Proposal: Corporations and Sovereignty

The main purpose of this paper is to establish the effects of corporations' actions that result in threatening the sovereignty of the Third World. The influence of corporations in the Third World prevent the other other world from developing and becoming sovereign and independent from powerful countries. Corporations influence policy making in weak states and that diminishes the role of state. When the state does not have the sovereign power to act according to the best of its interest then it looses power and tends to became more dependent. In poor countries governments tend to be corrupt and corporations use it to their advantage, so natural resources are sold to the best buyer and the government gives up it sovereign power to regulate the environmental degradation, and negative economic effects. Thus, corporations turn poor states into puppets and the main goal is to earn as much profit as possible without having to pay for the consequences of destroying government effectiveness. This is important to address because it will help to understand the level of negative effects that corporations can cause when they use Third World government officials as their brokers. And for the purpose of this paper, I have selected Doe Run American Corporation and Peru as my case study. This case study captures the entire role corporations play in a Third World country such as Peru, and how the corporation has influenced Peruvian policies in order to continue business as usual and avoid all accountability to the country's environmental degradation.

Sources:

• Fraser, Barbara."Environmental  Science & Technology." 1 July 2009. www.pubs.acs.org. 30 October 2013 
• Fraser, Barbara."Peruvian Mining Town Must Balance Health and Economics." The Lancet (2006):Volume 367. Number 9514.
• Kovski, Alan."Privatization in Peru Draws Wary Interest." 12 August 1992. Global Issues. 30 October 2013
• http://www.doerun.com

Manuela Chyang
POLI 487


Paper Proposal:

 The topic I would talk about is the 2010 presidential Elections in Ivory Coast,there is an ongoing argument regarding the results of these elections. The former President Laurent Gbagbo was outsed with the help of the UN security Council who claimed that the current President Alassane Ouattara won the elections as well as France, and the U.S. Even though, the Constitutional Council of Ivory Coast declared that the outgoing President Laurent Gbagbo has won the majority of votes. Contrary to the statement of the President of the Independent Electoral Comission  (ICE) who claimed Allassane Ouattara as President. According to the Constitution of Ivory only the Constitutional Council has the right to proclaim final results of the Elections.   Was the sovereignty of Ivory Coast violated?
By looking at the actions of the UN Security Coucil , with the consent of other parties such as the U.S and France, as well as the Constitution of Ivory Coast, I want to show that the sovereignty of Ivory Coast was violated.

 Sources

Nicolas, Cook. "Cote D'ivoire Post- Elections Crisis". Congressional Research Service. Jan 28, 2011, p 1-51.
                 
Adam, Nossiter. "2 Oaths of Office taken in Ivory Coast". New York Times. Dec 4, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/world/africa/05ivory.html

Tom, Ogwang. "The root causes of the conflict in Ivory Coast". Africa Port. Apr, 2011, p 1-8.


Thierno, Mouctar Bah. " Adressing Cote d' Ivoire Deeper Crisis". Africa Security Brief. Mar 2012, No 19, p 1-8.

Luke, Glanville. " The Responsability to Protect Beyond Borders". Human Rights Law Review. Jan 21, 2012. P 1-32.

Tiffany Jones Paper Proposal

The topic for my research paper is international environmental threats and its effect on sovereignty.  The argument for my research paper is that the concept of sovereignty should be reconsidered when it comes to the issue of environmental threats.   I believe states should be given the right to dictate to neighboring states how they should handle activities that produce air pollution and exploits natural resources in its territory.  I will use the case of China and India, which harbors a large dense population of people.  However, my research will not be limited to using China and India as my only sources of evidence, but rather draw from more examples of other states.  My topic is such a contentious issue, because every state is sovereign and has authority over its own affairs.  A state cannot simply go into another state and command how it should govern its people.  This contradicts the definition of sovereignty.  

This world is inflicted with the problem of climate change.  This is due in part to an immense rise in carbon dioxide levels in the ozone layer and the abusive treatment of natural resources.  There are states that are often not practicing good environmental measures and activities are negatively impacting neighboring states through the environment.  I will investigate how sovereignty makes it difficult for environmental issues to get resolved.  In addition, I will seek ways the world can approach this problem.

References

Chamberlain, David M. 2006. "The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty."

Environmental Practice 8 (2): 135-136. http://search.proquest.com/docview/215463524?accountid=14696.

