he number of NGOs has grown exponentially:

if neutrality means denouncing such violations, this attitude could attract reprisals

Neutrality is not synonymous with silence.

bserves neutrality and impartiality in the name of universal medical ethics and the right to humanitarian assistanceand claims full and unhindered freedom in the exercise of its functions”.

“With our silence, in fact, we doctors were accomplices in the systematic extermination of a people”, (...)Bernard Kouchner wrote, then head of a small group of disappointed doctors who broke away from the ICRC and in1971 founded Médecins Sans Frontières (ibid., 109-10).

the same birth of DWB was determined by a serious contrast on theneutrality of RC behaviour.

neutrality implies not acting in a way that could facilitate the conduct of hostilities by any of the partiesinvolved.

the principle of Neutrality prohibits a component of the Movement from taking part in hostilities

for each of them there is a brief description: it was and it isnecessary to eliminate any ambiguity margin in their formulation and interpretation

“arriving to the 7Principles was not a simple operation, because it is not easy to codify at an international level, and above allidentifying the exact terms in which the whole world recognizes itself is a particularly difficult operation”.

The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement follows 7 Fundamental Principles proclaimed at the 1965Vienna Conference: humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity and universality

RC and DWB both put neutrality among their fundamental principles, but they interpret it in adiametrically opposite way.

But why do some NGOs cooperate more easily with the States and others less?

The “action mechanism” that some people blame to these organizations would be the following: the NGO agrees withthe traffickers in order to go and collect the migrants abandoned adrift and about to sink into the sea.

he authorities of the North African countries are accused of incompetence, corruption and connivance with thetraffickers of migrants or “human smugglers”.

Despite the presence of all these forces, theoretically involved in thesame humanitarian activity, people continue to die.

A very topical subject in these months of summer 2018 is the often conflicting relation between States and NGOs,particularly in the Mediterranean basin.

Finally

economic

political,

sovereignty

Michael Mann

Kenicki Ohmae

EU)

conomic globalisation

nation-state

he rampant consumerism and unregulated capitalism facilitated by globalisation does lasting damage tothe environment.

developing countries are locked in a desperate ‘raceto the bottom’ in order to entice powerful multi-national organisations

globalisation may result in more openness over financial transactions which should help combat the twinproblems of tax evasion and tax avoidance.

globalisation makes it easier for people to emigrate in order to gain better prospects in life,which benefits both themselves and the host economy.

globalisation enables states to pool their resources and thereby tackle cross-border problems ina more effective manner.

Images of human rights violations can now beuploaded and disseminated at the click of a button.

This shared social space is most evident in transnational movements supportive of democratic values,such as freedom of assembly.

As a result of free-marketreforms, China has witnessed the largest number of people lifted out of poverty in world history.

Globalisation entails freemovement of goods, services and, to a more limited extent, people.

Transformationalists such as David Held and Anthony McGrew (2002) claim that both hyper-globalists and scepticsexaggerate their arguments.

The most significant trading links are concentratedwithin the relatively wealthier economies.

Globalisation Sceptics however stipulate that the hyper-globalist argument is little more than ‘globaloney’ (Veseth2006). The sceptical position proclaims that there is nothing inherently new in the current mania for globalisation. Farfrom being a profound transformation in global politics, the process of globalisation occurs in waves and there is littleto stop the tide turning against globalisation (an argument supported by the rise of populism).

hyper-globalists such as Kenichi Ohmae(1995) predict that globalisation represents the gradual demise of the sovereign state.

Liberalism is built upon the assumption that human nature is perfectible.

Liberals point out that the borders of states are now moreporous than ever before.

Liberals claim that globalisation represents anirreversible and profound change in the dynamics of international relations.

realism stipulates that globalisation has done little to change the fundamental conduct ofinternational relations

When considering the theoretical debate concerning globalisation, the obvious starting-point is the dichotomybetween the two main theoretical perspectives discussed in the previous chapter – i.e. realism and liberalism.

