Symbolic Power: America's Dairyland

When reading Kathleen McNamara's "Constructing authority in the European Union" I was intrigued by theory of how institutions gain and maintain political authority. The point that drew me in the most was of how symbolic power is most effective when it is least obvious. This made me think about authority that I legitimized, without even knowing. Specifically, the state in which I live, and the constant bombardment of the name, just incase I may have forgotten where I live, and who gets to make the laws that I have to follow.

Other than the European Union, I found another example of symbolic power in my state identity. The state identity might be more self-explanatory if you knew that I am from Wisconsin. I am constantly reminded that only do I live in Wisconsin, but also how great of a state it is (at least in some respects). Even if you don't live in Wisconsin, the next time you buy cheese, I challenge you to look at the packaging. Often you will find a symbol that says it was made in Wisconsin, with Wisconsin dairy, or that it is proudly Wisconsin cheese. Seeing these symbols daily on any products with dairy in them, reinforces the idea into your head that obviously the milk in WI is just better than other states, especially California. Don't even get me started on California milk. But this reiteration of a sense of belonging and pride also comes in regards our football teams. Ignoring the NFL team from WI, the University of Wisconsin-Madison is a big deal. Game days are equivalent to holidays, and everyone screams like a teenage fan-girl when they see Bucky.

Everywhere you look, you see the word Wisconsin, especially on t-shirts. Without even thinking about the university, many parents buy clothing for their children with the large, proud letters. I noticed this "extra" sense of pride when I attended a university in Minnesota for my Bachelor's degree. Without even realizing it, I owned, and wore, many shirts with WISCONSIN across the top. It was pointed out to me by a professor from Louisiana that he always knows whether a student is from Wisconsin, or just a fan of their sports. He said the difference was that students from Wisconsin consistently wore the apparel, even when there was no game that day.

These visuals are purposefully pushed at citizens to create the sense of belonging, and legitimizing the state as an institution. Citizens of WI do not realize that by accepting that the state is farm state, that it has the best dairy, the best beer, or that we make Harley-Davidson bikes, we are giving the state the power to take actions that continue and better these interests. After all, we are America's Dairyland, and that's all that matters.

https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/07/symbolic-power-americas-dairyland.html

The double-edged sword of celebrity activism

The role of celebrities in development and international affairs can be a double-edged sword.  As the Cooper and Dieter/Kumar articles presented this week, the initiation of celebrities into areas of diplomacy and development beyond acting as a spokesperson, began with Bono. Since then the world has seen an increase in the involvement of celebrities on matters from development spanning from region specific development such as Ben Affleck's Eastern Congo Initiative to thematic initiatives such as the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, focusing on environmental issues. A quick scan of celebrities involved in development and diplomacy reveals that this notion is, unsurprisingly, a predominantly Western idea and despite the amount of criticism celebrities have received for oversimplifying issues and a lack of expertise, they don't seem to be slowing down. In the face of this realization, how can governments and NGOs curtail the potential damage done by everyone's favorite rock stars and actors? Furthermore, if they can't be stopped, what benefits can be taken from their involvement? 

I find that the formation of institutions by celebrities such as foundations and cooperatives, demonstrates a further understanding of the issues of development and aid beyond that of the bull-headed tactics of Bono, who inserted himself into matters and has offered himself as the both the benefactor and expert. The creation of these institutions allows celebrities to tie their name to a cause, raise awareness of and fund it, but also allows them to gather a group of experts to address the issues. 

On the converse side, foundations can be poorly led, and uninformed funding will likely lead to wasted resources. If these matters are then left solely to politicians and professionals, how can they use the star power of these actors? A recognized fact across the international sphere seems to be that celebrities inarguably bring visibility and relevance to an issue. They can drum up support on a mass scale and bring unrestricted funding that many governments and NGO's do not have the luxury of using. 

For example, when the UN announced their Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, they used celebrities to raise awareness of the goals, stressing that visibility was key to winning the backing of the world's leaders. The goals were launched with a concert in New York starring artists such as Beyoncé, Coldplay, and Pearl Jam (no U2 or Bono). They also used radio spots, social media, and ad campaigns and hired acclaimed director, Richard Curtis (Bridget Jones Diary, Notting Hill), to film an ad spotlight for the campaign. Apparently, it was successful as the SDGs were later adopted, funded, and are now being implemented. 

