Contestation between those who are largely concerned about justice and social equality and those who represent a traditional international governance system based on the primacy of nation state is neither new nor an existential threat to world order. But the tension is there and it is increasing as the forces of globalization increase. Continue reading Contesting Contestation—Alice Huntoon
Since the Kyoto Protocal, is an important to address that since the international agreement was implemented, it has not been able to succeed because of the different goals and objectives of governemnts.
Cooperation as in trade offs is a principal limitation in the commitment of an opposing party. Most of the governments involved in the transformation of climate change today have different objectives and goals on what is most important. For example, while the U.S. is one of the biggest contributors to emissions in CO2, China and India have had little ambition for effective cooperation, meanwhile Russia and emerging countries are more focused on the development of countries rather than emissions. These states have different goals of what is actually going to be effective for the international community. The EU meanwhile is the second largest contributor but has made effective effectiveness in its contribution, resulting in the fact the impediments are more international. Most of these countries obtain the failure to cooperate because countries end up failing to come up with their own interests or assemble each other towards a common goal. In Victor’s scholarly article, Toward Effective International Cooperation on Climate Change he mentioned to cooperate under transaction costs, it is vital to comprehend the capacity that these treaties, organizations and norms can do to assist cooperation facility between countries and their goals towards climate change. There is only so much that an organization can do when the level of interests of these countries vary in multiple ways. Treaties have the ability to manage these climate change projects, however, if governments are not finding creative ways to be a part of process of these projects then treaties are almost ineffective.
Instead of going through a binding agreement, the best process for a government to do is to establish a non-binding agreement in order for there to be an open environment for governments to commit to more ambitious goals without it being held against them. It is vital to comprehend that these governments have their own self-interests and most of them have different opinions on what the international community is suppose to do about climate change initiatives. It is important that there is a universal agreement because what this will do first is give states the ability of having an agreement manage the process of global change in order for every government to be on the same page of the process. However, it is important that instead of it being a binding project that it would be a non-binding linkage so that governments can challenge themselves more and work together towards global governance. It is important that the agreement is embedded in the institution. In order to understand who is advancing towards this goal, it is important to address the governments national performance.
Since the League of Nations, there has always been a contested fear of these governments to fully commit to its principals. Although treaties can provide a managing universal agreement, as stated before, we live in a realist world and ultimately people are bound to be drawn towards their own goals and self interests. However that being said, instead of having a fully broad group of governments involved in this change, it is ideal that a number of strong governments are able to take the lead in the future of changing our climate if they have the capacity and ability.
Investing in billions that you may never see the effects of? We question why big players like China and Russia will not cooperate but the problem is more on the basis of an international game of chess with a ticking clock. Many hold that the game needs to disappear but what we really need is to think outside of the board for the answer. If governments in large commercial countries can provide an initiative for big corporations to take larger steps in cutting emissions and investing in long-term projects for environment sustainability, can this provide a short-term initiative to Climate change while we wait for meaningful international change? Action seems to be a better move then waiting for cooperation amongst nations that may not resolve issues that must be fixed in a timely manner. Although it is much easier to focus on the economy or constituents then to foster a binding treaty, politicians must start to focus on the daily effects of climate change and look for a way to change the future. Continue reading Climate change intiatives for today: a present to your grandchildren- Kate Cornman
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.
Many of the readings on critical views of institutions for this class discuss the role of international organizations in the present and recent past. But what about the future? What will be the nature and role international organizations in the 21st century? Both liberals and realists agree that international organizations are extensions of major hegemons. Realists argue that they help hegemons promote their agenda. As power dynamics change then, one would assume a realist would expect one of two outcomes: either international organizations will grow weaker and less relevant, or they will change to fit the needs and wants of new world powers. Liberals argue that hegemons use international organizations to promote liberal ideals, so for liberals, the future and relevance of international organizations will depend on how supportive rising powers in Asia and elsewhere will be for liberal ideals. Continue reading The Future of International Organizations. By Matthew Lesso
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
Stephen Krasner quite rightly argues in his article on sovereignty that the challenges states face to their sovereignty today are no different than the challenges they faced in the past. But to say that the notion or idea of sovereignty faces challenges is very different from declaring it dead or in decline.