Clark, William C. 1995. "Enhancing Compliance with Environmental Agreements -- Intentional Oil Pollution at Sea by Ronald Mitchell / the New Sovereignty by Abram Chayes and Antonia Chayes / Imposing Duties by Malcolm Sparrow." Environment 37 (4): 1. http://search.proquest.com/docview/224021458?accountid=14696.

Litfin, K. T. 1997. "Sovereignty in World Ecopolitics." International Studies Quarterly 41: 167-204. http://search.proquest.com/docview/16536040?accountid=14696.

Oliver, Christopher. 2005. "THE TREADMILL OF PRODUCTION UNDER NAFTA: Multilateral Trade,

Environmental Regulation, and National Sovereignty." Organization & Environment 18 (1): 55-71. http://search.proquest.com/docview/219872787?accountid=14696.

Piddington, Kenneth. 1989. "Sovereignty and the Environment." Environment 31 (7): 18.

http://search.proquest.com/docview/224030672?accountid=14696.

Jessica Guerrero's Term Paper Proposal

            Realism teaches us that politics is all about power. Krasner takes realism and applies it to international relations and the concept of sovereignty as he explores this notion of intervention. Krasner supposes, strong states do what they have to do and weak states accept what they have to accept. The class topic of intervention focused primarily on humanitarian intervention and how that conflicts with sovereignty by proposing the various outcomes and consequences associated with invading a country without international or internal state approval. What my paper wishes to explore are other aspects of intervention that violate sovereignty, such as influencing a foreign country’s political structure through military and financial support of coup d’etat.

            By examining the US actions in Latin America during the cold war, one learns that the US compromised the notion of sovereignty to crush communism in their “backyard” by meddling in the affairs of weaker states. As a result, the US support of militant right-wing groups in Latin America aided in establishing a reign of terror in country’s like Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay through ‘Operation Condor,’ in which countless of human rights violations were committed. Despite the bloodshed, US actions were done in the name of defending and empowering the notion of democracy.

1. McSherry, J. Patrice. "AMERICAS: Condor Figures." NACLA Report On The             Americas 39.1 (2005): 42-44. Political Science Complete. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.

* This source goes through some of the key players in the Condor Operation

2. Young, Kevin. "Washing U.S. Hands Of The Dirty Wars: News Coverage Erases             Washington's Role In State Terror." NACLA Report On The Americas 46.2             (2013): 58-61. Political Science Complete. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.

* I want to use this source because it tries to expose how the US was involved in Latin America’s ‘dirty wars’ (referring to all the coups that took place).

3. McSherry, J. Patrice. "Cross-Border Terrorism: Operation Condor." NACLA Report             On The Americas 32.6 (1999): 34. Political Science Complete. Web. 28 Oct.             2013.

*This is another source about Operation Condor, but focuses more on the regional structure of the South American countries involved with an emphasis on Argentina

4. Kornbluch, Peter. "Opening Up The Files: Chile Declassified." NACLA Report On             The Americas 37.1 (2003): 25. Academic Search Premier. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

* This source looks at the US support of the Pinochet rebellion in Chile and attempts to surface information about the CIA that was until then kept quiet for some time.  

5. MeSherry, J. Patrice. "Death Squads As Parallel Forces: Uruguay, Operation Condor,             And The United States." Journal Of Third World Studies 24.1 (2007): 13-52.             Academic Search Premier. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

*This source reviews the clandestine operations in Uruguay and the US funding of militant groups. 

Carlos Moya: My Paper Proposal

Sovereignty is a living concept where the juxtaposition arguments are on one side saying a country cannot violate the sovereingty of another country. The opposition argues that in extreme cases such as massive killings or genecide, the concept of sovereignty can be overriden. The argument I will develop is about how sovereignty is an elite social-constructed concept and that its practicality and applicability in real life is not reflected on the results in the form of governance. For instance I will talk about the Mexican Cartels and how the thousands of people who perish due to the incessant war between drug cartels and the Mexican 

government is different from that in Rwanda where millions of people were massively killed.

The question is How the example of Mexican cartels is different from the example of Rwanda and its genocide proportions? The one characteristic that both of these countries share is the large amount of people being killed, whether it is thousands or millions, the loss of human life should be an immediate sign to act and there should be no doubts to take a decision given the circumstances that human lives are at risk. I will focus on the United States because in the case of Rwanda, the U.S had a chance to intervene and supersede the concept of sovereignty but no action upon this atrocity was undertaken. On the other hand, Mexican cartels are neighboring the United States' borders and knowing the fact that people are dying in increasing numbers, the U.S decides not to intervene because the concept of sovereignty explicitly states that no country should intervene in another country's internal affairs and that each country should be able to control and manage all domestic affairs at their own discretion and capabilities; even though the United States is the biggest drug cartel market that it exists.

