Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 12:10:54 am

Author Topic: Global Politics 2014  (Read 47258 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

achre

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 734
  • Respect: +72
Re: Global Politics 2014
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2014, 05:15:43 pm »
+1
You don't need to remember all of it. You couldn't possibly. No doubt it would be a bunch of case studies, which will seem completely irrelevent now until you start looking at the concepts that they flesh out (state sovereignty, globalisation, role and structure of IGGs/TNCs/NGOs/NSAs). Once you go other the content for the topics, you'll be thankful for big handouts like that. You go through them, pick and choose a few that appeal to you and are relevent, and chuck them into your answers.

Best advice for this early in the year is to get involved. I suck at geography, so at the start of the year people were talking about all these different countries I had no clue about (I still don't know what a Kosovo is or where it is on a map), but you'll get comfortable real quick. If you actually put in the effort, this is one of the most rewarding subjects in the VCE - don't hate it before you've even really started it!

schoolcaptain

  • Victorian
  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Respect: 0
  • School: AHS
  • School Grad Year: 2014
Re: Global Politics 2014
« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2014, 06:35:10 pm »
0
Could someone please help me with the Realist VS the Liberal view on national interest? I have to write a 2 paragraph response to which view (realist or liberal) I think is most effective when formulating a state's national interest, but I'm kinda stuck ATM. Thanks.  :)

achre

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 734
  • Respect: +72
Re: Global Politics 2014
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2014, 06:58:36 pm »
0
I don’t know that liberalism is actually on the study design for glopol... I’ve only encountered it by being a loser and looking at my uni coursework ahead of time LOL. Also this is way more unit 4 than unit 3, but...

Realism puts forward the idea that the global arena is composed of different states each with their own standards and little or no obligation to shared morality. This means that they don’t feel obligated to assist other states OR it means that they intervene in other state’s affairs (diminishing their sovereignty, whether by putting trade embargos on them or going full-blown invasion) to push their own agenda rather than foster it (the US attempted this in 2013 when they attempted to get support from other states to invade Syria, in response to the Ghouta chemical weapons attack). So a realist national interest would generally try to avoid interacting with states who possess conflicting moral interests, or at least avoid being vocal about it (Australia’s asylum seeker policy has not been condemned by many states, not even those who accept many refugees, such as Germany).

Liberalism is probably most similar to cosmopolitanism in the 3/4 study design, so it put forwards essentially the opposite of the realist school of thought: the global arena is composed of a single, moral community regardless of state, culture or level of development. National interest actions influenced by cosmopolitanism include things like joining global organisations like the EU, the UN, the Arab League, or other alliances and like NATO. In the event that a cosmopolitan state intervenes in another state’s affairs – or otherwise diminishes their sovereignty – they generally won’t interfere with the status quo. An example of this might be the six-party talks (NK, SK, China, US, Russian Federation, Japan) on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Despite freezing 24 million dollars worth of NK’s foreign assets, there has been no action on NK’s forced labour colonies (200, 000 interred) or any other of their human rights abuses. whoops, that's not right. That's way more realist. So cosmopolitans think that all humans deserve to be treated equally, so a better example of cosmopolitan action would be ratifying various treaties and declarations and international laws like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) or the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that imply those kinds of values.

They both have advantages and disadvantages, depending on whether you want to grow as a state by looking after number one and ocasionally conducting an invasion or two, or you want to engage in diplomatic action to avoid conflict while improving your global image by seeming moral.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 07:11:01 pm by achre »

HawthornM8

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 85
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Matt Damon institution
Re: Global Politics 2014
« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2014, 11:02:32 pm »
0
Would anyone be able to recommend some films/documenatries that would be handy for this subject in terms of knowledge? Also any sort of podcasts that would also be good for learning information (I know of one on YouTube but he uploads quite sporadically).

I have barely come to get a grip on the subject but over this weekend I'm going to put a few hours into learning about it. I've realised whilst I was sitting their mindlessly whilst people were talking about current things in the world, such as a global actor that has undermined the sovereignty of a state etc. Whilst barely knowing anything about anything, I watched a few podcasts and watched half a documentary called 'The Square' on the Egyptian 2011 revolution which is totally relateable to the course (I think).

I've also got some homework to do.

