The Great Debate

Clearly I am referring to the wonderful debate that we had during class on Monday.  I thought it was very interesting and I thought both teams did a wonderful job.

I think that the biggest question of the night, that Ryan perfectly captured, became establishing the fundamental aspects of the international system.  This question has become something that I have continued to consider about over the past few days.  I think, as I understood it, the Pro Group was saying that the norms and the accepted actions of states are fundamental to the international system, and those can and do change.  They pointed out one perfect example after another.

I was particularly interested in the behavior of states over that past few hundred years that they pointed out.  Slavery was a very profound facet of this change.  At one time is was perfectly acceptable, normal, and advantageous for states to authorize and facilitate the capture and sale of whole groups of people.  If this is how the international community functioned just a short time ago, then we cannot disagree that there has been a substantial shift in norms.

Another fascinating point brought up by the Pro Group was the establishment and continued expansion of the EU.  The EU is obviously a very unique occurrence in the international sphere.  To have states giving up such large portions of their sovereignty is clearly indicative of a major development in international cooperation.

I also felt that our group made some persuasive points in response to these examples.  Yes, slavery has ended as a state-endorsed trade.  But is that perhaps more a shift in societal norms?  There have been different types of human rights violations that humankind has carried out over the course of history, but does the end or decrease of these actions indicate that the system itself has changed?  And if not, then what would prompt us to think that it ever will?

As was discussed within the Con Group, the EU, while exceptional, can be viewed as a way for states to consolidate power and advance their status internationally.  Turkey has long wanted to be viewed as a modern state by the West, and joining the EU is a way for this state to establish its relevance to the global community.  However, as our group mentioned, the larger states who are not as reliant on the collective strength of the EU have been looking to maintain their high level of influence within the union as it has been diluted with the large number of additions.  This is what has led to a debate over qualified majority voting.  So perhaps the entire system has not fundamentally shifted  Instead, states are still carrying out the same rational behavior, just through more modern methods.

Again, I would point out that this depends on your definition of the fundamentals.  If you were to start with the idea that the accepted norms and general behavior between states are the basic elements of international relations, then yes, change is not only possible, but it is occurring all the time.  If, however, you were to begin with sovereign individual states as the primary actors operating in anarchy, then change has not occurred.  My group sought to demonstrate that because this system has endured through all of the normative changes, and there have been many that were extremely substantial, it would indicate that changing values and accepted behaviors will not affect the fundamental system.

I personally thought the debate was our best and most interesting class yet.  It brought up some very fascinating points and complex questions about what we consider to be the basic mechanics of the international world.  I look forward to circling back to this debate as the class continues and we react to further readings.