It is increasingly difficult to escape blame for climate change. Culpability lies in the land we allocate to urban development, in cars we drive, and even in many of the manufactured goods we enjoy. Culpability is also not specific to the developed world. China and India do not trail so far behind the U.S. and the EU in the share of global emissions toxic to the environment. We must recognize that climate change is something to which many-if-not-most people around the globe are contributing. However, as scholars like David Victor have pointed out without tire, universal “solutions” drawn up through the conventional international institutions are unable to provide us with sufficient climate governance. Instead, a looser framework relatively lacking in universality and binding institutions seems more likely to succeed in reducing the risk calculus for world-wide, climate change-induced disaster.
Over the years, international organizations have adapted their policies and regulations to the events that have altered both domestic and international affairs. Climate change has been a very delicate issue in the past decade, as scientists have released information that has caught the attention of states across the globe. Human activity has altered the “greenhouse effect” making every single human being culpable and targetable of such change. As a result, states are concerned of the effect this has and might have in their communities in the near future. Governments have been actively involved in the implementation of international treaties to improve the environmental situation globally, decrease the effects of climate change, and prevent atrocious results due to a lack of responsibility. Continue reading How Seriously Do States Take Climate Change? – Ilka Vanessa Walker-Vera
A country’s success is based on, not only acknowledging when there are times of struggle, but being able to adjust its plans and policies in order to find solutions for the situation it is facing. However, there is difference between planning to do something and actually doing something about it; by acting states can establish whether or not it works or if it can be improved. On the other hand, by simply planning and not executing their blueprints, states will just have an overall expectation of what can happen but no concrete facts of how the idea/concept will eventually turnout. One of the most ongoing disputes in international development is how organizations approach and perceive today’s worldly affairs. Continue reading International Development Organizations: Aid Effectiveness v. Aid Allocation – Ilka Vanessa Walker-Vera
For over sixty years now, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has served as a key instrument of the liberal international economic order (LIEO). Free trade, loans to aid development, and the decline of command economies have all been results of this institution—much to the delight of countless actors across the international stage. Yet the past decade has hosted a particularly strong wave of criticism. The 2007-08 financial crisis, as Eric Helleiner shows us, damaged the legitimacy of both IMF policies and leadership. From that time through today, many have insisted that a “new Bretton Woods” occur as to totally begin again in our structuring of global finance. Helleiner and I are, at our cores, opposed to such a move. This is largely because a “new Bretton Woods” is almost impossible, but also because a “new Bretton Woods” seems rather counterintuitive.
The UN should be congratulated on setting up an official inquiry into the human rights violations perpetrated by the Sri Lankan government during the country’s civil war. Granted, that inquiry is coming rather late (about five years late), is horribly undermanned (only twelve official staff members), and is restricted to only ten months in which to complete its inquiry. And of course, it will only look at the last years of the civil war in Sri Lanka which ended in 2009, turning a blind eye to all of the ongoing human rights violations in the country today.
Since the 1970’s, studies on climate change have urged the international arena to reform their economic and industrialization policies for the sake of future sustainability and health. This has been proved successful in some instances, such as the Montreal Protocol in 1987 when the usage of chloroflourocarbons (CFCs) were cut down significantly and universally in order to stop depletion of the ozone layer.
In other instances, climate change mitigation has been less successful. Considering the Millennium Development Goals, as mentioned in the Doyle and Stiglitz reading, a 2013 report on Goal 7’s focus on environmental sustainability has turned out to be a failure in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The 2013 MDG report showed that global carbon dioxide emissions have increased 46% since 1990. These reports show that developed countries has overall reduced their greenhouse gas emissions, but developing countries emissions have accelerated. Continue reading Global Asymmetry through an Environmental Lens – Eliisa Carter
The main criticism of the international institution is that it does not mutually benefiting all member states. There is a mutual benefit in some extent; however, not all states get equal amount of benefit. In fact, it creates a system which first world countries can exploit third world countries. The international institution creates more interaction and cooperation but at the same time, it also creates even more inequality between countries. Continue reading Marxism: Criticism of the International Institution -Seungmin Song