I enjoyed the debate regarding whether or not the environmental environment can be fundamentally remade, as it really is a question of perspective and we see many different perspectives in the international community.
The question, as we saw in the debate, centers on one’s definition of “change” in the context of international relations. I think it needs to be more than just a change in sovereignty to be deemed a real change in the system and I also do not believe the international system as a whole can become one big sovereign entity. Wendt's argument about the definition of anarchy, and how it has changed, is also very important.
The opposing group made a good argument that the changes seen in international relations can be accounted for by rational decision of sovereign nations. I agree with this because as long as there is a question of sovereignty, there will be interests that drive decision-making. However, to deny the effect of globalization and international organizations such as the United Nations and the EU, would be a gross miscalculation. The organization of the European Union is further proof that there has been change. Previously we have seen sovereign nations coming together as allies but to see combined economic and social power, while maintaining sovereignty of the nations, is change in the international system. And I think that with further globalization and communication this will continue, but it will take time.
Also, it is my belief that there must at least be the hope for change, as this is what drives further cooperation to seeing advancement and changes, whether big or small, in the international environment.
Jessica, thank you for brining up question of environmental change. However I am not sure what you mean by that it is an issue of perspective? Our environment is our environment - it can ebb and flow in terms of life/death, advance/decline or productivity but how can it be fundamentally changed. Even if something "new" is created but modern science, it must be based on the already known ingredients of our universe.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your belief that even if fundamental change is not possible, a hope for change is necessary.
Jessica,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that defining "change" is very important in addressing both arguments if there can be fundamental change or not. However, I do not think that there needs to me more than just a change in sovereignty in order for a change to become a real change in the system. As Erica has mentioned in her post and our argument during the debate, the UN's R2P can be considered a fundamental change because it gives the UN legal grounds to intervene when states cannot or do not want to protect their own citizens.
For the international system to become one big sovereign entity really sounds very utopian, but I think that an organization like the EU probably sounded utopian to Europeans 50 years ago as well. You make a good point that we should not give up hope for change. I think that small changes can lead to more changes and, maybe, they eventually lead to fundamental change.
Katherine, Thanks for your input. I agree that there are elements to the environment as you pointed out. I was going more with different perspectives in how the environment is viewed and valued by the different actors.
ReplyDeleteChristine, thanks for your input. I think you worded it well that being one big sovereign entity does sound very utopian and almost impossible for the entire international system. I'm impressed that the EU is even possible in light of all we have learned in this class!