Ethical issues in international relations and funding

Various schools of thought

Liberalism emphasises that the broad ties among states have both made it difficult to define national interest and decreased the use of military power. Increasing globalisation, the rapid rise in information technology and the increase in international trade mean that states can no longer rely on simple power politics to decide matters.

Idealism is the specific school of liberalism that stresses the need for states to peruse moral goals and to act ethically in the international arena.

Realism is a simple perspective of state-centred international affairs, which claims that all states are attempting to enhance their power and that those governments who can efficiently accumulate such strength will prosper, quickly transcending the accomplishments of comparatively less compelling states. According to this theory’s assumption, a nation’s primary goal ought to be self-preservation, and increasing power has to be a socioeconomic and political requisite.

Defensive Realism According to this, states tend to act in favour of a balance of power instead of letting other states develop economic, and military strengths, and political power because it is perceived as a threat to their security and interests. According to defensive realism, nations should obtain the proper measure of power to enable them to survive. They should not, nevertheless, use their comparative power to try to become hegemonic powers.

Offensive Realism According to offensive realism, nations are prone to rivalry and conflict because they are self-interested, power-maximizing, and frightened of other states. Furthermore, it contends that nations are obligated to behave in this manner to survive in the international system. John Mearsheimer argues that the international system requires that states maximize their offensive power to be secure and keep rivals from gaining power at their expense.

Constructivism Its arguments are based on concepts such as discourses, conventions, identities, and social interaction, which are widely used in contemporary conversations about a variety of international matters such as globalization, international human rights, defence policy, and others. Constructivism believes that the structure of the international system cannot be uniformly applied to all state relations as it mainly bases the relations and interactions between countries and their shared understandings as the sources of conflicts or cooperation. Constructivists view identity as the basis for interests, institutions, and relations between countries.

Some Ethical Issues at International Level

Human Rights Violations Political interventions frequently lead to Human Rights Violations. US intervention in Afghanistan, Vietnam etc.

Refugee Issue: European nations are closing their borders to refugees fleeing war-torn areas India refused to accept Rohingyas.

Climate Change

International Equity Concerns: Countries that are least responsible for climate change and have the least economic capacity to fight the effects of climate change are the most affected ones. For example, the Marshall Islands.

Issue of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities: There are issues in defining and differentiating the responsibilities between present and future generations as well as developed and developing countries. Climate Sceptics don’t consider climate change to be real.

Disarmament Cause of disarmament at the international stage is being promoted by those states, which have massive reserves of nuclear armaments, missiles etc. Countries like the USA impose economic and other sanctions on countries like Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. How it is ethical for a country to impose sanctions on others without discarding its weapons?

IPRs The developed countries are depriving the poor countries of accessing new technologies (even life-saving drugs) by the restrictive clauses of IPRs. It is essential to determine whether it is justifiable for a country to defend its IPRs on commercial grounds or should share technology for the greater interest of humanity.

Global Commons: Global commons are defined as those parts of the planet that fall outside national jurisdictions and to which all nations have access. International law identifies four global commons, namely the High Seas, the Atmosphere, Antarctica and Outer Space. Some of the issues concerning global commons are as follows

Zoonotic diseases like Covid-19
Greenhouse gas emission Governance and
conservation of Arctic
Overfishing
Accumulation of plastic waste
Accumulation of Space debris

Global Poverty Rise in insensitivity: Global poverty as Kaushik Basu argues largely remains out of sight for those who are not living it. This enhances insensitivity amongst the well-off nations. Whom to prioritise? The states being a stakeholder in the global fight against poverty, face an inherent dilemma, that whether they should prioritise citizens or non-citizens for the allocation of resources.

Power Asymmetry at United Nations UN is not democratic with Veto power given to 5 Permanent members. The organisation which is formed to protect democracy and led by the US and UK which call themselves the defenders of Democracy in the world are heading the institution in an undemocratic way.

Genocide is a crime against humanity and the world has signed the ‘UN Convention on Genocide to end this. Even after that, Genocide does happen in the present world. Some of the notorious genocides include the Jewish Holocaust in Nazi Germany (1933 to 1945), the Armenian Genocide by the Ottoman Empire (1915 to 1923) Rape of Nanking by the Japanese Empire (1937), the Rwandan Genocide (1994), the Tamil Genocide in Sri Lanka, Rohingya Genocide in Myanmar etc. Ethical aspects related to this include:

Right, to Protect is vague. As a result, either the international community acts very late or doesn’t at all against the genocides carried out by the states.

The international community also faces a dilemma that whether it should intervene on its own or arm the group so that persecuted section can protect itself.

The narrow definition of Genocide: The definition excludes targeted political and social groups. It also excludes indirect acts against an environment that sustains people and their cultural distinctiveness.

