Corporations: Political or Economic Actors

Are corporations political or economic actors

It's an important question to ask when thinking about the interaction of corporations, private actors, and states or organizations, public actors. Professor Jackson talks about this interaction, but here is  a piece that in my mind needs addressing that I think is missing in the readings and the lecture about corporations: their inherently political nature.

Corporations exist almost solely for the purpose acquiring money. This point cannot be argued. What I feel is overlooked, however, is the means by which corporations, contending with political actors on an international scale, go about achieving their ends. Some would argue that corporations are primarily economic actors and I cannot stress enough how incorrect that assertion is. When corporations grow beyond the borders of a single state they inherently become political. In order to continue maximizing profits in the international realm inherently means acquiring political power. Corporations simply cannot conduct operations without interacting with political bodies. Therefore it is by necessity that these corporations are not just economic actors, but also political actors.

This is an important point to underscore especially when discussing the accountability of corporations vs states. Corporations are less constrained than many states because they are not accountable to anyone but their shareholders and the law. As long as corporations don't carry out heinous breaches of human rights or break international laws, shareholders are more than content if the money flows in. Because they are unconstrained and can essentially go where states cannot, coporations should be considered very potent political actors, as well.

Week 15-Pre Class

Professor Jackson mentioned in his lectures the various methods of hegemonic transitions and raised the questions of what would be the most likely outcomes, and the most desirable outcomes. Given these are two of the most significant questions looming in the field of international relations and one of the final blog posts, I will provide my own prognosis to the question of what is the most desired outcome based on the material we have covered in class to date.

I believe that the most desirable of the scenario's which Professor Jackson mentioned would be the creation of hegemonic institutions which would create certain boundaries for state actors to operate within. I believe that this the current liberal hegemonic world order which the United States has created and fostered since World War II is the most ideal from the perspective of preserving the fundamental human rights valued by the Western liberal order. Preserving this type of order in some capacity as the dominant order helps maintain unipolarity or at the very least offers a balance to the rising Asian powers, which helps preserves some global balance of powers. The type of liberal world order I suggest is not necessarily led by the United States, which has long been the military and economic might of the Western world, but could be the result of some resurgence in Europe or a revival of the ideals for liberal democracy globally.

The current direction of the world order currently however is that with the decline in strength of the liberal hegemonic world order (note that this is not exclusively the US) appears to favour a more multi-polar world where there is no clear hegemonic power. A multipolar world is tantamount to a Hobbsian state of nature, making an already anarchic global system of interstate relations even less bound to the few rules and norms set in place. A bipolar world at least provides states with clarity of goals and interests, either support one of the global hegemons in China, or the old guard of the liberal hegemonic world order. It is highly unlikely that China will emerge as a great power on the international stage, and historically has preferred to exercise it's great power status in the regional context rather than the global stage, however Chairman Xi Jinping has made known his global ambitions with the One Belt One Road projects and could assert China's power on a more global level.

Ultimately, the most desirable transition of hegemonic power away from the US would see the liberal hegemonic world order preserved in some capacity. The institutions which it has created such as NATO or the IMF would help preserve the legacy of the US's world order, as would a rise of European significance, or the re-emergence of liberal democracy globally. At the very least, an avoidance of creating a multipolar world would be highly undesirable, and should be avoided if possible.

Week 15 pre-class

The Melian Dialogue offers perspective on the issues of realism vs. idealism and what a "just empire" is, and this logical can be used to examine the American situation. The Athenians represent the realist perspective, they believe that the goal of the state is to ensure it's own security, and great powers can only reinforce their security by gaining more power. On the other side of the debate the Melians believed that they are acting from a moral high-ground, and believed that others would act on their behalf and intervene for their cause. The Melians didn't believe that the Athenians were just in their actions, however the Athenians affirmed that they had defended the Greek civilization from the Persians and that any course of action they take to protect their empire (which they saw incorporating Melos as doing) would make that a just action. This begs the question for great powers, does the end justify the means for the self-preservation of hegemony? And what is the morality that guides hegemons?

