Well folks, I have now finished Module DD101 - introduction to the social sciences. The final essay went today. In this, I had to "Critically asses the claim that states are necessary evils". There were a few examples I could have used to do this. What I decided to look at was the role of states as members of the United Nations, specifically, the resolution authorising the use of force in Afghanistan, and the NATO intervention in Kosovo. This was paralleled with the incidences of piracy through the last 2,000 years, and the legal doctrine of universal Jurisdiction was used to bring all these together.
First, the (social) science bit. I looked at the theories of Max Weber, a German sociologist of the 19th century. His definition a a state is along the lines of 'the authority of a government of a territotial area claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence'. Also considered was the theory of J Hoffman, who argued that Weber's type of state was claiming something it could never have, because having a monopoly on the use of force would surely mean that everyone was compliant and that no one was challenging that monopoly (or claim to it). The last was Artyama Sen, an economist who argued that 'democracy is the default setting of a legitimate state'.
The gist of part of the essay was that the UN had agreed unanimously (including ALL permanent members of the security council) that force could be used to go after Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan after the Taliban's refusal to hand them over. This was due to a group (Al Qaeda) using violence outside the accepted norms. In the NATO intervention in Kosovo, the unanimous agreement of the security council was not given, so NATO acted with out the rest of the UN. NATO argued that the doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction should be expanded to cover the intervention. Universal Jurisdiction covers piracy (it is often in international waters, international terrorism, and cross border criminality).
So, what has this got to do with pirates? What has been said about pirates from Cicero (Rome BC) to the UN (resolution1851) is that they act outside the normal accepted framework of states, and that they create their own authority in the absence of any other present. (piracy in the Indian Ocean has increased markedly since the collapse of the Somalian state). Cicero declared them to be 'the common foe of all people' Sir Edward Coke (16th century) declared them 'hostes humanes generis' - enemy of all humanity, and the UN #has decided that their crimes are something which carry Universal Jurisdiction, so that all nations/states (in accordance with resolution 1851) must act in whatever capacity they can to stop them. This has led to mucho macho posturing by the presence of a multi-national pirate hunting fleet in the Indian Ocean, which is another matter, for another entry perhaps.
Let's get back to Kosovo. NATO argued that crimes taking place there should be covered by Universal Jurisdiction, since they are against some very fundamental human rights, with summary executions, rapes and people becoming homeless and/or refugees. This is the point in the blog where I take my social science learning and combine it with my own world view.
The financially straitened times in which many millions of ordinary people are being forced to contend with right now are exactly like the types of crimes which many of the world's great powers want to see in expansion of Universal Jurisdiction. How? The actions have effects which cross borders, just like international terrorism. Basic human rights are being infringed, since people are being driven into poverty, and potentially homeless. The driving force for the actions which led to the recession (now, likely to become a double-dip recession) was financial gain - just like piracy. So, who's for Universal Jurisdiction? Who has the stomach for it? What bankers and governments alike need to remember is this. Hard times bring hard reactions. Hard times are a breeding ground for extremism. WWII came hard on the heels of the Great Depression of the (original) Wall Street Crash. Some might argue that the Nazis brought about WWII, but, if unrealistic reparations had not been put upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, then the driving force of much of their radical politicians would have been diminished.
One thing is certain though. In contemporary UK, the public are not as docile as politicians would like to believe. This is the birthplace of NIMBYISM (not in my back yard), and for the first time in a long time, more of us will become interested in what must look like the very attractive doctrine known as Universal Jurisdiction.
First, the (social) science bit. I looked at the theories of Max Weber, a German sociologist of the 19th century. His definition a a state is along the lines of 'the authority of a government of a territotial area claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence'. Also considered was the theory of J Hoffman, who argued that Weber's type of state was claiming something it could never have, because having a monopoly on the use of force would surely mean that everyone was compliant and that no one was challenging that monopoly (or claim to it). The last was Artyama Sen, an economist who argued that 'democracy is the default setting of a legitimate state'.
The gist of part of the essay was that the UN had agreed unanimously (including ALL permanent members of the security council) that force could be used to go after Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan after the Taliban's refusal to hand them over. This was due to a group (Al Qaeda) using violence outside the accepted norms. In the NATO intervention in Kosovo, the unanimous agreement of the security council was not given, so NATO acted with out the rest of the UN. NATO argued that the doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction should be expanded to cover the intervention. Universal Jurisdiction covers piracy (it is often in international waters, international terrorism, and cross border criminality).
So, what has this got to do with pirates? What has been said about pirates from Cicero (Rome BC) to the UN (resolution1851) is that they act outside the normal accepted framework of states, and that they create their own authority in the absence of any other present. (piracy in the Indian Ocean has increased markedly since the collapse of the Somalian state). Cicero declared them to be 'the common foe of all people' Sir Edward Coke (16th century) declared them 'hostes humanes generis' - enemy of all humanity, and the UN #has decided that their crimes are something which carry Universal Jurisdiction, so that all nations/states (in accordance with resolution 1851) must act in whatever capacity they can to stop them. This has led to mucho macho posturing by the presence of a multi-national pirate hunting fleet in the Indian Ocean, which is another matter, for another entry perhaps.
Let's get back to Kosovo. NATO argued that crimes taking place there should be covered by Universal Jurisdiction, since they are against some very fundamental human rights, with summary executions, rapes and people becoming homeless and/or refugees. This is the point in the blog where I take my social science learning and combine it with my own world view.
The financially straitened times in which many millions of ordinary people are being forced to contend with right now are exactly like the types of crimes which many of the world's great powers want to see in expansion of Universal Jurisdiction. How? The actions have effects which cross borders, just like international terrorism. Basic human rights are being infringed, since people are being driven into poverty, and potentially homeless. The driving force for the actions which led to the recession (now, likely to become a double-dip recession) was financial gain - just like piracy. So, who's for Universal Jurisdiction? Who has the stomach for it? What bankers and governments alike need to remember is this. Hard times bring hard reactions. Hard times are a breeding ground for extremism. WWII came hard on the heels of the Great Depression of the (original) Wall Street Crash. Some might argue that the Nazis brought about WWII, but, if unrealistic reparations had not been put upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, then the driving force of much of their radical politicians would have been diminished.
One thing is certain though. In contemporary UK, the public are not as docile as politicians would like to believe. This is the birthplace of NIMBYISM (not in my back yard), and for the first time in a long time, more of us will become interested in what must look like the very attractive doctrine known as Universal Jurisdiction.