R2P is a global politicalcommitment to recognise the obligations that arise from the concept of sovereignty.

In regards to global governance, gaining authorisation from the UN Security Council can at times be problematic. Inorder for action to be effective, the five permanent members need to adopt unanimity.

On pragmatic grounds, humanitarian intervention can be justified in order to prevent genocide.

Chapter 7 of the UN Charter allows the Security Council to take action in those situationswhere there is a ‘threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression’ (United Nations, 1945).

Unlike Kosovo, themilitary organisation gained official authorisation for humanitarian intervention in order to protect civilians in the midstof the civil war that broke out at the start of the Arab Spring.

The background to humanitarian intervention in Kosovo is one of Serbian nationalism, ethnic cleansing andgenocide

One of these examples would be NATO’s intervention within Kosovo in 1999.

Humanitarian intervention can at times bring together an unlikely alliance of hard-headed realists and idealisticliberals.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs,there are four principles that provide the foundation for humanitarian action: humanity, neutrality, impartiality andindependence

There is of course an unyielding tension between the Westphalian principle of state sovereignty and the use ofhumanitarian intervention

Humanitarian intervention can be defined as the use or threat of force with the express goal of bringing the violationof human rights to an end in a specific locality.

During the Iraq war, for instance, the US-ledcoalition failed to gain full authorisation from the UN Security Council prior to the invasion of Iraq.

us in bello, however, refers to the conduct of warfare, i.e. what sort of action is ‘just’ during warfare. For instance,the use of chemical weapons is prohibited under international law.

Under Chapter 7 Article 42 of the UN Charter, the Security Council mayauthorise military action in order to ensure peace.

No understanding of international law would be complete without marking out the distinction between jus adbellum and jus in bello that are central to the legal discussion of ‘Just War’.

the liberal perspective takes a more positive view of international law

According to HansMorgenthau (1948, 21) states are ‘continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organisedviolence in the form of war.’

From the opposing angle, globalisation has done little to alter the fundamental basis of international law. All too often,international law is merely a servant of the most powerful.

From one angle, it could be argued that it represents aprofound alteration in the behaviour of states.

Professor Steve Smith

The agents of the state remain the most importantelements in the maintenance of law and order.

In EU countries, for example, the member states mustuphold the four freedoms (including the free movement of labour and capital).

Globalisation

They did so by manyroutes, both violent and peaceful, and by 1975 colonialism as a formalpolitical structure of unequal core–periphery relations was over.

As Jansen and Osterhammel (2017: 1) observe, decolonisation was amassive ideational and behavioural shift: it was ‘the disappearance ofempire as a political form, and the end of racial

What was clear to even the earliest thinkers (e.g. Brodie,1946 ) about the signifi cance of nuclear weapons was that any all- outwar fought between superpowers using large numbers of nuclearweapons would have no meaningful winner.

defence dilemma

The extraordinary potency of nuclear weapons had two big impacts onthe international relations of the core during this period.

The explo-sive yield of nuclear warheadsjumped from being measured in thousands of tons of TNT(trinitrotoluene) equivalent, to millions of tons, quickly exceeding themaximum size of explosion for which anyone could think of a militaryuse.

From the first nuclear test in 1945, the developmentof the tech-nology for both the weapons themselves and for theirdelivery systems was very rapid.

American dream

As a society, the UnitedStates offered the idea of social mobility: that individuals should andcould have the right to prosper according to their talent and theirhard work, and not on the basis of birthright or ideological loyalty

As Europe and Japan recoveredduring the 1950s and 1960s, the United States lost the rather extremeeconomic dominance that it had in 1945, but it remained the core thatlinked together the liberal international economic order.

ManyThird World countries were badly affected by the increase in the priceof oil during the 1970s, and, especially in Latin America, by the debtcrisis of the 1980s.

Deng Xiaoping when he decided in thelate 1970s that China should join it.

OECD , GATT and IMF

All of its armed forces, and not just itsnuclear weapons, had truly global reach

nucleararsena

ovietUnion had lost the Cold War, or, put the other way around, that the pol-itical economy of capitalism was winning it.