Terrorism:

Most countries of the world are affected by terrorism.
But there are some ethical issues in this, such as Good terrorists vs Bad terrorists.
States differentiate between Good Terrorists and Bad Terrorists based on their interests.
This reveals a selective and self-serving approach toward the inhumane activity of terrorism. For example, Pakistan differentiates between ‘Good Taliban’ and ‘Bad Taliban’.
States use Terrorism as a tool of foreign policy and indulge in human rights violations. (eg: Pakistan (supporting LeT, JeM), Iran (supporting Hezbollah).

Issues with World Trade Organisation, IMF & World Bank:

Western First World Countries have asymmetric voting rights in these bodies.
This asymmetry of voting power negatively affects the interests of the third world.
For example, the third world is paying the cost for historical wrongs of the first world in terms of restrictions on their economic development due to fear of climate change.

Ethics and International Funding

Foreign aid means the transfer of money, goods or technical knowledge, from developed to under-developed countries.

Why Funding?

Philosophical Explanation Humanitarian Concern: We might have drawn artificial boundaries to create a nation-state but we belong to the Human race. Historical Burden: Past Colonial nations like the UK, France etc. developed by exploitation of other nations in Asia, Africa, South America etc. To compensate for that, they give grants and soft loans to their earlier colonies Principle of Sacrifice: It is the duty of the well-off to sacrifice some of their wealth to protect those who can’t protect themselves.

Economical Explanation Export of Capital: Western Countries have an excess of capital that need investment in lucrative developing countries.

Types of Aids

Military Aid It is the worst form of aid as it can destabilise the whole region. The objective of this kind of aid is to garner new military allies or to strengthen the military capability of their respective allies. Eg: the US used to give huge Military Assistance to Pakistan.
Technical Assistance It aims at providing technical know-how instead of equipment and helps in capacity building. It is the least expensive with big benefits. Eg: Pan African e-Network Project by India in Africa.
Economic Aid These are economic loans given at very nominal interest rates which are to be repaid over a long time. Such loans can help in the economic development of a nation by setting up infrastructure.
Humanitarian Assistance Humanitarian aids are the actions designed to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain and protect human dignity during and in the aftermath of emergencies.
Bilateral aid: aid by India to Nepal, Bhutan, and Srilanka
Multilateral aid: aid by WB, IMF, BRICS
Project aid: Salma Dam/bandh in Afghanistan
Voluntary aid: doctors without borders

Issues in International Funding

State vs Non-State Actors:

Through which actors Funding should be done?

State Actor or Non-State Actor.

If funds are given to the Government of Donne Country, most of the time they are inefficient in spending them.

NGO and UN organisations can utilise the funds more effectively than Govt Organisations.

But if rich countries give funds directly to Non-State-actors, there is an issue that erodes the sovereignty of the nation.

Conditions on Funds Most of the funds that developing nations receive have a large number of conditions attached to them. These include Receiving nations that can’t use it for their most pressing needs but only on projects which donor countries or agencies allow. Highly-paid observers have to be hired which makes the overall cost very expensive. World Bank and IMF Grants come with large conditions like Opening markets for the world. This can therefore be viewed as a continuation of colonialism by other means.

Other aspects

The proliferation of Monoculturalism: These programmes are often aimed at inculcating certain forms of culture and have low regard for indigenous culture in the targeted nations.

Modern technologies are preserved for for-profit motives and ‘Obsolete Technologies’ are transferred instead of advanced, to the developing nations. Corruption: Only one per cent of humanitarian funds reach the affected population. For Example, It was seen in West Africa during Ebola Crisis.

Dependency on foreign aid: The state starts to lose its independence and relies on foreign aid for socio-economic policies.

Indirect benefits to rebel groups: The rebel groups might derive considerable financial benefits from humanitarian operations by imposing charges on transports, levying taxes on imports and employees’ salaries, and collecting rent for warehouses, offices and residences.

Problems in Funding Institutions The key problem of the major funding institutions of global governance is the unilateralism of Economic powerhouses like the US, EU, and Japan and the lack of democracy in their working.

Main Problems of Major Funding Institutions

Democratic Deficits: Voting shares are in favour of the US, EU and global north. Countries like China and India are showing discontent

Global Response to Regional Problems: Response concerning problems of developing nations is untimely.

Issues of Accountability and Transparency due to large back-door diplomacy.

Limit of Sovereignty

Important ethical concern in International Ethics includes what is the limit of Sovereignty. When large-scale Ethnic cleansing & Genocide is taking place (eg in South Sudan or Myanmar), can a country protect its actions in the garb of sovereignty?

