Smith

1. Human nature says we are lazy and greedy- we want the most and in the most efficient way

2. If everyone specializes at what they're best at and makes only that in surplus, there's a type of chain reaction where each person does what they're best at and we all trade --> most efficient

3. 3 things that make specialization more efficient: people get better at it by always doing it, saves time by not switching between multiple things, knowing how to make what you do more efficiently

4. Divide between the political and economic realms

5. Applied to international level: efficient for states to specialize and invest in a comparative advantage (the good you're able to produce at a lower opportunity cost than another state)

List (reaction to Smith)

1. Doesn't start from state of nature like Smith, but instead from examining historical episodes

2. Emphasis on state intervention in the domestic economy

3. England:

- It's prosperity is a product of smart choices made by the government

-Admits that British made it costly for themselves in the short run, but that long term gains were great (developing the industry for example)

3. Brings together world of politics and economics 

4. Free trade is a political ploy of England, because Smith's theory will benefit England after already becoming the wealthiest

5. Smith is saying this is a universal truth when he's really just saying how it should be --> this doesn't sort itself out on its own

The good you're able to produce at a lower opportunity cost than another state

- Comes into play with Smith, who says that when we have international, free trade, it's efficient for states to specialize and invest in a comparative advantage

- Politics and economics are the same

- Inherent conflict between those who do the work and those who gain the benefits

- This also produces an international conflict

- Worker sells labor to owner --> this is exploitative because the owner gets a small profit --> effort is exceeding salary

- To Marx, this accumulation of this profit leads to bigger class conflict (whereas Smith likes this surplus)

- Overproduction and underconsumption (lots of effort,but not making enough money to buy all the products they're making) 

- As long as you have different countries with different currencies, you need a mechanism for managing movement across borders

- Exchange rates (value of your currency expressed in a different currency), capital flows, interest rates (what you pay for money)

- The Thai government ran out of currency because they borrowed US money. The lent the borrowed money out, and then their currency halved. They owed the US much more money than they did before. 

- The IMF prescribed high interest rates

The system of international trade works better with rules to change individual behaviors. Problems with individual behaviors are that we have incentive to defect and we are uncertain. The financial system needs to be managed: both by formal and informal rules. 

Formal

- Ex) IFC

- Universal postal union

Less formal

- Regime that governs exchange rate, still not formal

- No formal org. to enforce

Spruyt sees informal arrangements as:

Set of rules, norms, and expectations that coordinate states' behavior across states

- Benefits in a collective system are not distributed equally, but we still need this collective action for any benefits. 

Spruyt's Hegemonic Stability Theory

For the most successful stable trade and financial system, you need a hegemon that will be strong and carry many of the costs. Its incentive to do so is collective stability and benefits. The collapse of the 1930s came about because there was an absence of a hegemon. After the 1930s, the US paid more as others didn't fully follow free trade. This managed incentive to cheat because the US essentially buys smaller countries off. 

Requires open markets and fixed exchange rates. 

Ex) OPEC

- Saudi role as hegemon is to allow a little cheating by others with a threat that they'd vastly increase supply, dropping prices and screwing over others. If small countries cheat too much, the Saudis will put them back into place. 

All countries know that each individual country would be better off it had tariffs and others had free trade, therefore we need the WTO to take away this incentive to cheat. WTO is required to:

1. Set fixed/ public tariffs on all goods

- we have a predictable idea of what it costs to trade

2. Most favored nation must be upheld

- Advantages given to one country's imports given to all

3. national treatment must be upheld

- Whatever laws and rules you give to domestically produced goods, you must also give to imports

Any claim of cheating can be brought to WTO panel, and if found to have cheated, the body allows all other countries to add higher tariffs on the cheating country to punish it

Designed to overcome the prisoners' dilemma and let countries get the benefit of international trade

Long term loans for poverty alleviation (different from IMF)

* Fixed exchange rate, free capital movement, and independent monetary policy

Why do we want exchange rate fixed?

- gives a sense of predictability to trade

Why do we want free capital movement?

- You can move money more easily if conditions change

- less risk for firms who want to invest

Why do we want independent monetary policy?