Since celebrities seem to be sticking around for the time being, it falls to NGO's and governments alike to figure out how to incorporate them into a more nuanced and complete strategy. 

Wulfhorst, Ellen. 2015. "Celebrities, artists launch campaign backing UN's development goals" Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/development-goals-celebrities-idUSL1N11922P20150904.

The Risks of Celebrity Diplomacy

The role of celebrity diplomats is increasingly important in the international sphere. They can use their high profile to gain access to different regions of the world, as well as busy government officials. However, the increase in celebrity diplomats can lead to issues for the cause in which they are trying to support. Celebrities are not often trained in diplomacy and foreign affairs, like many typical ambassadors. With celebrities, every aspect of their life is under constant surveillance, which can lead to a problem if they make even one small mistake or misjudgment in their personal or professional life. Typical diplomats however, are not under the same kind of pressure with paparazzi watching their every move, and are usually better trained to know what situations and people to avoid, as to not cause an issue.

I believe one solution to this would be for celebrities that are interested in becoming global diplomats or advocates, to take part in some kind of training by their state or by the organization they want to represent. This would ensure that they know how to behave and how to interact with individuals they will come across in their time. Another benefit to this training is that it would quiet some of the voices that claim celebrities have no business advocating on the global stage because they do not have the relevant experience. This may not appease every critic, but it is nonetheless a good argument to use when defending celebrity diplomat's legitimacy.

I believe that celebrities can greatly benefit a cause because of the large amounts of publicity and access that they bring. However, those who wish to follow this path must be careful in their language, actions, and daily lives even outside of supporting their cause. Any misstep can make the public turn of them and can essentially ruin all of the good they have already achieved.


https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-risks-of-celebrity-diplomacy.html

Week 12 Pre-class

States have created of international norms in regards to nuclear arms proliferation, human rights violations, and the use of chemical weapons among others, but should there be a new global discussion on cyber norms? And would that discussion be able to bear any teeth internationally? This type of discussion is essential in the modern era where cyber warfare provides nations capabilities to target installations of critical infrastructure of both public and military facilities.

States now have the capability to wage covert cyber warfare with potentially deadly consequences. In December 2015 a Ukrainian power station became the victim of a complex cyber attack which was believed to have been perpetrated by Russian military intelligence. The attack resulted in massive power outages in the region of Kievskii Oblast, which is near the capital city of Kiev, in the dead of winter. This type of attack is easily replicable and can be easily carried out with relative ease across the globe by any state with a strong ICT infrastructure and talent-pool. Furthermore, there have been known instances of cyber espionage which have targeted nuclear energy facilities, which if attacked could cause potentially catastrophic damage.

There are significant questions which remain in terms of enforcement however, which raises the question of how governance in the public sphere operates in the realm of cyberspace. This due to the relative anonymity states enjoy when utilizing cyber tactics, the lines between what is a state sponsored attack and what is an independent attack are not well defined. Often states hire criminal hackers to bolster their own cyber security infrastructure, and may employ these hackers for other contract work which may not always be directly linked to the state. This leaves states the option of launching a cyber attack on a target internationally, and if compromised rely on plausible deniability to shield them from any significant blame.

As a result of the potential damages which could be caused by cyber means, some sort of cyber norms need to be established. One important area which should be examined it finding a common definition of what critical infrastructure is and ensuring that it does not become the target of some kind of cyber attack. Despite the importance of creating and establishing these norms however, the issue of enforcement becomes difficult if not impossible.

The White Helmets in the Global Public Sphere

This week's readings on the global public sphere, advocacy organizations, and the power of celebrities in the global public sphere often made me think of the recent news of the White Helmets working in Syria. The Syrian Civil Defense, now known commonly by their white helmets, have become the face of heroism in the Syrian war. In the last few years we have seen their image rise in the global public sphere and we are now seeing a governmental reaction to them from Syria and Russia. I have found this to potentially be a current example of the boomerang pattern mentioned in the Risse and Sikkink  article.

The White Helmets currently operate as a rescue force, rescuing Syrian citizens after air strikes. Photos taken during their rescue missions have become iconic of the disaster that has settled on Syrian citizens and have served as a call to action to citizens of Western states. The White Helmets have been very successful in reaching out to western governments t receive donations from the public and from foreign governments. In 2016 and 2017 they were front runners as nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize and in 2017 a short documentary about the the rescuers won an Oscar. The White Helmets are exemplary of the effect a presence in front of the global public can have for an organization working in the face of human rights violations and disaster. They have successfully reached beyond the boarders of Syria for aid from the public of other states and from from the states themselves.

