Two distinct approaches are central in environmental policy: one which emphasizes restricting man’s impact on the environment because of limited resources, and the other which seeks to use the market to compensate environmental costs but which also seeks to develop ways of continuing development whilst reducing environmental impacts through technology.
The principle of distinction and discrimination of combatants and non-combatants is the cornerstone of international humanitarian law. Humanitarian and human rights law build on two very distinct perspectives of protection of civilians during armed conflicts; and therefore, present two independent legal regimes, which were not necessarily designed to coexist.
Migrants have come to fill an essential role in the global economy, yet at the same time states are problematizing immigration as a challenge to its security, sovereignty, economy, and social fabric. States with high levels of outward migration celebrate their emigrants as new heroes for the profits they send to their home state.
The atmosphere, forests and other forms of ‘natural capital’ come under the concept of the commons and increasingly these are being ‘managed’, through enclosure, carbon markets and other economic methods. This stance is, in many ways, at fault for the ecological issues faced today.
Although democratic peace has gained various statistical and theoretical support, it can not escape from criticism. The theory should not be used as an excuse for adopting a foreign policy of forcibly conducting democratization, as the chances of success for this kind of action are highly questionable, as demonstrated in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan.
It can be said that the expectations at COP15 were not so high that they were unattainable. However, domestic pressures in key countries, procedural difficulties, insufficient pre-cooking and the “ClimateGate” scandal certainly played a role in why a comprehensive agreement was not reached.
A narrow application of Article 51 would allow keeping control on unilateral use of force, at least given the awareness by states of the political costs of unlawful actions. Widening the scope of self-defence could bring the erosion of the basic purpose of the UN Charter regime, i.e. the ban of military force in inter-state relations and the promotion of peace.
We are trapped in our experiences as colonisers and colonised, and in our resulting positions of power or powerlessness. Therefore, representation of ‘subaltern women’ by white western liberal feminists remains problematic, since tied up in the notion of representation are the complications of power, knowledge and language.
It appears there is a trade-off between the security of some and the liberty of others. This perception of a trade-off between security and liberty is particularly convincing when evidence from the on-going war on terror is used to illustrate the argument. It is possible to argue that any trade-off between liberty and security is short-term and illusory.
The Bush administration’s support for missile-defence was motivated by a desire to maintain freedom of action, and thus unipolar hegemony, vis-à-vis ostensibly un-deterrable rogue states. However, it is evident that BMD is strategically flawed, technically disputed and has the potential to destabilise existing arms dynamics.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.