international-law-how-international-law-limits-state-sovereignty/.

The Impacts of International Law on State Behavior

International law is “the body of legal rules, norms, and standards that apply between sovereign states and other entities that are legally recognized as international actors” (Encyclopedia Britannica).  As international organizations and governing bodies have become increasingly prevalent, as has the influence of international law.  However, the use of international law has not been as widely accepted as some organizations such as the United Nations, and thus arguments have arisen to pinpoint the successes and failures of such legal standards.  Overall the most convincing argument in these cases is that international law has the ability to impact state behavior, which can be seen as a positive characteristic of these rules.

If international law impacts the behavior of states, then this influence can be used to provide incentives for countries that commit to protecting aspects such as human rights or environmental protection within their borders.  While there may be a lack of hard punishment for violations of intentional law, there are secondary consequences such as being cut from economic or similar deals, or worse yet being completely ostracized from the global community.  These consequences are not the most direct methods of retribution, but they are incredibly effective because of their far-reaching impacts.  For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created in 1948 to set comprehensive standards for the protection human rights.  These principles serve as a common basis to determine whether states are violating the rights of all citizens within their borders.  A state can easily violate these guidelines, however, and because there is no legal backing to the Declaration there can never be disciplinary measures or prosecution for countries that have breeched international law.  However, neighboring countries or other world powers who become aware of the situation will likely take it upon themselves to condemn the state in violation, which may have more severe consequences than an international court.  The most powerful counties in the world will likely have upheld these agreed human rights standards, and therefore are more likely to trade and look favorably upon weaker states with the same goals.  If a state chooses to disregard the norm they risk losing trade benefits or backing from world powers, which ultimately could be more detrimental to the leaders of the violating state.  These leaders could potentially lose an election or face a coup if they do alienate themselves from global powers, which would be worse than the consequences of voluntarily sending a past leader to the International Criminal Court or similar International legal body.

Specifically, these ideas can be seen when examining the prosecution of Rwandan leaders who incited genocide.  Ultimately it was more beneficial for the Rwandan government to cooperate with international forces collecting evidence to use in the trial against the previous leaders rather than acting to protect these individuals and risking separation from world powers, which would ultimately aid the state.  The risk of alienation from the international community outweighed the costs of protecting the people who violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ultimately showing that international law can and will affect the behavior of a state.

Sources Used

Shaw, Malcolm. “International Law.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 7 Dec. 2016, www.britannica.com/topic/international-law.

“Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

“United Nations Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals.” The ICTR in Brief | United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, United Nations, www.unictr.unmict.org/en/tribunal.