Now, as Syrian forces are bearing down upon them and rescuers fear persecution, Israeli forces have been evacuating White Helmets out of Syria and into Jordan. As they leave, the Syrian an Russian governments are taking aim at the morality of their actions, attributing their work to terrorist organizations and as agents of "western powers." Of course, there is more to the story than can fit in a single blog post but it seems that the Syrian government has found the opportunity to try to defame this group, who, according to BBC,  has rescued more than 100,000 during the civil war, by associating them with terrorist groups and trying to invalidate their work. At this point, Western countries are still willing to welcome the White Helmets within their boarders as those who are able will head to Canada, Britain and Germany.

Wright, Robin "The White Helmets - Syria's Noble Rescuers - Have to be Rescued by Israel", The New Yorker, July 23, 2018, https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-white-helmets-syrias-noble-rescuers-have-to-be-rescued-by-israel.

Thomas Risse and Kathryn Sikkink, “The Socialization of International Human Rights Norms into Domestic Practices: Introduction,” in The Power of Human Rights International Norms and Domestic Change, ed. Risse, Sikkink, and Ropp (Cambridge, 1999).

Week 11 Pre-class

The question of how much juristiction states have in cyberspace is an issue which is being taken very seriously by states, and being handled with in a variety of manners. At the heart of the issue of state juristiction in cyberspace is how much sovereignty do states truly have there, and how do they enforce their external sovereignty in this realm? Some states view the seemingly unfettered international transactions across borders as condusive to good business and essential for developing an international marketplace while others seek to enforce their territorial authority over cyberspace within their borders.

The United States serves as the quintessential laisse-faire model of cyber governance. The general consensus among policymakers in the US is that the unrestricted flow of information is not only good for business, but is good for society as a whole. The focus for cyber governance of the US is ensuring that corporations do not exploit the rights of individuals, particularly with regards to issues of privacy, however legislation in the US is considerably more lax than that in the European Union.

China has taken a radically different approach to cyber governance and employs what is called nationally segmented sections of the internet. By segmenting a special Chinese section of the internet, the Chinese government is able to monitor and censor content on the Chinese segment of the internet. This greatly inhibits the way in which multinational corporations are able to reach the Chinese market, but it does provide the Chinese government with a greater sense of security and authority in terms of their external sovereignty in cyberspace.

This debate will likely continue to play out on the international until some consensus is made in terms of defining sovereignty in cyberspace and the establishment of coherent and elicit cyber norms which states follow. Attempts at this have been made by the United Nations Group of Government Experts in the Fields of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, however there was not enough buy in from states who favor a more open and unrestricted internet and as a result talks on this matter have grinded to a standstill.

Socialism is not Communism

When it comes to the global market, free-trade can bring about some problems. The solution to these problems is socialism. As was discussed in class last week, it can be difficult, or even impossible, to hold global economic actors accountable. By global economic actors, I am referring to corporations that do business in at least three different countries. This business can be manufacturing, selling of products, or even the purchasing of materials used to create their products. The issue with capitalism in regards to these organizations is that because they are private actors, it becomes difficult to hold them accountable for their actions. I discussed the reasons why accountability is difficult in the previous blog post, therefore this post will emphasize just why socialism should be given a chance and why it is given a bad rap.

I want to begin by reiterating that socialism is not communism. I repeat, socialism is not communism. The existence of socialism does not automatically mean that communism is also present. Typically when I bring up socialism in conversation, people automatically jump on the defense claiming that it did not work in the Soviet Union. I believe that the problem here is that people often think of the Soviet Union because of their education on the topic, as some were not taught extensively enough that there is a difference between socialism and communism, and that they are not the same theory with synonymous names.

In addition, people tend to ignore examples of socialism positively effecting countries. My favorite example is Canada, where free healthcare and the low cost of higher education make the country comparable to a city upon a hill. Some other examples of socialism benefiting citizens of a country are Finland, Sweden and Norway. My question, therefore is if socialism works on a state level, why wouldn't it work on a global level? If global corporations can be held accountable for their actions in this type of economic structure, why not give it a try? It is my belief that one cannot complain about the lack of accountability of a corporation, if one does not support the idea of alternative global economic structures.

https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/07/socialism-is-not-communism.html

What would Kobrin think of blockchain?

