The Basel Convention, which first entered into force in May of 1992, took place in order to create regulations regarding the movement and disposal of hazardous waste by states. [1] In particular, the Convention was an effort to redress the practice of developed countries disposing of hazardous waste in developing countries. It aimed to replace coercion, in which stronger states were able to take advantage of less developed/weaker states, with rational agreement. 182 states and the European Union are party to the Basel Convention. [2] The Rotterdam Convention and the Stockholm Convention, both of which entered into force in 2004, had 154 and 179 parties, respectively. [3,4]
The fact that so many countries were party to all three of these conventions may serve as evidence that in this case, rational bargaining was able to replace coercion to a considerable extent. But listing the number of countries that are "party" to a treaty obscures the reality that some states have yet to ratify the treaty. For example, although the United States was a signatory to the Basel Convention in 1990, the Stockholm Convention in 2001, and the Rotterdam Convention in 1998, it has not actually ratified any of those treaties. [5] This means that the treaties have not been turned into law by the US Congress.
In Leviathan, Hobbes proposes that men should form commonwealths as a way of "getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war" that predominates in the absence of a higher authority, or sovereign. [6] Since there is no sovereign in the international community, to which individual states have voluntarily given up their power, we can frame the international community as being in Hobbes' state of nature. Another way of describing this lack of a higher authority is anarchy.
Following Hobbes' logic, but not taking it to extremes, we can see elements of both coercion and rationality in the international relations sphere today. The Basel Convention may seem like a step towards rationality, but the fact that the strongest state, the United Nations, chose not to ratify the treaty emphasizes the lack of an enforcement mechanism for states. There is no "visible power to keep [the states] in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants," as Hobbes describes it. [7]
Of course, things work a bit differently when states, not individual men, are the actors in question. As things stand now, it is not conceivable for state leaders, whether they be monarchs or democratically elected representatives, to sign away the state's autonomy to a higher authority. It seems anarchy and, to some extent, the "miserable condition of war" Hobbes describes must predominate in the international sphere. Thus, even where we see elements of rationality appear in interstate relations, we must be aware that coercion may underlie the rationality and be the driving force in agreements between states.
[1] Basel Convention, "Text of the Convention," found here.
[2] Basel Convention, "Parties to the Basel Convention," found here.
[3] Rotterdam Convention, "Status of Ratifications," found here.
[4] Stockholm Convention, "Status of Ratifications," found here.
[5] Ibid [2,3,4].
[6] Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XVII.
[7] Ibid.
The fact that so many countries were party to all three of these conventions may serve as evidence that in this case, rational bargaining was able to replace coercion to a considerable extent. But listing the number of countries that are "party" to a treaty obscures the reality that some states have yet to ratify the treaty. For example, although the United States was a signatory to the Basel Convention in 1990, the Stockholm Convention in 2001, and the Rotterdam Convention in 1998, it has not actually ratified any of those treaties. [5] This means that the treaties have not been turned into law by the US Congress.
In Leviathan, Hobbes proposes that men should form commonwealths as a way of "getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war" that predominates in the absence of a higher authority, or sovereign. [6] Since there is no sovereign in the international community, to which individual states have voluntarily given up their power, we can frame the international community as being in Hobbes' state of nature. Another way of describing this lack of a higher authority is anarchy.
Following Hobbes' logic, but not taking it to extremes, we can see elements of both coercion and rationality in the international relations sphere today. The Basel Convention may seem like a step towards rationality, but the fact that the strongest state, the United Nations, chose not to ratify the treaty emphasizes the lack of an enforcement mechanism for states. There is no "visible power to keep [the states] in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants," as Hobbes describes it. [7]
Of course, things work a bit differently when states, not individual men, are the actors in question. As things stand now, it is not conceivable for state leaders, whether they be monarchs or democratically elected representatives, to sign away the state's autonomy to a higher authority. It seems anarchy and, to some extent, the "miserable condition of war" Hobbes describes must predominate in the international sphere. Thus, even where we see elements of rationality appear in interstate relations, we must be aware that coercion may underlie the rationality and be the driving force in agreements between states.
[1] Basel Convention, "Text of the Convention," found here.
[2] Basel Convention, "Parties to the Basel Convention," found here.
[3] Rotterdam Convention, "Status of Ratifications," found here.
[4] Stockholm Convention, "Status of Ratifications," found here.
[5] Ibid [2,3,4].
[6] Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XVII.
[7] Ibid.
Hannah, so very true. And to take your point a bit further, this begs a reflection about why states are vying to become the super power. Despite our era of relative peace (relative in that we have not experienced World War III), we still see states trying to overtake others. We are currently witnessing Russia's attempting baby steps towards rebuilding the Soviet Union, starting with the efforts to re-annex the Crimea.
ReplyDelete