Lecture notes

Edexcel Politics: Unit 3 (Global Politics) Institution notes and tables

0 purchase

Module
Unit 3 - Key Themes in Political Analysis

Institution
PEARSON (PEARSON)

This document contains tables and notes for the Edexcel global politics unit 3. This includes institutions of political, economic, human rights, and environmental governance, globalisation, regionalism and the EU, comparative theories, and humanitarian interventions - comes with essay points and ex...

[Show more]

Preview 3 out of 30 pages

View example

Uploaded on June 19, 2023
Number of pages 30
Written in 2022/2023
Type Lecture notes
Professor(s) N/a
Contains Global politics

unit 3
politics
government and politics
global politics
global governance
global institutions
regionalism
economic governance
political governance
human rights governance
realist and liberal
comparati

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (political, economic, environmental, human
rights)

Structure Powers Pros / efficacy (consider: how Cons
representative, is it seen as legitimate by
participators, ability to meet its goals)

UNSC P5 + 10 role= to protect Represents the realities of power Not representative of the global population
more states international (economic, military and political A ⅓ members are western countries, despite not
(Political (which are peace + distribution) representing the majority of the pop. (Only a
) elected). security The US, China and Russia have the 1/7)
world’s biggest militaries. Asia not enough representation- despite making
P5= UK, Resolutions are West = has ⅓ of seats (reflects up 59% of the global population, only ⅕ of seats
USA, France, binding. disproportionate power)
Russia, Africa= ⅕, because no superpowers there P5 has 3 westen and 1 european non-democ
China Resolutions are (russia)
passed on a Military power- P5 has most nuclear So—> not seen as legitimate, undemocratic (they
10 non P5 simple majority weapons, (only 5 outside p5 have (e.g are accused of selectively intervening in conflicts
membership (9/15), but if a india, Pakistan) only if in self-interest- (e.g assisting oil-rich
- elected by P5 member Kuwait against Iraq 1990s, but largely ignoring
General uses their veto, Strength because— most powerful Rwanda genocide 1994- 1 mill died)
Assembly it does not states= interventions/peacekeeping
for 2 year pass. missions more likely to 3succeed as they
terms are backed by the weight of global power Internal rivalries (less efficient) - P5 veto
If necessary- Veto gives too much power to the P5- veto if
UNSC Can act collaboratively against interests, especially in rivalries if a
Resolutions are Successful peacekeeping mission resolution may benefit one P5 more than the
enforced by UN resolutions/operations—> all states voted other e.g:
peacekeepers for this one— 12k peacekeepers in Côte - The US vetoed resolutions against Israel
d’Ivoire (civil war killed 3k + had 30k (a key Middle Eastern Ally)
refugees) - Russia vetoed resolutions against Bashar
Led to long term stability— oversaw 2 Assad in Syria (would advantage USA
peaceful elections, and return of 250k more than Russia- rivals)
refugees - China has threatened to veto resolutions
regarding the Uighur issue in Xinjiang
Represents principle of Collective security
(attack on 1 state=attack on other states) Difficult to reform
1990s Gulf war led to UNSC resolution- - Germany, Japan, India and Brazil cannot
Iraq invaded Kuwait for oil, so UNSC join the P5 because it would be vetoed.
coalition repelled them. - Would dilute their own power too expand

, Only 10 conflicts (out of 111) involving - Links to realist framework- states are
one state invading another since WW2- amoral, power seeking in zero-sum game
so UNSC had a role in promoting this
principle

Overall- quite successful - meeting goal
of maintaining international peace, plus
even if the case for reform was strong,
this would be difficult (due to P5)

ICJ (UN) 15 Judges (9 role- to settle Neutral Resolutions are non-binding and unenforceable
year terms) legal disputes Judges not allowed to hold any other Rulings often go unenforced - no formal
(Political between UN legal or judicial posts. mechanism
) Elected by members+ give Additional/ ad hoc judges can be selected
General legal advice to prevent bias. Inability to compel bigger states
Assembly (Widely NZ + Australia V Japan
+UNSC respected) Bolivia v Chile Tried to get Japan to stop whaling in antarctic
Bolivia wanted coastal territory lost to waters because it wasn’t for scientific purposes,
Distribution Resolutions are Chile in 1883 so it could have access to but they carried on anyway. (2014)
of seats= formed on a the Pacific Ocean.
fixed simple majority ICJ rejected the claim, and the judgement China v Philippines
(8/15) was accepted. - respected and legitimate 2016- ICJ rules that China did not have
because neutral. sovereignty over the South China Sea, but
Not binding, continues to build naval bases there.
unless both Gives states a way to back down (instead
states agree to of war) UK v Chagos islands
its jurisdiction. Thailand v Cambodia ICJ ruled that their military bases in the indian
Preah Vihear (Hindu temple) was ocean was unlawful, but did not abandon them.
It can only rule contested between them.
on disputes The ICJ awarded the temple to Cambodia, Jurisdiction is conditional
between and this defused nationalist tensions.— Their jurisdiction only applies if both states have
states. both agreed in 1962 agreed to abide by rulings
(inter-state) Could have led to a war E.g 2018- USA imposed sanctions on iRan
calaiming IRan was developing nuclear weapons.
Upholds international law Iran argued this violated the 1995 Treaty of
By resolving conflicts but also: Amity (between them)-
Regulating law- Applied the UN ICJ ruled in favour of iRan (they should lift
Convention on the Law of the Sea, which sanctions)
concerns maritime boundaries and BUT- USA refused and withdrew from the treaty
responsibilities. of amity- so they simply did not agree to ICJ
The ICJ ruled in a case delimiting jurisdiction

, (determining the boundaries) the
continental shelf between Nigeria / Can’t deal with intra-state conflict.
Cameroon. (2002) Eg. Intra-state genoides- Uyghur genocies in
It’s better than a hypothetical single Xinjiang, Myanmar genocide of Rohingya
global sovereign court - as that would Muslims, Bosnia,
undermine principle of state sovereignty. HR abuses- Iran, Russia
Civil wars/ disputes of independence- Israel and
Palestine, Kurds and Iraq, Catalan independence
from spain

The ICJ is somewhat of an anomaly amongst the
other institutions → it is focused on inter-state
disputes and does not typically have jurisdiction
over intra-state disputes, which is what the
majority of human rights issues are. Generally
speaking, therefore, the ICJ does not deal with
human rights issues.
HOWEVER- A recent case that might indicate a
break away from this existing convention is The
Gambia v Myanmar (2019-present), in which the
Gambia (a small, predominantly Muslim, West
African state) filed an application with the ICJ
against Myanmar as a result of the Tatmadaw
(the Myanmar military) conducting genocidal
actions including mass murder, rape, and
destruction of villages against the minority
Rohingya ethnicity in the Rakhine state of
western Myanmar. The Gambia argued that even
though the issue concerned actions happening
solely within Myanmar’s borders, it qualified as
an inter-state dispute because Myanmar was a
signatory of the 1951 Genocide Convention
which involved ‘erga omnes’ – owed towards all
– obligations enshrined in the constitution

General 193 (All) role- Provided a forum for discussion and Represents the state, not the people
Assembl states are recommendatio promotes dialogue (COOPERATION) UN is based on issue of protecting state
y (UN) members. ns on global Issues affecting many countries— The sovereignty - so oppressed minorities WITHIN
issues 31st UN GA special session on the states- overlooked e.g Rohingya in Myanmar,
(Political coronavirus pandemic, which discussed Uyghurs
) Each Resolutions solutions to the fallout of the pandemic. (Excluding ethnic minorities in favour of

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller zarah1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £15.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

68175 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now

Start selling