The world is slowly moving towards the point of no return when it comes to climate change. We have had protocols, treaties and meetings discussing the issue of climate change with no feasible solution being given for the near future to stem the tide of the inevitable disaster. While many of the moves that we need to implement to alleviate the effects of climate change are not necessarily feasible in the current political spectrum. Continue reading Climate Change: The Next Big Step
Efficiency in international organizations would require every nation to uphold the same values. As this is not any where from true, efficiency would only give voice to the majority leaders/ largest donors producing short-term solutions. This is such in the case of Bretton Woods where the international community hesitantly approved an international economic organization based off the U.S. dollar as the global unit and backed by the gold standard. The Bretton Woods System later became a model for the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Less than 30 years after the ratification of Bretton Wood, President Nixon announced the “closing of the American ‘gold window.”
Debate over topics can ultimately lead to projects that stick around long term. However, finally coming to an agreement would take even longer than the program would be around. Environmental issues specifically rising sea levels are issues that almost all nations agree with. With the exceptions of China and India that are hesitant, the majority of the world is on board with environmental change. This is rare phenomenon that countries all understand that the environment is a priority. For countries such as Tuvalu that are quickly going under water, it has become their only issue. The best way to change global governance would be by ensuring in a committee to uphold select values that are nonnegotiable. Every nation would have the ability to select the very specific values that make up the committee or international organization. Though there would be much debate over the selected values, it would reduce debate further down the line. The US’ efficiency stems from the constitution where all of the values are listed and is a document citizens and lawmakers point back to. International Organizations need the same.
I have always admired international organizations, and going into this class, I felt that they were necessary for world order and even proper in natural human progression. I confess that I have even nursed a desire for a true global government. Though in this class, I have seen a shattering of many of my lofty thoughts of many organizations. Many are inefficient and misguided, and most are weak, without the real power to enforce their own laws and guidelines. The UN in particular has been a let down in of so many cases. Even today, Ukraine and Syria being prime examples, the UN is powerless to impose any real will to stop these conflicts. However, on top of everything, I still believe that these types of IO’s are a good thing. Formed in the aftermath of arguably the most destructive conflict in human history, the UN, with other organization, still had a collective sprit in many cases, formed from years of war. That spirit has atrophied over time, and in so I belive has given in the false assumption that the UN, as well as other organizations, is in decline. I would argue that it is far from it, and that it is merely in a more natural state of progression than that of the post war days. In this case I think that contention within International Organizations is a sign of healthy debate in most cases (though admitably, in cases such as syria and Ukraine, it is not). As we saw in the Steil readings, States will try to get the best deal for themselves, such as the British and their empire during the war. The way that global governance works best is when all nations are faced with a threat that is so great that one stateor a group of states can cojol the rest of them into cooperation. This takes strong leadership in the international order, as well as the ability to placetate the major powers. IO’s have done amazing work in some areas, such as stopping smallpox, and attempting to educate the world. I believe that right now, the most oppertun issue that would work to this advantage would be the global climate change issue, which represents a threat to the entire planet. If the US were to get China on it’s side, than it might be able to force a new global system on the level of the Bretton Woods institutions, and create a global force against climate change. But I digress. To sum up, I think that while IO’s certainly have their problems, and progress is slow and not as satisfying as we would like, the world is gradually getting better, and while this class has shaken my confidence in them to an extant, it remains unbroken by and large.
The presence of argument and debate within an International Organization, and the International Community in general can be constructive and destructive at the same time. Voicing one group’s concerns can help better the entire organization, but when you have every group in the organization trying to get their concerns solved while not giving any room for compromise it can be a large hindrance to progress. If the different sides would realize that they have common interests that can be solved together it would make the International Community and many International Organizations more efficient. Continue reading Is There Hope for International Organizations – Graham Koester
Globalization have changed the world. We can exchange the stories with the people from the opposite side of the world. Globalization also changed the way people think about International Institutions as context and norms of the global community have changed. Spread of egalitarianism with the system of democracy allowed countries to participate in the global politics. However countries became more of a ‘polity’ and it have put cooperation in risk as formation of polity enhanced contested globalization. The true system of democracy in international institutions have not been applied because some powerful countries has more power in the process of making agreements and less powerful countries’ interests have been undervalued or underrepresented.
Combating climate change has been an issue for quite some time now, but many of us are on different pages regarding the seriousness of this issue. Some people choose to ignore because they don’t think it will affect them, while some are trying to address climate change as quickly as they can. From the readings that I’ve read, it’s clear that all three of the authors feel that combating climate change is something that needs to be dealt with as soon as possible. It is also apparent that these authors all agree that there needs to be solutions to problems of international cooperation. However, here’s the catch. Every country view benefits of the climate change differently that not all of them are willing to cooperate at the same rate or on the same level. Every country is different in what they think they need at this time and the benefits or troubles that might come with addressing climate change. In the US, we are actively trying to combat climate change- especially the younger generation. This is because we know that it will affect us! However, the older generation might not feel that climate change is a very big concern to them because they will not live long enough to see the changes made through combating climate change rapidly.
Additionally, although there must be push for climate change on an international level, I feel that it is more important to combat this in a domestic level first. I feel that on an international scale, some of the smaller states who do not have such a big problem with climate change yet seem like they are not very relevant to combating climate change. This might be because they don’t think their use of CO2 emission will make a difference in the long term. It might also be because their CO2 emission doesn’t compare to the amount of CO2 emission from China or India. This is why every country must find their individual losses and gains by combating climate change on a domestic scale first. Then, they can decide to join other countries on an international level to agree on a decision regarding addressing climate change.
Of course, major emitters like India and China will need to have pressure on them to make changes immediately regarding cutting back on their CO2 emissions. Maybe attaching a price to carbon will help. However, if this is enforced to other small countries that don’t need this type of regulation on them yet, they will just choose to opt out and not care about the climate change at all. This is why it is important to have each country, small or big, figure out their costs and benefits regarding taking immediate action on climate change. Combating climate change must be done. However, there are steps and different stages to ultimately achieve this.
As we come closer to the time when we will need to replace the Kyoto Protocols, the debate circulates about how and what should replace these protocols. The answer could be found in combining multiple view points. Continue reading The Combined Arms Strategy to Fighting Climate Change