What is the limit of Non-Intervention by the International Community?

For this, there is an initiative of the UN called the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Initiative.

It states that Nations have sovereignty but are subject to Human Rights. If human rights are violated, then International Community can unilaterally act against that nation.

The idea was invented in the aftermath of the Nazi execution of the Jews to protect such crimes from happening which ‘shocked the conscience of mankind’.

But weaker and smaller states fear that the garb of Responsibility to protect developed nations will undermine their sovereignty.

Just War Theory What is a valid justification to start the war, if war has started which+

h type of actions are justified during the war and what are the steps that the country should take after the war?

Components of Just War Theory

Jus ad Bellum (just recourse to war)
Jus in Bello (Just conduct in war)
Post-war

Principles of Jus ad Bellum (Just Recourse to War)

Last resort: All non-violent options must have been exhausted
Just cause: The purpose of war is to redress a wrong
Legitimate authority: Lawfully constituted government of a sovereign state can declare war, rather than a private individual or group.
Right intention: War must be prosecuted on morally acceptable aims rather than revenge
Reasonable prospect of success: War should not be fought in a hopeless cause
Proportionality: Any response to an attack should be measured and proportionate.

Principles of Jus in Bello (Just Conduct in War)

Discrimination: Force must be directed at military targets only because civilians or non-combatants are innocent.
Proportionality: Force should be proportional.
Humanity: Force must not be directed ever against enemy personnel if they are captured, wounded or under control (prisoners of war).

Post War

Reconstruction: Post-war reconstruction should also be done.
Reconciliation: There should be efforts of reconciliation after the war is over.

It should be noted that the theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts. Similarly, Mahabharata outlines the principles and contours of the conduct of a just war. Some rules propounded were armies were allowed to collect bodies, personnel could meet for negotiations etc.

Ethical Issues Around Nuclear-Weapons

Nuclear weapons have the potential to destroy the entire ecosystem of the planet. However, a handful of states insist that these weapons provide unique security benefits, but reserve the sole right to possess them.

Hence, the possession of nuclear weapons leads to numerous moral and ethical dilemmas.

Benefits

The fact that there has not been a war between nuclear-armed states due to fear of mutually assured destruction implies that deterrence has prevented the aggravation of conflicts. Eg: USSR and the US didn’t fight during the period of the cold war.
It has indirectly saved millions of lives as conventional wars have not happened. Pakistan and India are less likely to attack each other because both are nuclear states.
Nuclear statesmanship: Possession of nuclear weapons engenders a sense of responsibility and a strong bias against adventurism.

Against

The first question is whether nuclear weapons are moral or immoral in themselves. According to ethical theories, since morality cannot be attributed to non-human things, hence nuclear weapons in themselves are neither evil nor good. The question of Morality comes when it goes into the hands of the person who will use it. Till Nuclear Weapons are available, there is always a possibility that Terrorists can get hold of them and use them.
According to proponents of nuclear weapons, these weapons create deterrence and stabilize the world order.
From the utilitarian perspective, while nuclear weapons give a sense of security to the nations, which possess them, they instil fear of destruction in the mind of billions. Even the citizens of nuclear-armed states cannot be sure of their safety. Hence, on the touchstone of ‘maximum good to maximum people’ nuclear weapons falter.
Similarly from a deontological perspective, which believes that the means to achieve peace should also be pure. Means to avoid war should not be fear of destruction but values of humanity, peaceful co-existence etc
Another dimension could be whether the money used for the production of nuclear weapons can be put to better use. Spending on social upliftment is more moral than spending on weapons
The possibility that nuclear-armed states may go rogue, collapse, or fail to prevent their arsenal from falling into the hands of terrorists, cannot be ignored.
Hence, it can be concluded that although the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons worked during the bipolar ‘first nuclear age’, it is far less reliable in the less stable, multi-polar circumstances of the ‘second nuclear age’.

Asylum

The response of countries to asylum seekers has been xenophobic. Afghanis, Tunisians, Libyans, Syrians, Rohingyas etc.

Arguments Against Giving Asylum

It leads to draining the (scarce) economic resources of the country.

Giving asylum leads to fear of job loss.

It also leads to the entry of extremist elements into the country. For instance, the Indian government fears that a large number of Rohingya coming to India makes India prone to Islamic extremism and terrorism.

Rebirth of Extreme Right-Wingers Playing on Xenophobia. For example, far-right political parties such as Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany and National Rally in France are gaining ground playing on this card.

Arguments in Favour of Giving Asylum

Every human being has an equal right to the resources of the earth.

The principle of non-refoulment (to which a large number of countries except India are signatories) states that no one should be returned to a country where they would face torture, cruelty or any other irreparable harm.