- Control of the money supply

*** You can't sustainably have all three

- Late 1970s survived by changed articles of agreement

- intervenes in crises

- each member contributes some hard currency to a pool of money

- obligation: surveillance

- Each country that donates has the right to borrow from that pool when it faces a balance of payments crisis (allows it to buy time)

- Countries borrow american dollars in short term loans (restricted to balance of payments)

- Conditional the IMF believes you'll be able to pay them back at the end of the term (asks a country to do XYZ to be able to pay back)

Sands 

Pre- Nuremberg to Post- Pinochet

Pre- Nuremberg

- Not really crimes against humanity; the only crimes beyond the jurisdiction of any state was piracy or slavery

- there were no treaties on human rights or laws about crimes versus humanities

- War crimes were at a low level and didn't target senior officials

Nuremberg

- Established three things:

1. Individual leaders could be held personally responsible for decisions of the state

2. Newly defined set of crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes)

3. Established new international institution to manage these newly found crimes, the ICC

1948 Genocide Convention

- Genocide made an int'l crime that all states are obligated to prevent and punish

1949 4th Geneva Convention

- Universal criminal jurisdiction: in a case with crimes against civilians, states are required to search for perpetrators and prosecute them wherever the perpetrator is found

- Courts of every country have jurisdiction over a crime regardless of where it's committed

- Exists for certain crimes in war

1979 Apartheid made one of these crimes that are under universal criminal jurisdiction

Article 7 of UN Convention 1984

- Any state must prosecute a suspect who's suspected to have committed torture anywhere else. If you can't, bring the person to a state who will.

Pinochet 1998

- At the origin of this case is the new definition of international crime, which didn't exist pre- Nuremberg

- Pinochet arrested in London because Spanish asked British to find him and try him for crimes against humanity

- Pinochet argues that heads of state are immune

- Court of appeals says no; incompatible with torture convention --> we need to hold senior officials accountable

- Impact of decision:

1. Recognizes that national courts can pursue these crimes

2. Gives effect to conventions and their underlying policies

3. Takes away automatic assumption of immunity

4. There's no conception of duties as high official which would permit you to commit torture

ICJ Case

- ICJ said the Congolese foreign minister is immune from prosecution in Belgium (even though he was charged for inciting genocide) because he has immunity as a foreign minister

- This differs from the Pinochet case, which determined there was no automatic assumption of immunity. This presumption of immunity by the ICJ in effect diminishes the role of national courts, which the Pinochet case gave power to. 

- The ICJ said that the foreign minister could only be tried in his own country

- The ICJ said that when it comes to serving foreign ministers, only the ICC may claim jurisdiction, trumping the principle of complementarity

- Article 7: new obligation to prosecute or expedite those suspected of torture

- Article 1: defines torture

- Articles 4 and 5: member states must make torture illegal in their domestic law

- Article 3: no state shall expel or prosecute someone in a state where there is grounds for believing they'll be tortured

- last articles: conventional parts of international treaties

The ICC is complementary to domestic coutrs

- This is the model of the torture convention

- Gives precedence to national courts

- If national courts are unwilling or unable to do the work, the ICC will only then step in 

- Defines what the UN is and outlines general rules of behavior

- 6 specific organs defined

- General obligations (articles 1 and 2)

Preamble

We the people of the UN are determined to prevent the scourge of war

Article 1

Purpose of UN is to maintain int'l peace and security

Article 2

 1- organization based on the sovereign equality of all its members

3- all members shall settle international disputes by peaceful means

*4- prohibits member states from using force against each other

7- says nothing in the present charter shall authorize the UN to intervene in the matters which are in the jurisdiction of each state

Article 3

Members of the UN shall be the states that have signed

Article 4

Membership in the UN open to all other peace loving states

Articles 10, 11, 13

General assembly may discuss anything within the scope of their charter and make recommendations to others

Global Compact

- Code of behavior that firms could sign onto voluntarily

- Dealing in a world outside just what states are doing

Chapter 7

Gives the Security council its power

- Heart of military aspects of UN

- Article 39: Security Council shall determine threats to peace and shall determine what measures should be taken to restore international peace

- Article 25: members of UN agree to accept and carry out decisions of the security council

- Article 42: the Security Council can do ANYTHING to respond

- Article 49: the members of the UN shall join and afford mutual assistance to the security council to take action

- Has legal authority over states

- Articles 39, 41, 42 are enforcement measures (can make decisions requiring what needs to be done to restore peace, can authorize non military or military measures)

- Ex) Genocide in Rwanda- UNAMIR --> states required to comply with inspections

- States can only deploy forces internationally when security council tells them to or in self defense 

- Article 51 combined with 2.4 means self- defense doesn't count as force

- Has legal capacity to decide limits of domestic sovereignty

- Can put sanctions on individual leaders

- Council is supposed to be legally superior to states; HOWEVER at the same time even if member states have obligations to do something to blacklisted individuals it doesn't really make work

