« Real Humans Try to Stop Imaginary Plague in Imaginary Lands | HomePage | Ward Churchill Apologist to Speak 9/29: "Decolonizing the University for Ethnic Studies" »
Friday, September 23, 20051127487600
"lunatic right" now in office
Lecture Notes for Internationa Law *sigh*
World Bank and International Monetary Fund (Bank/Fund or Bunk)
- Bredon Woods / post-War / pre-UN institutions
functionalism - theory of "apolitical" IGOs (inter-governmental organizations) that seeks to build a world community through technical cooperation
- first IGOs like international telegraph, european rivers association in 19th century were functionalist
San Francisco (UN)/Bunk (Breton Woods) built of functionalist, conference, and League of Nations precedents
material for International Law as Social Cognitive Battlespace:
Ikenberry: US created bunk because US can dominate them, plus gives US "credibility"
- "strategic restraint"
- example of creating international law to improve international legitimacy to make it easier to break law later?
- use social cognition to teach cognitively to weak unfavorable social cognition lessons? (eg Kosovo War)
- strategic restrain in Iraq run-up?
conditionality: only loan if conditions are met
built to make America look like "benign hegemon" instead of "threatening dominator"
US only has 17% of votes for bunks, but 85% is minimum "majority" for many actions, so US has de facto veto
with national contributions, WB then uses cash as collatoral to raise more money
yearly, WB gives $40 bil, UN regular budget is $1 bil
Independence of Secretariats: Rules for the World: Barnett and Finnemore claim Bank secretariat weak, donors strong
(interesting research ideas: can you show WB President McNamara going against US and winning?)
Bunk's constituent documents are explicitly non-political (cannot look at political ramifications)
- WB tried this, got introuble for Portugal and South Africa loans, now is political but denies it
- think of "good governance" requirements: political issues effect "development," "resonably broad" definitions
trifecta of institution types: technical, legal, political.... are they political or economic (both)
_but_, WB says "No leans for Serbia until Belgrade hands over indicted war criminals to ICJY
similar for WB suspension of loans to Allende
evolving notions of "good governance" - strategic, limited growth of definitions
- WB has tribunal for projects in a country (individual right of petition within the bank) - emerging human rights
right criticism at "socialist" World Bank during '70s "absolutely crazy" .. "lunatic right" now in office
Traditionally, WB is longer term than IMF, but disction fuzzes from '70s -- both now focus on structural loans
"you bureaucratize to create specific organizations to do a specific job --- but mission creep undermines this"
World Trade Organizations (WTO)
trips - intellectual property rights as absolute necessity?
irony: "sanctions for trade"
Hathaway and Koh (306) - why stronger mechanisms to protect trade than human rights/ecology
"constructive engagement" - hypocracy in liberal views of "South Africa" and "China"
US, Russia, China united in opposition to International Criminal Court (ICC), France qualified yes, UK only UNSC5 which fully supports
Law of the Sea
- affects oceans / lots of stuff / has a tribunal
- half of proceeds to developing countries (?!?!?)
- Bush now supporting but GOP Senate opposes?
- US declares parts it like as "customary international law"
10:00 Posted by Dan tdaxp in UNL / International Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this | Tags: international law