In the American case, morality has served as the justification for the expansion of American influence abroad, specifically regarding the ideals of Western democracy, however this is simply a thinly veiled guise. We can see this specifically framed within the context of the countries of Ukraine and Georgia and their goals of NATO membership. The US was willing to support their cause in terms of funding and logistics when these countries were in the process of leaving the Russian sphere of influence, however with the threat of Russian military aggression the US hasn't provided anything more than nominal support for the Ukrainian and Georgian causes. We can see American expansionism behind the guise of morality in the case of the Iraq War as well, with the US invading on the grounds of liberating the Iraqi people from a ruthless regime and combatting global terror. Ultimately what the US ended up pursuing was simply expanding influence in the regime by way of regime change. In the end, the timeless words of Thusydides ring true when it comes to great powers, "the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must."

Public Authority and the International System

This module was particularly interesting to me in that it covered questions and concepts that deal with the idea of an end to the current framework of the international system. As the system continues to integrate further and states become more and more interdependent, the idea of single, unitary actors becomes increasingly more difficult to defend. International law is one such method of integration that begs the question, can the impermeable, autonomous states of yesterday make it through today and into tomorrow?

The part of Professor Jackson's lecture that I love the most is where he talks about how difficult it is for the idea of public authority to exist in the upper left box of the 2x2. As there is no sovereign in the international system yet, states acting as both public and authority is such an interesting concept. It is one of the stronger arguments for the increasing permeability and loosening of autonomy going on in the system. Sovereigns choosing to bind themselves and be accountable to authority from without, granted authority enforced by other states. It raises more questions for me. If sovereigns are willing to forfeit autonomy to others for the sake of international law, is it unreasonable to assume that they could, down the line, cede it to a sovereign to maintain such law? Would a sovereign not be more impartial than a series of other states with divergent interests? By extension, would the application of violence by a sovereign not be more impartial, too?

Week 14 Pre-Class

Constitutional movements, as defined in the lectures by Professor Jackson, are intended to provide informal sets of rules and boundaries for great and middle powers. These constitutions, treaties, or agreements are intended to instate some balance of powers after a significant war or shift in power balance. More often than not, they seek to reinstate the previous hegemonic order in some capacity and reinforce the strength of great powers which emerged after the power flux. These types of agreements are bound to fail in the long term however, as they seek to recapture a picture in time (so to speak) and are unable to account to the dynamic nature of power relationships in the realm of the international.

Two notable examples of how constitutional movements fail to stand the test of time are the Congress of Vienna and the Yalta Conference. The purpose of the Congress of Vienna was to reestablish the previous monarchical order in Europe and redistribute land and power to avoid another significant war in Europe following the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. Ultimately however, nationalism and the rise in democratic ideologies brought forth civil wars and turmoil which the Congress sought to curtail. The Yalta Conference sought to reinstate order in Europe in the aftermath of World War II, with the U.S. and Soviet Union rising as great powers after the collapse of Germany. The treaty's purpose was to carve sphere's of influence in Europe between Western influence and the influence of the Soviet Union, as to avoid any future conflict in the region. Despite these efforts however, the Cold War still occurred and the struggle for dominance in Europe (and elsewhere) was unaffected by this attempt at peace.

Constitutional movements are intended to create order out of chaos and entrench the powers which arise out of a conflict. These movements are unable to stand the test of time though, as they do not account for the many factors which affect the realm of the international (social movements, clashes of personalities, and economic movements for example). As such, they capture a snapshot in time, but cannot survive in the dynamic nature that is the international.

Week 14 pre-class

I’m torn between the likelihood of a hegemonic future with the US at the center and a push towards a constitutional moment. Historically we’ve seen constitutional moments come out of global crises or world wars, but I think many of the ideas and social movements that have been previously discussed in class could push the international realm closer to a constitutional moment which isn’t fraught with conflict and disaster. Maybe the “human project” scenario isn’t likely in the near future but, as professor Jackson said, maybe our prediction odds are better if we just flip a coin!

I found John Ikenberry’s points on the US possessing several elements of a hegemonic power rather convincing, although I wouldn’t go so far as to call it an empire just yet. Mostly because the sustainability of hegemony, after coercive power, seems to rely on the benefits provided by the hegemon to those at different levels along the hierarchical chain. In that case one of the worst things the US could do would be to make other states lose sight of the benefits the US offers in the international realm and our current administration seems to have a knack for making long standing partners and beneficiaries doubt their relationship with the US. Essentially, the US, under the guise of picking up new relationships, could struggle to maintain the old.