1. It doesn't have its own military resources

2. Permanent members can veto and get in the way of collective decisions

3. Legal limits of how its power is defined in the charter (can only deal with international peace and security)

Security Council

-15 members

-Permanent members can veto and get in the way of collective decisions

- Majority rule for decisions

- Decisions are binding

- All members must carry out decisions

- Undemocratic, but has the real power and enforcement

General Assembly

- Majority rule

- One country, one vote

- Very little authority

- Makes recommendations

- Decisions aren't binding

- Very democratic, but almost useless

- Article 17: the general assembly shall consider and approve the budget of the organization (only real power)

1. Job: attempt to create an enforcement body and make it more likely states will comply by rules

2. Attached to UN

3. All of its members are members of the UN, and all members of the UN are members of the ICJ

4. Joining the UN means you also agree to be under jurisdiction of ICJ

5. Decisions are final, no appeal

1. Advisory opinion: can give this in response to a request from any major int'l organization that wants to know what the law is on a subject

- It's their opinion on the law, not the politics of the situation

- A court of legal disputes

2. Contentious case: Two or more states have a legal dispute with each other in int'l law, and the court is the institution for deciding whether a state has been harmed under int'l law by the other state

Three paths to jurisdiction (article 36 of UN charter)

1. 36.1: the two sides equally agree that the court should have jurisdiction

2. 36.2: allows states to make a prior commitment that it will accept the court's jurisdiction over all cases in the future

3. 36.1: Specifically provided for in treaties or conventions

However

- A state can easily get around ever having to use the ICJ

- Ex) Other governments sued the US through the ICJ for still having a death penalty

The ICJ kept finding that the US wasn't living up to its commitments

US kept executing people

Bush told everyone in the US to go through all treaties and take out any commitment to the ICJ

- 15 elected judges

- Drawn from main legal systems of the world

- When judges make decisions they're supposed to be based on int'l treaties, international custom, general principles of law recognized by civilized nations, and judicial decisions and teachings of publicists/ writers of various nations

- Hierarchical arrangement

Purpose

- Comes into being because of an agreement between states, but its legal authority is over individuals

How it works

- Interstate treaty that creates obligations on signatory state

- Defines jurisdiction as limited to certain crimes (war crimes, genocide, crimes vs. humanity)

- Says that over those crimes, the members of the ICC have several obligations:

1. To make them crimes in their domestic law

2. Domestic courts of these countries have to make a genuine effort to investigate and prosecute those crimes

3. If they don't, than the ICC has jurisdiction over that individual for the crime

- Discusses legitimized power

- Expanding power of security council

- Claiming more issues under its authority

- Why can it do this? Consent vs. Consensus

- We can rely on consensus (weaker) because at one point- ratification- we had consent

- Security Council has its authority because it was delegated this authority by the states

- The idea that ratification is consent

- Tries to present the Security Council as a legitimate lawmaker in international politics

- One problem he has to confront right off the bat: it’s clearly undemocratic in terms of elections, representation, participation, etc.

- To deal with that problem he turns to another democratic theory: Deliberative Democracy

            - There is this process of deliberation that occurs where everyone gets to say their piece

            - Another problem- you need relative equality of members in this view of democracy (we don’t have this because we have the 5 permanent members)

                        à He deals with this problem by saying there are 4 tiers of deliberation (five permanent members, NGOs, other members, non- permanent members)

            - Concerns being raised vertically upwards/ downwards

            - There’s equal participation on four hierarchical levels with a decent amount of movements between those levels

- Talks about courts (like the ICTY) and the fact that they are legitimate actors

- This legitimacy comes from: the security council delegates power to courts. We already know the security council has legitimacy because the states already delegated power to it. Takes Cronin's argument one step further.

- 2 types of legitimacy: 

1. Purposive- the fact that it was constructed for ideas of human rights that have broad support

2. Performance- how they're running

 - Criteria

à Did they get their hands on people to prosecute?

à Is it operating in a fair way?

à Is there due process?

            - Cambodia: was viewed as not being fair procedurally and not following due process

- First international attempt to deal with these issues since the Nuremberg tribunal

 - Set up a court to prosecute individuals

 - Scope of tribunal limited in geography (crimes committed within Yugoslavia and within a certain time frame) and concept (only allowed to investigate serious scale crimes like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity –international crimes)

  - For all other kinds of crimes, the local courts were left to do their work

- Goals: to extract brutal individuals from daily life and reconcile society

 - If you have public accountability, reconciling will come after

 à Why did the Security Council respond the way it did?

- Discuss what the genocide is a case of

    - What are the different ways the UN can respond to a crisis?

 - Peace keeping vs. peace enforcing and how they relate to different attitudes toward sovereignty

 - Sovereignty in general (Article 2.7 of UN charter says nothing in the present charter shall authorize the UN to intervene in the matters which are in the jurisdiction of each state)

 - Failed intervention vs. successful intervention