1) Which states are currently the most powerful? Why?
Without knowing a great deal, would that relate to the big 5 (france, russia, china, UK, USA) who are like permanent members of the UN security council? As the UN is essentially an organisation that has an aim of world peace where all participating states (192?) must surrender equal authority and power to the organisation in order to make it work, those on the security council would be the most powerful. Is this right?
2) Which global groups/bodies/institutions (apart from states) have global power?
I guess I could talk about anything just as TNC's, NGO's etc. that have overwhelming power, like the influence of Apple over our technological world? Not sure.
3) Could global groups/bodies/institutions ever threaten the power of states? If so how could they do it?
Yeah they could. e.g. When the IMF gets a state out of deficit by giving a state in need money with interest rates, they are also essentially able to make that state do anything. If the state is unable to make repayments, the IMF will take control over its economy and essentially print money and flood the international exchange market with their currency. Once again, not sure if this would be right?
4) How might states fight back if this happened?
According to the doctrine of state sovereignty, which is essentially where states have the authority to exercise power within its own territorial land that is internationally recognised, such as Bolivia in the aforementioned situation (question 3), they may use military power as a sovereign right to ensure the IMF leaves them alone.

If someone could please critique this, I'd be greatful. These were obviously written off the top of my head, poorly structured and remember I'm really quite a noob at this subject (basically learnt all of this today, first thing I've learnt from paying attention).

Thanks :)

Vermilliona

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 255
  • Respect: +5
  • School Grad Year: 2014
Re: Global Politics 2014
« Reply #19 on: February 07, 2014, 11:42:50 pm »
+1

Would anyone be able to recommend some films/documenatries that would be handy for this subject in terms of knowledge? Also any sort of podcasts that would also be good for learning information (I know of one on YouTube but he uploads quite sporadically).

I have barely come to get a grip on the subject but over this weekend I'm going to put a few hours into learning about it. I've realised whilst I was sitting their mindlessly whilst people were talking about current things in the world, such as a global actor that has undermined the sovereignty of a state etc. Whilst barely knowing anything about anything, I watched a few podcasts and watched half a documentary called 'The Square' on the Egyptian 2011 revolution which is totally relateable to the course (I think).

I've also got some homework to do.

1) Which states are currently the most powerful? Why?
Without knowing a great deal, would that relate to the big 5 (france, russia, china, UK, USA) who are like permanent members of the UN security council? As the UN is essentially an organisation that has an aim of world peace where all participating states (192?) must surrender equal authority and power to the organisation in order to make it work, those on the security council would be the most powerful. Is this right?
2) Which global groups/bodies/institutions (apart from states) have global power?
I guess I could talk about anything just as TNC's, NGO's etc. that have overwhelming power, like the influence of Apple over our technological world? Not sure.
3) Could global groups/bodies/institutions ever threaten the power of states? If so how could they do it?
Yeah they could. e.g. When the IMF gets a state out of deficit by giving a state in need money with interest rates, they are also essentially able to make that state do anything. If the state is unable to make repayments, the IMF will take control over its economy and essentially print money and flood the international exchange market with their currency. Once again, not sure if this would be right?
4) How might states fight back if this happened?
According to the doctrine of state sovereignty, which is essentially where states have the authority to exercise power within its own territorial land that is internationally recognised, such as Bolivia in the aforementioned situation (question 3), they may use military power as a sovereign right to ensure the IMF leaves them alone.

If someone could please critique this, I'd be greatful. These were obviously written off the top of my head, poorly structured and remember I'm really quite a noob at this subject (basically learnt all of this today, first thing I've learnt from paying attention).

Thanks :)

No, you've really got the hang of it - if this is after just one day of paying attention, you'll be fine in the subject.