Why does the concept of sovereignty seem to have an albitrary implementation? Why is sovereignty being superseded? Who can interpret its definition and when is ignore and when is it respected? How does the elite help promote the idea of sovereignty? Is sovereignty socially constructed and an elite-driven concept?

Sources:

1. Wendt, Alexander. CONSTRUCTING INTERNATIONAL POLITICS. Diss. Yale University, MIT Press, Web. <http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2539217?uid=2134&uid=373710471&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=373710461&uid=60&sid=21102841914857>.

2. Casey, Nicholas. "Mexican Cartel Retaliates Against Civilians." THE WALLSTREET JOURNAL. n. page. Web. 30 Oct. 2013. <http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304200804579163840007600858>.

3. Jolis, Anne. "Rwanda's Genocide: The Untold Story." THE WALLSTREET JOURNAL. n. page. Web. 30 Oct. 2013. <http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704240004575085214201591380>.

4. Liu, Ken, and Chris Taylor. "THE WAR ON MEXICAN CARTELS OPTIONS FOR U.S. AND MEXICAN POLICY-MAKERS." n. page. Web. 30 Oct. 2013. <http://www.iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files_new/research-policy-papers/TheWarOnMexicanCartels.pdf>.

5.Fausset, Richard. "U.S. spied on Mexico's Felipe Calderon, leak reportedly shows." LOS ANGELES TIMES20 10 2013, n. pag. Web. 30 Oct. 2013. <http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-mexico-spying-20131021,0,3047873.story

Paper Proposal

                                                                                                                                      
Linda Ostermann
Poli 480: International Organization
Professor: Mark Shirk
10/30/2013
          

Adolf Eichmann in Argentina; his removal by Israeli nationals and his trial

Did Israel violate Argentina’s territorial sovereignty by abducting Adolf Eichmann without the approval of Argentina’s government?

            Otto Adolf Eichmann was a SS leader in Nazi Germany and was responsible for mass deportations of Jews into ghettos and extermination camps. One of his major assignments was to manage the Auschwitz Concentration camp in Poland. After World War II, Eichmann fled to Argentina. He used a fraudulently laissez-passer to leave Europe and lived in Argentina under a false identity. On May 11, 1960 Adolf Eichmann was taken to Israel by Israeli nationals. In Israel, Eichmann was charged with “crimes against the Jewish people” and “crimes against humanity”. He was executed in June 1960. The removal of Eichmann by Israel led to many controversies around the world. Israel’s removal of Eichmann was performed without the knowledge or authority of Argentina. Argentina responded with submitting a complaint to the Security Council alleging that Israel has violated the Argentina’s territorial sovereignty rights. After some discussion, the Security Council adopted on June 28, 1960 a resolution condemning Israel’s action. As a result of this resolution Israel and Argentina agreed to settle their differences. On August 8, 1960, they published a joint statement to that effect. 

            Some scholars argue that the removal of Adolf Eichmann was justified under Israeli law. Eichmann left Europe and entered Argentina under a false identity. In addition, he was a world-wide sought criminal. Under Israeli law, the trial of Eichmann was a legal process. In august, 1950, the Knesset adopted the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) law. Section one of that law described that any person who has “done during the period of the Nazi regime, in an enemy country, an act constituting a crime against the Jewish people” or an “act constituting a crime against humanity” or “an act constituting a war crime” is liable to the death penalty. 

            In my paper I will examine to what extend the right of sovereignty of Argentina was violated by Israel. In addition, I will focus on finding counter arguments that state that Israel actions were justified, not only by Israeli law but also under international law. 

            Here are some of the resources I will use: 

            J. G. Merrills, “Morality and the International Legal Order,” The Modern Law Review 31:5 (1968), pp. 520-534.

            Hans W. Baade, “The Eichmann Trial: Some Legal Aspects,” Duke Law Journal 1961:3 (1961), pp. 400-420. 

            David Luban, “Hannah Arendt as a Theorist of International Criminal Law,” International Criminal Law Review 11:3 (2011), pp. 621-641. 

            Covey Oliver, “The Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Eichmann,” The American Journal of International Law 56:3 (1962), pp. 805-845.  