Soviet society seemed grey and dull when compared withthe pop culture, fashion, mass entertainment, open debate and cornucopiaconsumerism of the capitalist societies.

Its leadership was an uninspiring succession of doddery old Partyapparatchiks, and its invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and the decade-longwar that followed, again made it look like an imperialist power in the eyes ofmany in the Third World.

deological confron-tation with China in the late 1950s split communist loyalties worldwide.

The Soviet Union gained major allies

Initially, the SovietUnion did well and looked strong. It gained a lot of kudos for being awinner in the war against Fascism, and also for its early successes inchallenging the economic and technological lead of the United States

it was clear that capitalism was the winner in the strugglefor the economic future of modernity.

The writing was on the wall when Chinaabandoned the command economy model in the late 1970s andembraced the market.

naval powe

The Soviet Union successfully achieved nuclearparity with the United States during the 1970s.

Althoughthe Soviet Union was often behind the United States technologically,it strove mightily to get and maintain military parity.

But the rhetoric mattered because it was one of theseveral forces that brought down colonialism and racism asinstitutions.

The Soviet Union

Western capitalism, by contrast, was widely seen in the ThirdWorld as a direct continuation of colonial inequality and exploitation,and a threat to the newly acquired sovereignty of the Third World states.

NATO versus Warsaw Pact

The elimination of Fascism also eliminated the parochial,racist version of modernity from the competition.

Fascism.

the United States and theSoviet Union

Germany and Japan were defeated, smashedand occupied. Britain, France and Italy were damaged, depleted andteetering on the brink of bankruptcy. The United States was undamaged,and fi nancially, industrially, militarily and politically dominant.

superpowers

nuclear weapons

bipolarity

945–1989

et, as we will see, it was only when thecolonised countries became independent in the twentieth century that the European state and the European way oforganising international relations finally became the universal norm

According to a time-honoured metaphor, we can talkabout international politics as a ‘world stage’ on which the states are the leading actors.

But states are also sovereign in relation to each other: they act in relation to other states, declaring war,concluding a peace, negotiating a treaty, and many other things.

So, let us begin by thinking big: what is international relations, how was it made, and how did it come to bethat way?

International relations, as it is presented in the flow of daily news, concerns a large number of disparate events:leaders are meeting, negotiations are concluded, wars are started, acts of terror committed, and so on.

In France, in the middleof the seventeenth century, the nobility rose up in defence of its traditional rights and in rebellion against theencroachments of the king

Instead the new churches alignedthemselves with the new states. Or rather, various kings, such as Henry VIII in England or Gustav Vasa in Sweden,took advantage of the religious strife in order to further their own political agendas.

nd yet, it was the European model ofstatehood and the European way of organising international relations that eventually came to organise all of worldpolitics

Most of what happened in Europe before the nineteenth century was of great concern to the Europeans but of onlymarginal relevance to people elsewhere.

After the Second World War, the military competition continued between theUnited States and the Soviet Union. This was known as a ‘cold war’ since the two superpowers never engaged eachother in direct warfare, but they fought several wars by proxy such as those in Korea and Vietnam.

ation-states could be as violent as the early-modern states.

By the twentieth century most of these liberal hopes were dashed.

As Adam Smith pointed out in The Wealth of Nations (1776), a nation is rich not because it has a lot ofnatural resources but because it has the capacity to manufacture things that others want. In order to capitalise on thiscapacity, you need to trade and the more you trade the wealthier you are likely to become.

The nineteenth century – or, more accurately, the period from 1815 to 1914 – was indeed anuncharacteristically peaceful period in European history.

While kings wage war for the sake of glory or personal gain, a people isbelieved to be more attuned to the aspirations of another people.

Once they finally made themselves independent in the decades after the Second WorldWar, as an international climate of decolonisation took hold, all new states had a familiar form.