1) yes, the big 5 certainly have legislatively ingrained, theoretical power, just be aware that the unsc is often paralysed by vetoes so members who wield less economic or military influence (ie france and the uk) don't actually profit that much. So you could argue that these two don't have that much power anymore due to economic crises and etc. China and the us are the safest bet in terms of two most powerful (but this wouldn't be a sac or exam q anyway)
193 (good old South Sudan)

2) yes, but consider different facets of power. Apple wields influence over tech yes, but also over the economies of emerging countries. NGOs often have limited power since they don't have legislative power, or economic and rely on popular support. IMF and WTO are good here, so yeah pretty much

3) yep, or even the fact that states have to change their economic program when they agree to an IMF  bailout is challenging their sovereignty

4) unlikely that a state would use military power against the IMF; more likely situation would be refusing further loans (but doesn't happen very often). A WTO example could fit here - the US, being the US, constantly ignores WTO rulings against it (look at Bolivia cotton ruling and clove cigarettes with the Philippines I think (maybe not, I'm rusty))

You are seriously fine, chill, pay attention in class, find some case studies and conquer. Hope this helped most of it is just rambling :/
2012 - LOTE Ukrainian 50
2013- Global Politics 47
2014- English 47, French 47, Psychology 45, Revolutions 49 (99.90)

Offering tutoring in Global Politics, Psychology and History! PM or contact as per http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/nunawading/language-tutoring/global-politics-vce-tutoring-melbourne/1065783700

HawthornM8

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 85
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Matt Damon institution
Re: Global Politics 2014
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2014, 12:06:34 am »
0
No, you've really got the hang of it - if this is after just one day of paying attention, you'll be fine in the subject.

Thanks so much for all the help!

I've had class for around two weeks and I've just been given big slabs of writing  I haven't bothered reading and I've basically spoken to my friends during the class for the entirety of the time as I just thought it was impossible. I sat away from that friend today to give it a go myself, and whilst not understanding some key GP concepts probably due to not being privy to its definitions, stuff actually soaked in!

Thanks for all the help :) Don't understand how much I appreciate it.

HawthornM8

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 85
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Matt Damon institution
Re: Global Politics 2014
« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2014, 02:03:02 pm »
0
Just another question.

This morning I've been learning a little about sovereignty, doing some overdue holiday homework. This is what I've learnt.

Sovereignty is the widely recognised ability to exercise control over territory within recognised borders by international communities. (by the way, to have recognised 'sovereignty' or to be recognised as a state, does that come down to how the UN's general assembly perceive you?'

The 'principles' of sovereignty include having control over a geographic area, non intervention, self-determination (the people have the right to choose the government except in authoritative regimes) and have the right to develop principles.

With the sovereign rights, non-intervention is essentially that a state can exercise sovereignty without the intervention of another state. However not all states respect this right. If Australia wanted to lock up all the aborigines in its territory, it is our sovereign right. If they wanted to destroy the great barrier reef, it is our sovereign right. However when can another state ignore these sovereign rights and intervene?

Like Syria has the sovereign right to use force on its citizens, eps. the situation with chemical weapons. However, the US ignored their sovereign right, intervening with their military, essentially taking away the authority/sovereignty that Syria has within its territory.

What I'm trying to get at is when can sovereign rights be taken away? Do certain states have to consult with someone in the UN, or can members of the UN Security Council act without consulting with anyone. Also who has the most power in the UN? Do decisions happen through like majority votes from the representatives of the 193 or is there a 'head power' that overrules, like the governor general in australia rejecting a bill that has passed both houses?

Thanks! This is my first day of global politics (self-learning, sort of done nothing in the passed 2 weeks) so if I say some noobish stuff, forgive and correct! :)

achre

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 734
  • Respect: +72
Re: Global Politics 2014
« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2014, 02:34:14 pm »
+1
Okay, to be clear, nothing you've said is noobish. They're actually fairly insightful questions that show you've fully engaged with the material, so congrats haha

So sovereignty is undermined when the principles of sovereignty (that you outlined) are ignored, whether in part or wholly. A state (or, as the case may be, an IGG like the IMF or WTO) doesn't neccesarily have to seek another state's permission to invade, they're welcome to do what they like if they have sufficient military power. However, in this globalised world, such actions would typically have long term consequences for the state - like in your Syria example, if the US invaded without the permission of Russia (who is a major Syrian trade partner, and who also has an offshore military base within Syria), it could have potentially caused some conflict between the two states.