Another point that stood out to me from Ikenberry’s text was that hegemon will create institution to facilitate multilateral relationships but will ultimately be the central sovereign figure. The US has, in most instances, helped create multilateral institutions on a global scale and then taken those over as that eight-ton gorilla in the room. Of course, in organizations such as the UN the force of the UN can still be put down but it is unlikely to be done by any state wishing to maintain a benefit of sorts through their relationship with the US.

Forever Wishing for the Human Project

At the end of the end of the asynchronous lecture, Professor Jackson asked which future trajectory was most likely or least likely of the power dynamics between countries. Although it is my favored prediction, the least likely future scenario in power transition is the human project. Out of the three scenarios, the one that appears to be the complete opposite of the human project, hegemonic institutions, appears the most likely.

I think for the most part, people would love for everyone to agree on something collectively as the human race. However, this is very unlikely as there remains a difference in opinion on large-scale issues, and whether or not they are even issues. An example of this is the different opinions on climate change. Although most countries believe that it is a global issue that must be worked on, there are countries that do not believe in working to end climate change with other global leaders, such as the United States. The Paris Climate Agreement is a prime example of a transition to the human project. Leaders from around the world got together to create goals they agreed to try to meet, in hopes of focusing on more renewable energy and limiting current pollution. This idea appeared to be working, humanity agreeing together to stop the destruction of our planet. That is until the idea of President Trump became a reality. Instead of agreeing to continue to do our best to help the planet, Trump decided to pull the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement.

I think that this illustrates that the hegemonic institutions scenario is the most likely, at least as long as Trump is president. On the other hand, to be fair, I don't think all of the blame for an unlikely "human project" falls on Trump. I believe that there will always be someone or some country in great power that relies on and enjoys using dominant power. As much as we would like to think that we could all work together for the greater good, there will always be someone that thinks they are strong enough to do things on their own, or who refuses to give up some of their power for a collective action. This all goes back to Hobbes' state of nature, humans are and always will be self-interested.


https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/08/forever-wishing-for-human-project.html

week 14 pre class

       This week’s readings have a myriad methods for analyzing power in a very traditional sense. Power as seen through the lens of military spending and GDP. I think that these traditional metrics leave a lot to be desired and are fundamentally changing. I have asserted in other writings that technology is adjusting the fabric of international relations and leading to changes requiring a major shift in the method of analysis.

       Linear relationships are often noted and the sum of power is a simple 2 part balance, Giddens, Mann, and Wallerstein note, “It is normally true that if a Power's resource base increases then its military power and geopolitical pretensions will also” pg 334. Economic power is harder to define with increased globalization. If we add military alliances into the mix these are also more muddied and difficult to separate as globalization often pulls most countries loyalty in opposing directions with increased economic integration and ideological conflict. Additionally how we define economic power is increasingly changing. The world is increasingly cyber based with assets like bitcoin residing completely on the internet. This is also adding a completely different metric to military power with the ability to steal massive amounts of information VIA the web as evident in Chinese and North Korean attacks in recent years. The playing field has been fundamentally altered shifting the power balance but the even more terrifying fact is that at this time we might not even fully understand what power will mean in the new era.

     It is clear though that the major world powers have adjusted their way of projecting power. The tightest control was always an official imperial empire. This method though is incredibly costly. In an official imperial status the country in charge has a responsibility to provide significant financial support and government services to solidify their legitimacy. If anything is happening negatively in a subbordinate country this leaves significant vulnerability, It is simply too difficult to maintain financial and moral superiority. There has obviously been a shift to hegemony with institutions like the U.N. that the U.S. can assert legitimate power. Power is exerted in different manners as well as having different metrics.

“Comments on Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,” British Journal of Sociology 40:2 (1989).

John Ikenberry, “Liberalism and Empire: Logics of Order in the American Unipolar Age,” Review of International Studies 30:4 (2004)

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.

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/.

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