This explains how, bythe time of the First World War in 1914, most parts of the world were in European hands.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, other European countries joined in this scramble for colonies, not least inAfrica.

Ascheap, mass-produced goods flooded European markets, the Europeans began looking for new markets overseas.

new ways of manufacturing goods were invented which made use of machines powered bysteam, and later by electricity, which made it possible to engage in large-scale factory production.

It was only in the nineteenth century that relations between Europe and the rest of the world were irrevocablytransformed.

Yet in both North and South America the largest number ofnatives died through exposure to European diseases such as the measles.

The European invasion was associated with widespread genocide.

ThePortuguese established outposts in Goa in India, Macau in China, East Timor and Malacca in today’s Malaysia;

From an East Asian point of view,however, the Europeans were nothing but a small contingent of traders who docked at a few ports, conducted theirtrade, and then left.

The Europeans who came back from travels in East Asia were amazed at the wondrous things they had seen.

he Portuguese took the lead in this trade, but they were soonreplaced by the Dutch, and above all, by the Dutch East India Company, founded in 1602.

It was when Vasco daGama rounded the Cape of Good Hope, at the southernmost tip of Africa, in 1497 that the Europeans for the first timediscovered a direct way to travel by sea to East Asia.

. In fact, the word ‘international’ itself wascoined only in 1783, by the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham.

After the First World War most people in Europe formed their own nation-states.

In 1848 this prospect seemed to become a reality as nationalistuprisings quickly spread across the continent.

the idea of self-determination undermined the political legitimacy of Europe’sempires.

Nationalism in the first part of the nineteenth century was aliberal sentiment concerning self-determination –

The Congress of Vienna of 1815, where a settlement was reached at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, was supposedto have returned Europe to its pre-revolutionary ways.

The Frenchnation was from now on to be governed by the people, the nation, and in accordance with the principles ofliberté,égalité et fraternité – liberty, equality and brotherhood.

The revolutions that took place in Britain’s North American colonies in 1776, and in France in 1789, provided modelsfor other nationalists to follow.

A nation, in contrast to a state, constitutes a community of people joined by a shared identityand by common social practices.

The early modern state was a coercive machinery designed to make war and to extract resources from society. Yetat the end of the eighteenth century, this machinery came to be radically transformed.

Diplomatic practices were never powerful enough to prevent war, indeed wars continued to be common, but they didprovide Europeans with a sense of a common identity.

In order to avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary conflicts,the different rulers began dispatching ambassadors to each other’s courts.

These diplomatic practices had their origin in relations between the city-states of northern Italy

Sovereignty and formal equality led to the problem of anarchy. Within acountry ‘anarchy’ refers to a breakdown of law and order, but in relations between states it refers to a system wherepower is decentralised and there are no shared institutions with the right to enforce common rules.

The Treaty of Westphalia, 1648, which concluded the 30 years of warfare, has come to symbolise the new way oforganising international politics.

The state was keen to encourage trade, not least since taxes on tradewere a lot easier to collect than taxes on land.

The early modern state was more than anything an institutional machinery designed to develop and extract resourcesfrom society.

the search for money became a constant concern

which the state might make use of.

e separated from politics but instead as a tool of statecraft which the state could manipulate to serveits own ends. Economic development meant higher revenues from taxes and gave the kings access to moreresources which they could use in their wars.

With the Reformation in the sixteenth century the notion of a unified Europe broke down completely as the Churchbegan to split apart.

he process started in Italy where northerncity-states such as Florence, Venice, Ravenna and Milan began playing the pope against the emperor, eventuallymaking themselves independent of both.

The Empire – known as theHolyRoman Empire – was established in the tenth century in central, predominantly German-speaking, Europe.

The Church was the spiritual authority, with its centre in Rome

Over the course of the years there have been many different kinds of states, yet this chapter is mainly concerned withthe European state and with European developments

tates are obviously very different from each other, but they are also similar to eachother in important respects.

There are a lot of states in the world – in fact, according to the latest count, thereare no fewer than 195 of them.