ULUSLARARASI ÖRGÜTLENME VE KÜRESEL YÖNETİŞİM - Deneme Sınavı - 10

The domestic analogy of legalists may be flawed, because, especially from a liberal perspective, order refers to the political management of group relations rather than either law making or enforcing the law on individuals or nations. Legalists’ starting point has been the domestic analogy, but they too have somewhat mistaken the role of the government in domestic politics.

From a pragmatic perspective, one should ask the question what this world order, if realized at all, would mean for the individual’s life and for the nations’ future. Pragmatism looks at the consequences (to the “fruits”) of a certain rule for action. Imagine a world where individuals and other entities in the world would act only according to the rules established by an authority. This would not be an order at all for peoples who would like to live in a world where they feel free so as to pursue their own truths, beliefs, and dreams. There may be a certain disbelief in the potentiality of human beings in this legalistic proposal- a certain fear from the future, so that everything should be managed by the threat of punishment. This is a liberal way of approaching to neither human relations nor to political government.

"Neofunctionalism, one version of functionalism, has been mainly applied to the European integration process."

Even if we may be able to both separate political from nonpolitical issues and give priority to the latter, this does not mean, however, that we can solve political problems in this way- that we can achieve world order through a functional cooperation among states. This is, in fact, where scholars criticize functionalists’ means to sustain and promote world order. Functionalists have advocated that the functional approach is pragmatic; however, one may argue that by believing in a single formula, that cooperation in economic and social issues will lead to world peace, functionalists have not adopted the pluralistic, eclectic approach of pragmatism to solving problems at any level of social life.

Starting with the early 1970s some world order scholars have come to be known as cosmopolitanists. They hold the views mentioned in the question.

Collective security is a “one for all, all for one” scheme in that states are believed to be committed to deter and punish the aggressor, regardless of their own identities and the aggressor’s identity. Put differently, states are supposed not to discriminate between friends and foes. Related to this, collective security opposes the alliance-building policy, and it rather prescribes a universal alliance. 

Collective security prescribes a partially centralized system for the management of power. Although, states still possess the means of power, resort to force is regulated by a central agency, which is a general international organization such as the League of Nations or the United Nations. Also, in this agenda, aggression would be deterred not by an equilibrium of power but by a preponderance. As such, collective security holds that most, if not all, states must remain committed to the system to deter the potential aggressor, and, when needed, participate in collective actions to punish the aggressor. In addition, although collective security prescribes imposing on the aggressor moral, diplomatic, and economic sanctions, its credibility as a deterrent relies ultimately on military sanction. Therefore, collective security is a hard approach to world order.  Because it requires willingness to support the words with deeds and a determination to frustrate and, if necessary, defeat the aggressor with military sanction

The first and foremost objective of the system is creating and preserving an approximate equilibrium of power among states; only within such a power configuration can we expect to have order and stability in the system and to ensure the survival of states and the multistate system. Considering an equilibrium of power, the primary objective of the system helps us to reconcile the arguments of balance of power theorists. From this perspective, for example, there is not a major difference of view between scholars who hold that the system’s objective is not to prevent war and those who do so.

Objective requirements refer to the specific security environment that the theory of collective security envisages. According to the collective security scheme, an attack in the system against any state will trigger the combined resistance of all other states. It is, in other words, a scheme of ‘all against one;’ a scheme for creating a preponderance of power against the aggressor. Nevertheless, the existing security environment may not be conducive to follow such a principle in the international system at least for two reasons: the thermonuclear revolution and the grouping of states along ideological lines.

The successful state is far from being completed at the domestic level; failed states, civil wars as well as other types of violence such as terrorism around the world have convinced both politicians and students of International Relations that we are far from this liberal order. Nevertheless, this is where meliorism comes in; rather than being overly optimistic or pessimistic about the world’s future, one can hope that it is possible to gradually create such a social world order. The correct option is B.

