I remain unconvinced by the CON team's argument or evidence. Fundamental change, in the way that I understand it, always begins with an idea. In the case of slavery, for example, someone had to first come to the conclusion that slavery was a violation of fundamental human rights - this was the precursor for the abolitionist movement that would eventually lead to the demise of the United States slave trade. In the same fashion, when I consider the capacity for change in the international system, I believe that changing ideas eventually lead to changes in actions.
During this debate, the point was brought up several times by the CON team that change by a minority of the international system will not lead to change among the rest of the international system. I am struggling a lot with this statement. It is hard for me to contend that change starts as a universally accepted rule. In my opinion, this statement defies one particular facts about the nature of international relations as it currently stands:
- The power of norms - Yes, there will always be outliers (i.e. North Korea, ISIS) that will behave outside of the internationally acceptable norms. However, that cannot discredit the power of norms in the international community. States frequently adhere to these unbinding "laws" even though there is nothing forcing them to do so. I would even argue that it is generally in the interest of states to adhere to these internationally accepted norms and ideas about how the world should or shouldn't behave. Again - that is not to say that there cannot be outliers whose "state interest" doesn't align with the norms, but rather my argument is in the fact that historically (insert nuclear weapon example, insert slavery example, insert international human rights laws), the majority of states have tended to cooperate and accept international norms.
As a member of the con team, I will stay in character for a bit longer to respond. I do not think that saying that the international system can never fundamentally change means that there cannot be improvements in international relations, human rights, and diplomacy - you pointed out several great examples. However, there is nothing that would indicate to me that these improvements will ever bring fundamental change. States/territories/sovereign areas will always be the primary actors; states will always measure their power comparatively with one another; states will always look for ways to increase and sustain their own power. Sorry, Jackie Chan! It's just our position, but we still want to be friends.
ReplyDeleteHaha thanks Chelsey! I guess we are back at defining "fundamental change". Because I think I define fundamental change differently. I would contend that the mere existence of international organizations in the IR system is a fundamental change when you consider where we were during WWI. So until we can agree on that definition, we can agree to disagree about its existence (or lack thereof). I talked to Jackie, he's cool about everything and still wants to be friends. ;)
ReplyDelete