            G.I.A.D. Draper, “The Eichmann Trial: A Judicial Precedent,” International Affairs 38:4 (1962), pp. 485-493

Hannah Whalen's Paper Proposal

Failed and quasi-states fail to provide for their populace, and have more external sovereignty than internal sovereignty.  Failed states are equal to states on some ways and not in others.  States like the Congo and Somalia are examples of failed states, as they are recognized by the United Nations, but lack an effective internal government.  The way these failed states interact as world players is largely relative to their unequal status in the world system.  Due to the uncertain nature of these failed or quasi-states, foreign intervention can happen for many reasons.  Humanitarian, security, and resource driven interventions can all occur.  Many of these reasons can be used to explain or hypothesis why certain failed states receive intervention and aid while others do not.  Why are certain states intervened in while others are not?  Why did we go into Iraq, and not Darfur?   I argue quasi and failed states are intervened in when intervention benefits the invading state.  Meaning states intervene in quasi-states when it is in their interest and do not intervene when it does not promote their interest. 

First I will provide a brief definition of quasi and failed states.  I will then investigate locations where intervention has occurred and where it has not.  I will focus on Iraq, as the location where invasion occurred, and Darfur as the location where invasion did not.      

 Sources:

Di John, Jonathan. “The Concept, Causes and Consequences of Failed States: A Critical Review of  the Literature and Agenda for Research with Specific Reference to Sub-Saharan Africa,"  European Journal of Development Research. Feb2010, Vol. 22 Issue 1, p10-30. 

Flibbert, Andrew.  “The Consequences of Forced State Failure in Iraq.” Political Science Quarterly. Spring2013, Vol. 128 Issue 1, p67-96. 30p.

 

Kolstø, Pål and Blakkisrud, Helge. “Living with Non-recognition: State- and Nation-building in   South Caucasian Quasi-states.” Europe-Asia Studies. May2008, Vol. 60 Issue 3, p483-         509. 27p. 3 Maps.  

 

Patrick, Stewart. “The brutal truth: failed states are mainly a threat to their own inhabitants.                 We should help them anyway.” Foreign Policy. July-August, 2011, Issue 187, p55, 3 p.

 

Yoo, John. “Fixing Failed States.” California Law Review. Feb2011, Vol. 99 Issue 1, p95-150. 56p.

 

 

 

 

 

Kirill Orlov- Russia's reemergence.

The topic of my paper is discussion of the effect Russia’s reemergence as a great power has on the sovereignty of former soviet states, specifically Belorussia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. Is Russia’s reemergence as a global power a sign of her aim to once again dominate her weaker neighbor’s, or her aim to defend her legitimate interests? Is domination a necessary condition needed to defend one’s own interests? I argue that it is necessary for a country to dominate the economic, political, diplomatic and military processes along its border to protect its interests.    

I argue that in a time of globalization Russia has only two choices. Russia can dominate, thereby securing order in an arena that is crucial to its national security, or abandon the post-soviet states and allow the security-threats and instability in the region to continue. Russia has already done both.  In my argument I would also like to discuss the Georgia-Ossetia conflict and its effect on the sovereignty of countries bordering Russia.  Russia has dominated the economy, politics and military force in the countries near its border after world war two. Russia has also abandoned the post-soviet states that relied on Russia’s support following the Cold War. My belief is that Russia must now decide what approach to use in the future.    

(1)   http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/129.html

(2)   http://sojcc.ru/soglashenia/95.htm   (in Russian; accessed on 10/30/2013)

(3)    Gustaaf Geeraerts, Eva Gross, Perspectives for a European Security Strategy towards Asia. Academic & Scientific Publishers, 2011.  http://books.google.com/books?id=DNXfViPsmmoC&lpg=PA170&ots=NqfMdrGTBp&dq=russia's%20re%20emergence%20as%20a%20great%20power&pg=PA171#v=onepage&q=russia's%20re%20emergence%20as%20a%20great%20power&f=false

(4)   Andrew E Kramer, “Chocolate Factory Trade War Victim” http://www.nytimes.com, Published: October 29, 2013.

(5)   Jakob Hedenskog (Editor),Vilhelm Konnander (Editor),Bertil Nygren (Editor),Ingmar Oldberg (Editor) Christer Pursiainen (Editor), “Russia as a Great Power: Dimensions of Security Under Putin” Taylor & Francis, Publication date: 6/28/2005