User:Group F hult/sandbox

Group F is bringing a different approach to the common definitions of contested concepts in International Relations and the major debates going on at the moment. The first part this entry will look at is Sovereignty and all the concepts that come under that!

Sovereignty

Realism Supported by Thomas Hobbes, Michael waltzer

The realist approach to sovereignty states that there is a shared interest between the state and its citizens. The state is the main actor responsible of the security of its citizens. The international community should not get involved in the jurisdiction of any state. Trough self-determination, the sovereign state prevents external influences in local affairs.

the complementarity principle - the international community agrees to not overrule the authority of the state.

conditionality (liberal) Supported by Kofi Annan

Human security states that securing the individuals is more relevant than protecting the state. By following the principles of interdependence and commonality, we must be committed to prevent human suffering through the responsibility to protect (R2P) When the state has failed, and there is a systematic violation of human rights, humanitarian intervention shouldn't be considered as an assault on sovereignty.

The ICISS (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty) states that the state should hold primary responsibility for the protection of its people, but if it fails, the secondary responsibility would fall on the international community.

This idea of conditionality applies for instance to Rwanda and Kosovo.

The international community cannot intervene in matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of any state.The R2P agenda has encouraged a review of what lies within the domestic jurisdiction of states and has placed conditions on their sovereignty. However, If a state has failed or is unwilling to protect its people, then it is no longer recognized as sovereignty.

the right to rescue

The responsibility to protect extends the right to rescue the ones in danger.

The right to rescue has been criticized for its unclear boundaries. How far should an actor (eg: the state) go in order in rescue? John Locke (philosopher) states that it is not necessary to risk your own life for another's.

Immanuel Kant (The Enlightenment philosopher) wrote that what one may demand as a right another has an obligation to supply.

universal/non-universal: a universal responsibility would be one that we all had to supply.

perfect/imperfect: a perfect duty would match all those who demand the right with those who should supply it.

An imperfect and non-universal duty would then be one that is not owed by everyone and does not specify exactly who should supply it.

The Golden Rule's basic ideal states that we should treat others the way we wish to be treated.

Ungrievable lives

Samantha Power (photojournalist) suggests that encouraging capable actors to rescue those in need requires an awareness of suffering. In conflict zones, the intervention of the international community is unlikely without popular awareness and support. Photojournalists have the duty to bring attention to atrocities to the public.

bystanders: people who witness but are not directly affected by the atrocities in front of them - PASSIVITY.

fundamental dependency: •	Images showing the suffering of others reminds us of our own vulnerability. •	They can also remind us that there is a fundamental dependency on others for whom our safety depends. •	Solidarity is based upon a recognition of our shared vulnerability to pain and accepting the suffering of others as our own responsibility.

spontaneity of empathy

Adam Smith argued that when we are confronted with the suffering of the other we “change places in fancy with the sufferer.” •	Projecting how we would feel if we were to experience similar suffering. •	However we are not always spontaneous in our empathy for the other as sometimes we consider their pain to be deserved. •	We need imagine what it might be like to be the other rather than for us.

representations of the other

Keane argues that the common representation of some others as passive victims does not always encourage action. Ungrievable lives - when compassion doesn't lead to activity as we do not consider to have counted as equal in the first place. Susan Sontag insists that images of the suffering of others will not influence us to act unless there is already a foundation of empathy.

vulnerability

Judith Butler: •	all of our lives are vulnerable. •	we all have the power to inflict suffering as well as endure it. •	We are always connected to others. The world is always one we share with others.

The second part we will look at are the means of security and all it includes with a coherent example on terrorism verses nonviolence.