I thought one of the more intriguing articles for this module was the Kobrin article on the role of technology in creating a globalized economy. He goes back and forth a little on the pros and cons technology has had on private networks, hierarchies and markets but his final line of the chapter, my favorite line, says “Modern economic and political actors will have to learn to deal with the ambiguity and the uncertainty of the post-modern future.” Essentially he goes through how technology has influenced the emergence of a globalized economy from an internationalized economy but that technology is here to stay and the drive for it will probably only increase. This push for technology has spurred on the idea of privatized authority beyond the state. One if his examples, the inability to regulate goods that are not transmitted across geographic boundaries but are transferred digitally makes it problematic to control, threatening autonomy and sovereignty. This example made me consider the boom of blockchain technologies and cryptocurrency. I would love to know his opinions on the use of blockchain.

My limited knowledge of blockchain is that at least some of the technology is based on distributed ledger technology (DLT). Distributed ledgers use independent computers to record, share, and synchronize transactions in their respective electronic ledgers. DLT enables the recording of interactions and transfer of “value” peer-to-peer without the need for a centrally coordinating identity (World Bank). There are tech companies using DLT to create verification systems for traceability and transparency in supply chains. Companies like BanQu are using DLT to track a product, or “value” from one step to the next in a supply chain “as the record is etched on the immutable decentralized ledger that is the blockchain. This record is updated in real time and creates a viewable and searchable ledger. This ledger can be viewed and searched by anyone who has been granted permissions, but it can never be tampered with.” (BanQu) Essentially, they are creating a trust network through this distributed ledger on each of the independent computers recording and synchronizing the data.

For those interested in adding more sovereign authority to economic governance, maybe this isn’t the greatest news but it’s great news for the millions of people around the world who previously had not “bankable” identity. They can now take part in DLT through an app on their cell phone and begin to do things like build a record to apply for credit, open bank accounts, etc. And if the average person can use the technology on their cell phone, perhaps there is a use to be found for governments to ensure secure trade and monitor transactions.

Kobrin, Stephen, “Economic Governance in an Electronically Networked Global Economy” in The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance, ed. Tom Biersteker and Rodney Bruce Hall (Cambridge, 2002).

BanQu, “Revolutionizing Supply Chain,” 2018 http://www.banquapp.com/supply-chain-management/our-solution/.

World Bank, “Blockchain & Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT)” The World Bank, April 12, 2018, https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialsector/brief/blockchain-dlt.

Week 10 Post-class Tech-nationalization

There is a growing trend in the field of cyber security known as tech nationalization which can be summarized by the notion of utilizing solely domestically production software and technology to avoid any potential security threats associated with internationally manufactured technology. The rational for this is that over-reliance on foreign produced technology creates a vulnerability which can be exploited by the producer of the technology, and since the United States primary producer of innovative technology they are seen as the primary threat. There is also the threat that governments can use tech corporations as political leverage depending on the political climate as a sort of exercise of soft power. One example of this is when the Crimean peninsula was annexed by Russia, Google and Apple stopped providing services to the peninsula and to the South of Russia as a part of a series of sanctions imposed on the country. This is not even to mention how certain technology is required to have backdoors which can be accessible to foreign law enforcement agencies for legal compliance related issues. For example in order for Kaspersky Labs to comply with Russian regulations on software companies they must provide the federal police access to the information on their servers, which in turn can be used to examine the contents on devices of Kaspersky customers.

In order to develop technological autonomy, countries are investing in R&D firms and supporting what are called "digital economy" initiatives which aim at fostering the development of tech companies domestically. Many countries have created legislation which requires industries of strategic importance to utilize purely domestically produced software to avoid backdoor entrances for hackers or any other cyber attacks. Some have even began to undergo the type of internet segmentation like China and create their own sovereign internet segments. Overall, countries are beginning to worry about the soft power nations can employ on tech companies and what kind of implications they can have on the international stage, and combatting this potential threat by focusing on developing their own domestic capabilities.

Global corporations and sovereignty

The presence of global corporations has a distinct affect on the sovereignty of nations in terms of how they navigate legislation of a state. They control the means of production and have an impact on the division of labor within a national market, yet they themselves are not subjegated to any legal jurisdiction as they are borderless entities. As borderless entities, they can avoid particular legal jurisdiction in one country by moving certain operations to other countries with less strict legislation. Professor Jackson used the example of a global corporation selling goods to a rich market that has strict laws regarding workers’ rights but creating the goods for that product in a country which may have more lax regulation in the matter and exploit individual workers’s rights for the sake of expediency or efficiency in production. Countries which have more regulations regarding the environmental impact of production would also face a similar situation.