World government is an old idea in political theory that one authority can and should sustain order at the global level. Pax Romana and Pax Britannica, for example, are known as eras of relative peace and order in world history that was provided by a single power- the hegemon. We see the reemergence of this idea especially after the Second World War in the theory of world government. The correct option is A.

Cord Meyer, another prominent world governmentalist, has argued that the nationstate was responsible for two world wars within a generation. “As long as the inhabitants of the earth prefer to live as members of sovereign states,” he wrote, “the catastrophe of war will remain the ultimate means of settling their disputes and of protecting their rights and very existence”. Meyer urged that peace-through-power reasoning is wrong and that the internationalist approach, which fails to transform this reasoning, should be discarded. Meyer’s “plan for survival” was turning the UN system into a world government. In this new system he suggested that “the power to legislate should be given to the General Assembly. Meyer argued that only in such a system will individuals “find for the first time the freedom from fear.” The correct option is D.

One proponent of legalism has been Hans Kelsen. In Peace Through Law, which was published toward the end of the Second World War, Kelsen argued that if the big powers were satisfied in their territorial claims, then following the war they could agree on a legalistic scheme for order. The correct option is C.

Neofunctionalism, one version of functionalism, has been mainly applied to the European integration process. Since the mid-1950s, scholars looking at the European example have argued that in fact the application of functional theory at the regional level may eventually create a peaceful world. If each region in the world were peaceful, then, we would have perpetual peace at the global level. Neofunctionalism as such has been introduced as the idea of “peace in parts.” The correct option is E.

A specific group of scholars known as WorldOrder-Models-Project (WOMP) scholars (such as Richard Falk, Rajni Kothari, Ali Mazrui, and Gustavo Lagos) have both elaborated on this morality and given specific cosmopolitan proposals for a more orderly world. Though they come from different backgrounds (Falk is North American, Kothari Indian, Mazrui Arabic-African, and Lagos Latin American), they have shared some specific global values such as individual autonomy, nonviolence, democratic participation, economic welfare, cultural integration, social justice, ecological balance, and peace. Moreover, Charles Beitz, a cosmopolitanist, criticized the Hobbesian or Realist morality that he calls “international skepticism” as well as the legalists’ understanding of morality, that is, “the morality of state.” The correct option is D.

Collective security prescribes a partially centralized system for the management of power. Although, states still possess the means of power, resort to force is regulated by a central agency, which is a general international organization such as the League of Nations or the United Nations. Second, in this agenda, aggression would be deterred not by an equilibrium of power but by a preponderance. As such, collective security holds that most, if not all, states must remain committed to the system to deter the potential aggressor, and, when needed, participate in collective actions to punish the aggressor. Third, although collective security prescribes imposing on the aggressor moral, diplomatic, and economic sanctions, its credibility as a deterrent relies ultimately on military sanction. Fourth, collective security is a “one for all, all for one” scheme in that states are believed to be committed to deter and punish the aggressor, regardless of their own identities and the aggressor’s identity; put differently, states are supposed not to discriminate between friends and foes. Finally, related to the fourth point, collective security opposes the alliance-building policy, and it rather prescribes a universal alliance. The correct option is E.

The balance of power is a decentralized system for managing of power relationships. Two ideas on the balance of power as a system merit attention. First, the balance of power is a “fallback system” of international relations; in a multistate system, unless an alternate system is established for the management of power, it is natural for states to take care of their own security. Second, the classical balance system of the earlier centuries has been modified by two major developments in this century; the establishment of general international organizations, and the creation of institutionalized alliances such as NATO. The correct option is D.

More than any other scholar, Ernst B. Haas deserves to be known as the founding father of neofunctionalism. Haas has developed the idea of regional integration through functional cooperation on ‘nonpolitical’ issues, which would in fact lead to further integration in the geographical area concerned. However, even Haas himself had second thoughts right from the beginning of his studies about both the soundness of this “spill over” theory and neofunctionalism as a promising way to world peace. The correct option is B.