The means of security When one looks at the means of security there are five main concepts, but this entry will explain, analyze and apply only three of them. The five main concepts are: war and peace, just war, nonviolence, necessary violence, care ethics. The three concepts that will be analyzed in this entry are war and peace, just war and nonviolence. All of these three concepts have sub concepts that will be mentioned but not analyzed in depth. War and peace There are different views of war and peace but the main debate is always the realist one. Realists argue that war is justifiable as a mean to an end. The end is a consequence of the national interest. The well-known philosophy of ends justify the means is quite tricky as the question that arises is which ends and which means? In the example of Terrorism, they can claim that their end is just and right and they have to use these means as nothing else works. This mode of thinking can go both ways. Pacifism Pacifism is the non-active resistance to war. It bases itself on the concept that we should never fight back, but endeavour our enemies with kindness and friendliness. Pacifism is against violence in any case. Pacifism is difficult to discuss as people are vulnerable and they know they can get hurt, thus they tend to fight back in order to protect themselves and their people. Pacifism has worked some times, but it wouldn’t work in Nazi Germany or in Rwanda during the genocide. Just War The concept of Just War is related to the idea that if it is for a just cause, then it is justifiable. The problem that one can encounter here is the ability to change and use this concept to make many “wars” just. The Terrorists are fighting a just war, America is fighting a just war, Palestine is fighting a just war, Israel is fighting a just war, but from whose point of view is this war just? The concept of Just War is divided in two concepts of when going to war (just ad bellum) and when being in war (just in bellum). Nonviolence Nonviolence is the active process, which uses proactive measures in order to fight something, but without using violence. The difference between pacifism and non-violence is that pacifism is a non-active process whether non-violence is very active. Mohandas Gandhi is the leader of this mode of thinking in the world. The question that comes up no is if nonviolence can work in the war against terrorism. The first thing we have to do, even before we start thinking of using nonviolence against terrorism, we have to separate terrorism and terrorist. One have to understand that the terrorist is a human being, just like us, who is executing the orders of a specific group he is part of. Many of us are part of different groups, without thinking of the actions that these people take; we should consider that we also execute actions to benefit those groups. After we have passed the first step and we have humanized the terrorists and we do not call them terrorists anymore, but maybe people who use violence or find another name then we can move on. The process of dehumanization is a nonviolent one so it can be the process of humanization. Once we do that we are able to understand the real reasons behind why these people that are just like us do specific immoral acts. By creating this idea of terrorism, we empower the terrorist even more, by giving them the advantage of having the power on people. By having the same discourse that we have today we support the cause of the terrorists who might want to inflict a fear culture on people, on the other hand we do not know what their real causes are. When Foucalt explains that the state created the fear but then the people start to embrace it and what is dangerous goes out of the hands of the state and the people get the power and they define who is dangerous now. As a further step we need to change the discourse regarding terrorism and terrorist. Foucalt notion of the society of control explains this approach even better. What about the cases when people are martyrs and they sacrifice their lives for a specific cause they believe in. Aren’t all the suicide bombers martyrs who should win our hearts with their courage? The problem with terrorism is that violence will bring more violence and this will be a viscous circle. Education is an important factor to fighting terrorism non-violently as one has to understand that violence in itself is terrorism. If our educational systems keep on “other”-ing then discourses of nonviolence are just useless. When terrorists attack they do it so states can attack back more violently and if they do not then we have the moral jiu-jitsu happening, when the attacker looses their moral balance. As a conclusion I believe that terrorism can be approached with non-violence but the institutions need to be reconsidered.

We shall end with the Derivative concept and all that includes what is dangerous or who is dangerous.

Derivative concept

Fear: Politcal Fear: state tells people what to be afraid of. This way people will ask for security themselves and for the state to secure them (intervene) if they feel afraid of a certain threat. Linked to Michel Foucault’s society of control and regime of truth, stating that practices in civil society reproduce their belief in state power. The state is no longer in control, it goes beyond them. People take over. They take the responsibility to inform the state if something happens. So for example, they will inform policemen if they see an unattended bag on a platform. It is often thought that these bags have a bomb inside or are linked to a terrorist attack, since some attacks have been performed this way. E.g. The USA instilled a fear of terrorism after the attacks on the World Trade Center of September 11th, 2001. The country then started the War on Terror. The citizens are afraid of terrorists now, in general for example of people with a long beard, and will act themselves against people they are afraid of. The social constructivist approach is linked to this. Culture of fear: people are willing to give up their freedom in the name of security. Only the fear of fear is restorative. It is the obscuration of reason and intensification of emotion. The culture of fear has turned into a way of managing the population. The public is motivated to endanger others in favour of their own security. This way, the public which is feeling secure under current policies will even hurt or kill others in the name of security of the state. Vulnerability: this is used a lot by politicians to make us aware of the fact that we need security in order to survive. They identify threats for us and tell us as well what we should not be afraid of.

