Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Story from the New York times about Interest Aggregation (Life Mirrors Class!)
Read the New York Times story today!
Thursday, September 22, 2011
The Concept of Statehood in a Changing World
Just because we can measure states doesn't mean that we should. The Comparative Government curriculum is focused on comparing governments around the world on a fixed set of well-defined concepts. This allows scientists to make distinctions between cases and to clarify similarities and differences in order to further refine the concepts themselves. In an actively changing political environment, however, it may be useful to develop new concepts that better capture reality. When real cases cease to match our distinct definitions, they need to be generalized or perhaps new categories need to be defined as separate and distinct. Giovanni Sartori explains this using the ladder of abstraction found here: http://poli.haifa.ac.il/~levi/conceptm.html#c. (Intension is the depth of the concept and extension is its breadth.)
This has become a particularly important issue with the concept of the state. As political scientist have defined it, a state is a territory with defined borders, a population, a government, and sovereignty. The state is the international standard for participation in world politics, and the nation-state, in which the population of a state shares common language, culture, religious values, ethnicity, and history, is the pinnacle of state development. While we don't often thin k of definitions really affecting world politics, this one definitely has.
First of all, even though the definition of state is relatively broad, there are plenty of areas in the world that just don't quite fit. Borders are ill-defined and contested. Sovereignty is fragile, especially in developing states that invite aide from foreign countries and in states that desire the approval of the international community. The emphasis on nation-states has caused a massive proliferation of states in Eastern Europe and in Africa. Ethnic groups weary of trying to live in peace under the same political structures as their traditional competitors have broken off into new states, hungry for world recognition. Pseudo-states that fall short of the definition struggle to maintain their fragile hold on independence.
The case of Palestine (See the following stories for a mix of points of view: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39685&Cr=Palestin&Cr1=, http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/09/201192212910587149.html, http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/middle-east/palestinian-statehood-bid-one-more-problem-for-harried-europeans, http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/21/palestinian-statehood-bid-explained/) is particularly problematic. The somewhat complicated history of the Palestinian Authority and the geographic realities of settlement of the Palestinian people have left the members of the United Nations in a particularly difficult position. Palestine lacks defined, defensible, and contiguous borders. The existence of a Palestinian government belies the political reality that that do not have sovereignty. Even asking for UN recognition and membership does not guarantee that statehood, or the internationally acknowledged concept of statehood. Some even argue that the pseudo-statehood provided by UN membership would do little to fulfill the Palestinian desire for real, by-the-book, statehood. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0922/Palestinian-statehood-bid-at-UN-drives-hopes-for-a-real-state-farther-away
Why should the Palestinians want statehood anyway? Obviously it is a great ticket to involvement in international participation and negotiation, but why is the rest of the world so wed to the concept as to force different social forms to shoehorn themselves into nation-states? Most violence in the modern era is undertaken by non-state actors. Civil Wars and terrorism make of the bulk of global conflict. Increasingly, non-state actors like multinational corporations, bank, and charities organize the global economy. Global human rights organizations defy state sovereignty to attempt to protect the rights of individuals regardless of state boundaries. Environmental concerns require the cooperation of state and non-state actors alike.
Is the concept of state dying? If so, what will take its place? Should the Palestinians proceed in their call for statehood? Should they receive some kind of formal statehood without the necessary requirments of state? How useful is the concept of state in comparing government structures?
(Please respond to whatever you'd like. If some part of the reading made you think or spurred more questions, post your thoughts below. You may also respons to your classmates' reponses.)
This has become a particularly important issue with the concept of the state. As political scientist have defined it, a state is a territory with defined borders, a population, a government, and sovereignty. The state is the international standard for participation in world politics, and the nation-state, in which the population of a state shares common language, culture, religious values, ethnicity, and history, is the pinnacle of state development. While we don't often thin k of definitions really affecting world politics, this one definitely has.
First of all, even though the definition of state is relatively broad, there are plenty of areas in the world that just don't quite fit. Borders are ill-defined and contested. Sovereignty is fragile, especially in developing states that invite aide from foreign countries and in states that desire the approval of the international community. The emphasis on nation-states has caused a massive proliferation of states in Eastern Europe and in Africa. Ethnic groups weary of trying to live in peace under the same political structures as their traditional competitors have broken off into new states, hungry for world recognition. Pseudo-states that fall short of the definition struggle to maintain their fragile hold on independence.
The case of Palestine (See the following stories for a mix of points of view: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39685&Cr=Palestin&Cr1=, http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/09/201192212910587149.html, http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/middle-east/palestinian-statehood-bid-one-more-problem-for-harried-europeans, http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/21/palestinian-statehood-bid-explained/) is particularly problematic. The somewhat complicated history of the Palestinian Authority and the geographic realities of settlement of the Palestinian people have left the members of the United Nations in a particularly difficult position. Palestine lacks defined, defensible, and contiguous borders. The existence of a Palestinian government belies the political reality that that do not have sovereignty. Even asking for UN recognition and membership does not guarantee that statehood, or the internationally acknowledged concept of statehood. Some even argue that the pseudo-statehood provided by UN membership would do little to fulfill the Palestinian desire for real, by-the-book, statehood. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0922/Palestinian-statehood-bid-at-UN-drives-hopes-for-a-real-state-farther-away
Why should the Palestinians want statehood anyway? Obviously it is a great ticket to involvement in international participation and negotiation, but why is the rest of the world so wed to the concept as to force different social forms to shoehorn themselves into nation-states? Most violence in the modern era is undertaken by non-state actors. Civil Wars and terrorism make of the bulk of global conflict. Increasingly, non-state actors like multinational corporations, bank, and charities organize the global economy. Global human rights organizations defy state sovereignty to attempt to protect the rights of individuals regardless of state boundaries. Environmental concerns require the cooperation of state and non-state actors alike.
Is the concept of state dying? If so, what will take its place? Should the Palestinians proceed in their call for statehood? Should they receive some kind of formal statehood without the necessary requirments of state? How useful is the concept of state in comparing government structures?
(Please respond to whatever you'd like. If some part of the reading made you think or spurred more questions, post your thoughts below. You may also respons to your classmates' reponses.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)