The ability to interfere with another state's sovereignty is largely determined by the R2P doctrine, in particular the just-case threshold and the notion of right authortiy:

Quote from: R2P
The most appropriate body to authorize military intervention for human protection purposes is the United Nations Security Council. However, should the Council reject a proposal or fail to take up a situation within a reasonable amount of time, alternatives are the following:

    A. the General Assembly can consider the matter during an Emergency Special Session under the "Uniting for Peace" procedure; and

    B. Regional or sub-regional organizations can act within their geographic jurisdiction, subject to their seeking subsequent authorization from the Security Council.

If those mechanisms fail to discharge their responsibility to protect in conscience-shocking situations, concerned states may not rule out other means to meet the gravity and urgency of that situation.

Note that your example of degradation of the Great Barrier Reef would be extremely unlikely to be accorded with global condemnation. (Unfortunately)

Most of the time, these things are left up to the Security Council. The compound of the Security Council's often conflicting interests and their power of veto means that they very rarely draw up resolutions on important issues.

HawthornM8

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 85
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Matt Damon institution
Re: Global Politics 2014
« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2014, 03:58:46 pm »
0
IGG
I'm sorry, what does IGG stand for?
Most of the time, these things are left up to the Security Council. The compound of the Security Council's often conflicting interests and their power of veto means that they very rarely draw up resolutions on important issues.
So when you're talking about the power of veto, does that power reside with the big 5 who can essentially stop anything that is going on in the world within the 193 states of the UN? Does the big 5 like vote on something, e.g. going to invade Australia - would the votes have to be unanimous or a majority?


Note that your example of degradation of the Great Barrier Reef would be extremely unlikely to be accorded with global condemnation. (Unfortunately)
Haha. I was watching a YouTube podcast and the guy was essentially explaining the sovereign right of non-intervention. So when talking about rights, he said we would essentially be able to destroy the Great Barrier Reef with no intervention in theory. Although the sovereign right can be challenged (due to condemnation) in theory, he said a state would be able to do that.


Thanks so much man!

achre

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 734
  • Respect: +72
Re: Global Politics 2014
« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2014, 04:10:37 pm »
+1
I'm sorry, what does IGG stand for?

Institute of Global Governance. You'll have trouble remembering that one right up until 5 minutes before the exam (my entire cohort blanked on it while waiting outside the exam hall. "Inter-governmental... something...")

So when you're talking about the power of veto, does that power reside with the big 5 who can essentially stop anything that is going on in the world within the 193 states of the UN? Does the big 5 like vote on something, e.g. going to invade Australia - would the votes have to be unanimous or a majority?

Decision needs to be unanimous. A single veto will completely block action by the security council. UNSC consists of 5 permenent members with that power of veto, and another 10 rotating countries. (Australia is one of the rotating countries, elected by General Assembly, sits for two years) This is a major criticism of the UN as it's a big part of why people feel it's ineffectual.

HawthornM8

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 85
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Matt Damon institution
Re: Global Politics 2014
« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2014, 04:23:00 pm »
0
This is a major criticism of the UN as it's a big part of why people feel it's ineffectual.
Seems pretty silly. What if one of the members of the Security Council - pretend Russia - invaded Australia and took away our sovereign rights? You go to the security council and the two states would have opposing votes or would use a veto or w/e. Who takes authority then when in talks of retaliation of an invasion or something?  Are those directly affected suspended from the security council? Like if the USA was being invaded by North Korea and the security council was talking about dropping a nuke on NK, would the US get a vote?

Thanks mate.


HawthornM8

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 85
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Matt Damon institution
Re: Global Politics 2014
« Reply #26 on: February 13, 2014, 09:19:33 pm »
0
If anyone could please help me out in answering this exam question I'd appreciate it. I have to write this for homework and I already gave it a go in class and he said I didn't focus on 'influence' much, so if you could please help me out I'd appreciate it so much!

[8 marks] Evaluate the influence of two non-state actors in contemporary global politics.

[My wrong answer] The International Montetary Fund has global influence due to both economic and legislative powers. The IMF's purpose is to bailout states in need of financial assistance by giving them a loan with high interest (which yields high profit margins) which in turn, the IMF can essentially take 'economic' control over a state that fails to pay back the loan or follow set guidelines by the IMF, aswell as 'legislative' control over a state such as implementing new taxes to get their money back. This is the influence the IMF has as they can essentially take control over another states economy to do as they please to get their loan back. Essentially, they IMF may do as they please and can actually instigate 'currency manipulation' like China and flood the exchange markets. (P.S. This was only 4 marks that I wrote worth because when he told me I was wrong I stopped - didn't really have much else to write anyway).