Securitisation: Narrow school: simply defines the protection against war and other military violence. It is labelled as freedom from fear. Broad school: acknowledges that more people die from disease than by military violence and believes that people should be protected against this as well. Includes freedom from indignity and want, protection against natural disasters and poverty. It is linked to Judith Butler’s ungrievable lives which says that in order to rescue those in need – for example people suffering from curable diseases like diarrhoea – an awareness of the suffering is needed. However, as we are not directly affected, we choose to remain passive which again confirms the acts, in this case the passivity of the governments of developed states. The UK and France see themselves as secure, the countries are at peace and there is no military violence. However, what we rarely consider is that still may people live in poverty and are unable to provide for themselves, even in these developed countries. Many graduates are unemployment and have little possibility of finding a job. Many do not even get the possibility of higher education because their family does not have enough money. This has led to uprisings in the very recent past: Paris in 2005 and Britain only last August. Securitisation is only achieved in the narrow school theory, but even developed countries are not able to achieve the broad school definition even though they might be secured against diseases like diarrhoea. We do not even think about counties which are far away from our own, like many countries in Africa, and the problems that are faced there because we are not affected (Judith Butler)

Critical concepts: Essentially Contested Concept: security does not have a global definition. It is defined by society. The Critical Security Studies (CSS) have managed to agree on a general direction of security, but have not managed to develop a definition that all cultures are comfortable with. Participants in CSS are also known as social constructivists. Social construction: security is defined by the society we live in. Even the concept of security and securitisation is a social construction because without the state interfering in many of the actions around the world or in the country itself, many issues would not be seen as dangerous. The War on Terror for example, is a social construction. Not all the people in Afghanistan or Iraq are terrorists and it is only after the USA invaded, that Afghanistan turned more radical and is now in more distress than 10 years ago. Critiques of realism: realism is based on social constructions. States are social constructions and the states we have today even more so. Some borders go directly between a people which is now split in half, like Native American populations now divided by the American-Mexican border. Each state has power interests it wants to secure. Thus, we always need to ask ourselves who we are securing and for what purpose. If we think about the intervention in Libya, we can see that the USA was interesting in keeping its oil reserves safe and thus described the situation as more intense than it may have if they did not have any interest in the state. They put pressure on the UN. In Syria, the power interests are not that big and so since Russia and China vetoed the decision of intervening, it took more than a year for the UN to finally make a decision. During this time, many people died. Identity: definition of who is a threat and who deserves to be secured. This is the social constructivist approach. In the eyes of the American people, they have the right to be secured while they believe the people in the Arab world don’t. Many cultures there have been labelled as terrorist after 9/11 even though they were not implicated. Also, many Americans are not exposed to this culture and so have no argument against what the state is telling them to do.

Peace and Conflict Transformation: Defining peace: as with the concept of security the concept of peace as different definitions in different cultures. Security is related to peace in the sense that when something is secure, it is understood that it uphold the peace. Then, peace is responsible for upholding the intrinsic value of being. Negative peace: the absence of collective or large-scale military violence and war between states. This does not include collective violence within a state as it is happening in Columbia right now for example. The state is at peace with outside countries, but inside the FRAC and the army are fighting extensively. We can also see this in the genocide that happened in Rwanda. Two peoples, members of the same country, were killing each other violently due to how the Belgians had “used” them during the time of colonisation. To the outside however, there was no military action. Positive peace: limited amounts of violence are acceptable in the pursuit of ideals like equality. This already poses a problem in itself since “limited amounts of violence” cannot be defined universally and understood in many different ways. Culture of peace: the right kind of peace must be applied to the culture that it is trying to be applied to. There is a possibility of political change but also the danger of more violence. After the beginning of the War on Terror, the USA and other countries invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Although now trying to install a peace, they are having difficulties, possibly due to the fact that they are trying to instill Western values in a community that does not accept them. Afghanistan only became very radical in its actions after the invasion. They are now very hostile to Germans for example, where before, even shortly after the invasion, they were still positive and open towards them. Conflict transformation: trying to engage the world as it is, with conflict or without. It means to affect positive change in situations of violence. It is also defined as a translation of divergent positions into a language of shared needs. For example, there are charities trying to bring Israelis and Palestinians together by making a theatre project together. This way, the charity is making a positive change to the community and the country where both peoples have to live side by side. Also, they are trying to work past the stereotypes they cultures have of each other and the horrible actions that both sides have committed.