These global corporations also yield significant political power as well. These corporations have the capabilities to support one candidate over another in certain elections through campaign financial contributions and through lobbying. This type of influence has an impact on legislation that is passed and the extent to which it is enforced, and limits a state’s capacity to make decisions autonomously. 

Corporations and Their Lack of Accountability

While watching the online lecture, one question really stuck with me. How do we hold corporations accountable? Seeing as corporations are private actors, is it even possible to hold them accountable? I believe that it is extremely difficult to hold corporations accountable without a central institution of which all corporations are a part of. With the absence of such a central institution, it is up to consumers, and sometimes states, to hold these corporations accountable, even with what limited ability they may have.

One small way they can be held accountable is by states. If a corporation over steps its authority, or if it increases the costs of its goods and services, the state can then decide to impose sanctions on that corporation through tariffs, or by simply not choosing to import or use goods from that company. Instead, the state could look into the production of the goods within its borders. However, I do not think this is likely in the current environment as this could cause prices to increase, and negatively affect the state's economy.  Therefore, I find that it is difficult to hold these corporations accountable in the current state of globalization.

It should be noted that there is an organization that seeks to promote fair trade, the World Trade Organization, but this institution holds states accountable on an intergovernmental level for their policies, not corporations. In addition, the WTO can also benefit corporations by the host country taking up its case if another state imposes tough restrictions on that company's products, that would increase the cost of the product. This does occur, it appears now more than ever, if a country's economy relies on the export of the company's goods. This process is only truly holding countries accountable, and not corporations, therefore making it a poor argument for the existence of corporation accountability.

The only way a corporation can truly be held accountable is by its customers. If a corporation participates in appalling actions such as raising prices exponentially, unhumanitarian processes, or even environmentally damaging practices, consumers can decide not to purchase goods from that corporation. If enough consumers boycott the corporation, this could then force it to change its practices. This strategy will not always prove effective however, because there is often a domination of one corporation in a particular market, leaving consumers no choice but to continue to buy goods from that corporation.

https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/07/corporations-and-their-lack-of.html

Corporate Accountability: a role for shareholders and consumers

As we began to see this week, private corporations play a tricky role in global governance. They gather authority collectively and act as an influential presence in the international realm but are, unlike states, controlled by legal jurisdiction. In cases of domestic policy, corporate law is more straightforward, but in the face of international companies dominating globalization, how are we to hold them accountable?

In recent years there has been an increasing prevalence of social movements with the aim to make businesses and business institutions more accountable to their shareholders and stakeholders. Concepts like B-Corporations have taken hold and even influenced policymakers to create Benefit Corporations. Benefit Corporations have a double bottom line to hold them accountable to both their shareholders and to consumers. When a company becomes a Benefit Corporation they adopt governance practices that require them to meet higher standards of transparency and accountability. Additionally, these corporations all work to provide a responsible and socially beneficial product or service. Benefit Corporation legislation has been passed in 33 states and the District of Columbia and the concept is gaining traction in other regions.

In Benefit Corporations, both shareholder and stakeholders have a role to play in influencing corporate governance but these aren’t the only companies being held accountable by their shareholders. There has been an up-tick in the past decade in the use of shareholder resolutions being passed at corporations, large and small, to advance an idea or goal. This year, after the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, shareholders stepped in at many corporations to push the adoption of policies to mitigate climate change, most beginning with an assessment and disclosure on the climate change risks of the company. As of March, 66 investors had submitted resolutions about climate change in the 2018 proxy season. According to ISS, “of that total, 17 are seeking risk assessments based on the 2-degree scenario embedded in the U.N.’s Paris Agreement, which aims to limit the average rise in temperatures to below 2-degrees Celsius of pre-industrial levels. There were 18 2-degree scenario proposals for all of 2017, eight in 2016, one in 2015,” said Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) (Stein 2018).

Sure, the sum of 66 investors is but a drop in the bucket in comparison to the profile of global corporations, but the increase in the number of resolutions passed by citizens as shareholders in response to a state decision shows that there is an increase in the number shareholders willing to hold companies accountable in addressing global issues.