-- As you can probably tell I don't really have any idea what I'm talking about. What I learnt here I learnt from peoples conversations on ATARnotes and my only real area of expertise is around sovereignty as I'm watching some guy on Youtube who explains stuff really well, but unfortunately is behind my class but is following the study design. If you could please help me with an answer I'd appreciate it!

achre

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 734
  • Respect: +72
Re: Global Politics 2014
« Reply #27 on: February 14, 2014, 03:50:54 am »
+1
Hmm.

If you're addressing the question in some shape, I wouldn't ever call an answer in glopol "wrong". Before I say anything else, I'll just add that the IMF is a non-state actor, but it's a lot closer to an IGG (remembering the definition of global governance: institutions/rules/norms/blah blah blah that manage relations between states), which is a bit too close to states for my liking. For instance, the UN is an IGG that is effectively a coalition of 193 states, so you wouldn't really cite it as an NSA. Typically, for NSA questions, you'd go for an organised religion or crime syndicate or terrorist network, and maybe an NGO. If you were really struggling, you'd refer to an IGG or a TNC. Okay, that was way too much info for such a small point, but anywa

When your teacher said you haven't focused on 'influence' too much, I'm assuming he means you've talked more about the IMF's purpose and its general effect on states, without citing specific instances of the IMF's actions and influence on states. Your reference to China, if I was being really strict, totals two words ('like China'), as opposed to the "more correct" approach of showing off your knowledge. ("as it did in China, in 20__. The effect on China of the IMF's involvement was...." I don't actually know this particular case study). For this question in 2013, my assessor decided to give me the full 8 marks. I used the Catholic Church and al Qaeda as a response. I structured my response (iirc, don't have my answer in front of me sadly) as introducing the scope of the Church's power (which is the potential to influence other actor's actions), then gave two examples. Then I did the same thing for al Qaeda. I feel like two marks for two examples and two marks for describing their influence/power is a fair scheme. Don't feel intimidated if you can't quite do an exam question yet, AOS 1 contains all of glopol 3/4, the other 3 AOSs just pick specific parts of AOS 1 and look at them in more detail. What that means is that when the exam comes around, you'll have naturally stockpiled examples and definitions to rattle off, in addition to a greater affinity for question and answer structure

Try it again with some of the NSAs in the Anna-Louise Simpsons text. it's 4am i'm going to sleep

Vermilliona

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 255
  • Respect: +5
  • School Grad Year: 2014
Global Politics 2014
« Reply #28 on: February 14, 2014, 08:07:19 pm »
+1
Adding into what achre (very correctly) said, I'd usually structure my evaluate answers to include pros and cons for their influence, and then weigh these up and make an evaluative decision. So, for example, for the IMF it'd be like
Pro influence
- represents majority of states in global economy
- can force countries to accept conditions
- sheer economic power (States will likely comply because they're in crisis)

Cons
- States able to leave at any time
- actions are subject to the national interest of richer States (voting inequities)
- past failures (Bolivia, Greece) lower credibility

I'd add case studies to each point and then make an overarching conclusion at the end, like 'while the IMF has x,y,z pros, it's influence is diminished by a,b,c'
2012 - LOTE Ukrainian 50
2013- Global Politics 47
2014- English 47, French 47, Psychology 45, Revolutions 49 (99.90)

Offering tutoring in Global Politics, Psychology and History! PM or contact as per http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/nunawading/language-tutoring/global-politics-vce-tutoring-melbourne/1065783700

Reus

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2125
  • Respect: +135
Re: Global Politics 2014
« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2014, 08:47:06 am »
0
Could someone actually explain what each aim of the IMF actually means/examples? My teacher didn't really interpret it well;

1. Promote international monetary cooperation
2. Exchange rate stability
3. Facilitate the balanced growth of international growth
4. Provide resources to help members in balance of payments difficulties
5. Assist with poverty reduction

Plus, loan bailout package provided by the IMF for Greece in 2010, is an example of?
Thanks heaps!
2015: Bachelor of Science & Bachelor of Global Studies @ Monash University