Stein, Lemos Mara. “More Shareholder Proposals Spotlight Climate Change.” Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2018. https://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2018/02/08/more-shareholder-proposals-spotlight-climate-change/.

“What is a Benefit Corporation,” Benefit Corporation, last modified 2018, http://benefitcorp.net/.

Week 8 Post Class

After reflecting on the material from class the previous two weeks, I started to wonder what the role legitimacy has in when examining transnational criminal organizations. Professor Jackson provides the definition for authority as simply "the right to do something" and while we haven't defined legitimacy in class, it can be best summarized as the acceptance of authority. Essentially, legitimacy is the mandate of the people and provides democratic support to authority. An actor or entity can have authority without legitimacy, this is often the case in autocracies, however their hold on power is less stable without legitimacy.

When examining transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) and whether they can supplant the state as the main authority within a given territory, their legitimacy has a huge influence on their overall ability to maintain authority. When TCOs are the predominant authority in an area it is mostly due to some capacity gap of the state which is unable to either provide some kind of service or enforce it. More often than not, when TCOs are the predominant authority in an area they acquire their authority through the use of coercion and physical violence. Whatever authority they have is therefore based on their ability to maintain their capabilities of coercion in order to remain as the authority, because when confronted with a viable alternative authority will be granted to the actor with both capabilities to enforce laws, as well as with the legitimacy granted by the people. Without legitimacy therefore, TCOs don't have any real staying power as an authority.

Violence as a commodity

I have found the concept of the monopolization of violence to be very intriguing throughout the last couple weeks. A question that remains in my mind, and that has come up in class, can states truly hold a monopolization on violence? Is violence a commodity to be held through competition? My answer: definitely. But I don’t think states always hold the commodity in abundance over organizations that have or might rise to challenge their authority.

The concept that professor Shirk brought up in class, by Charles Tilly, poses an interesting theory. That state making itself has, at times, developed from organized crime, suggesting that maybe it doesn’t matter who holds the monopoly to power, it matters who is strategic enough to use it in a way that will advance their interests. Violence in many criminal or militant groups spreads as individuals attach themselves to an idea that turns into an ambition. We’ve seen it from groups who start from contemporary triggers, such as ISIS and we can also see it in groups that have maintained ideas and norms throughout time such as the views of some tribes within some African states that, to this day remain prominent in their culture. There are even those states where politicians compete as members of a certain tribe. The latter is an example of violence that wasn't triggered by contemporary circumstances but instead the conflict has transformed across years. Where once there was violence  between tribes, some who used it to their advantage remained on top and are today forming and leading political parties in democratic societies. 

Authority derived from violence, it would seem, is not so much a matter of who holds the authority but how they use it to strategically place themselves in the world.

Human Beings Continue to be Self-Interested

As we begin the second week on public authority and the control of violence, I can't help but notice that each module reaffirms the theory that we are all self-interested. The existence of transnational organized crime, and even just the existence of organized crime, proves this point. Transnational criminal organizations exist to benefit the individuals and organizations that commit the crimes. Those who participate are solely looking to achieve and sustain wealth, by using fragile states to achieve this.

States may claim to be autonomous, while giving up a fraction of its sovereignty by either participating in transnational criminal organizations, or by relinquishing authority to a private security company. Individuals, however, will eventually revert back to their nature as self-interested beings. This is especially clear with the emergence of organized crime. Individuals that take part in organized crime, and even transnational criminal organizations, are seeking to increase their wealth and authority to ensure that they are at or near the top of the food chain. They take actions without looking at the possible risks to their home or host state, or the pain and abuse that they either directly or indirectly inflict on people not identifying with the criminal action. An example of this is the trafficking of women and children, where those who carryout the kidnapping, transporting, or even central command, do not take into account the harm, and sometimes even death, they are inflicting on these groups of people. Instead, they show their basic human nature for advancing oneself at any cost.

As I have argued in past posts, the shift back to Hobbes' state of nature is inevitable, because at the center or every individual, no matter how much they claim to care about the progress of all people, humans are inevitably self-interested beings. Some think that we have created a system to assist in state development and global integration, but what we have really created is a system that all but ensures the growth of criminal activity. The expansion in transnational crime should not be seen as an example of an increased international network of states, but rather as a reversion back to the state of nature.

https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/07/human-beings-continue-to-be-self.html