Domestic Politics and Norm Diffusion †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Domestic Politics and Norm Diffusion. Answer: Introduction: The theory of global justice exists within the framework of broader school of cosmopolitanism (Acharya 2014). In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that, since time immemorial, the school of cosmopolitan laid emphasis on the importance of individuals rather than state and communities. According to the perspective of Cosmopolitans human being possesses equal moral rights and therefore acquires equal moral analysis (Acuto and Curtis 2014). In this context, if disagreement arises between cosmopolitans regarding the fact that how individuals fit within the subject-matter of equal moral concern. The essay intends to highlight the views of the cosmopolitans to the existence of individuals rather than states. In this essay the argumentative claims of different authors shall be emphasized. In this regard firstly the arguments of Liberal Rawlsians shall be presented whose focus was limited state-centric approaches. The arguments of Thomas Pogge will be presented in the second secti on which would attract much attention as it focused on human-centric approaches rather than states. Thirdly the approaches of moral cosmopolitan shall be applied to the mentioned arguments. Fourthly, the theory of Global Justice shall be emphasized. In the fifth section the views of contemporary authors against the cosmopolitans shall be emphasized. Finally, it shall be discussed that why the basic structure of international relations should be governed by the principles of cosmopolitans. The approaches have been identified as Kantianism and Utilitarianism which are moral cosmopolitan approaches. As a result of such focus on the moral value of individuals other than that of states the cosmopolitan scholars could critically evaluate the theories of justice which from the very beginning focused on the existence of states. The scholars of contemporary global justice emphasized on the moral worth of individuals by excluding the issues of global cohabitation. According to the opinion of Pogge, a just and stable institutional scheme which is involved by the concept of Justice by preserving the allocation of basic rights and opportunities and goods which is declared as fair within the nations and globe (Adler-Nissen 2014). Liberal Rawlsians agreed with such perspective along with other cosmopolitans by stating that there must be equal value within societies. It can be mentioned that Thomas Pogge laid emphasis on human-centric approach to justice while John Rawl emphasized on state-centric approach to justice (Aradau and Huysmans 2014). In this regard, it is worth mentioning that traditionally the theory of justice was based on political structures which were concerned with states by determining the power of the states to make laws and involve in the welfare of public policy. Therefore, in the opinion of Pogge political structures should be constructed in such a way by ensuring proper distribution of rights and duties between individuals of the states (Berger 2014). However, the traditional theory of justice dealt with the concept of distributive justice where revenue is shared equally within the states however, it is not equally distributed between individuals of the society. As a result of such inequality in the distribution of wealth the individuals of states were refrained from living a decent life. In the perspective of Thomas Pogge, such concept can prevail within the framework of a democratic society (Buzan and Lawson 2014). In this context, it c an be stated that the traditional theory of justice was associated with the presence of states however, the existence of human beings were ignored. However, the traditional theory of justice was designed in a way to deal with the issues of the state. Various cosmopolitan scholars dealt with the issues arising out of the traditional theory of justice by applying the approaches of Utilitarianism and Kantianism (Chan et al. 2015). The utilitarian approach can be applied to the traditional theory of justice as it cannot be applied to the subject-matter of moral philosophy. In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that the moral principle of utilitarianism is to maximize utility which is applicable to the actions of individuals and the concept of international relations (Fabbrini 2016). However, Kantianism approach was based on the foundation of two basic rights- acquired and innate. Views of Thomas Pogge: Different cosmopolitan scholars argued that the questions regarding the traditional theories of justice has created limitations in a modern era (Holzscheiter 2014). It is worth noting that with the advent of global institutions which proved to be efficient in performing the major functions of the state which includes the power to make laws and to impose or collect taxes. In this regard, Thomas Pogge was of the opinion that there existed inequalities between individuals which are a concern of the nations as it constituted a major global issue. Therefore, Thomas Pogge laid emphasis on the issue regarding global inequalities arising between individuals of the states by applying the approaches of Utilitarianism and Kantianism. However, from the very beginning Thomas Pogge grounded his arguments in various other ways by widening the scope of international justice thereby taking it to a global level. As a result of these arguments, the term global justice came into being and thereby the th eories of international relations originated. It can be noted that the theories of international relations laid much emphasis on the individuals rather than the states. Thomas Pogge also focused on the issues of global poverty. Therefore it was argued by Thomas Pogge that the programs of poverty alleviation laid emphasis on the redistribution of resources and revenues between different sections of the society- the rich and the poor (Hurd 2014). With the evaluation of humanitarian intervention, Thomas Pogge presented vide argument regarding the issue related to individuals over the objectives state-centric theories. He emphasized human beings should be given the highest priority over the objectives of state-centric ideas. The issues related to global health was argued by stating that global structures acts significantly in determining the health of individuals (Kelley and Simmons 2015). Since time immemorial, scholars of Cosmopolitan global justice have been focusing on the issues regarding gender inequality, warfare, immigration as well as climatic change. The concept of global justice is appropriate to the field of International Relations. However, Cosmopolitan scholars have engaged themselves with the evaluation and assessment of fundamental issues caused as a result of global intervention. According to Pogge, that International Relation is a modern theory that shall remain relevant as long as there is an existence of global issues. According to the perspective of Thomas Pogge, the basic structure of international relations is concerned with the study of individuals. The principles of international relations are governed by the relationship between individuals rather than states. From the very beginning the structural framework of international relations is not governed by the principles of inter-state relations ((Risse 2016). However, according to the views of cosmopolitan scholars, the moral concern of the individuals shall be taken into account for ensuring the fact that individuals should be prioritized over states. It has been emphasized by cosmopolitan scholars that the subject matter of human rights occupies an important position in the discussion related to the importance of human dignity. It has been observed that while the cosmopolitan scholars were concerned with the issues of human dignity, others were concerned with the processes of social changes within the states. Approaches of Moral cosmopolitans: It is noteworthy to mention here that, two different scholars in the same field shall not have exactly the same perspectives. Therefore, the concept of global justice has been criticized by several authors on various grounds. According to Miller, national borders occupy significant position as compared to the principles of cosmopolitan global justice (Kelley and Simmons 2015). In his opinion, in order to come to a conclusion which involves an agreement on the principles of global justice it is essential to acquire knowledge about the history and cultures of global principles. The principles of global justice can be differentiated from the national borders in making effective decision regarding what is right or wrong. According to Nagel and Blake, in order to achieve global justice it is important on the part of the states to initiate the establishment of powerful global institutions (Nikolayevich Chumakov 2014). There is no such existence of global institutions that exerted power ove r the states and individuals. Modern scholars also regarding the concept of cosmopolitanism as a western-centric theory which do not have a global appearance. According to them, the concept of global justice is concerned with the importance of individuals in relation to human rights which from the beginning has been regarded as western ideals. However, it is worth mentioning that such criticisms could not affect the importance of the principles of global justice as well as the theories of International Relations. Global justice has favorable effects on climatic changes which proved to be effective in addressing the inequalities between the individuals other than states (Aradau and Huysmans 2014). It is evident that climate changes require the assistance of global solution. In this regard, it can be observed that change in climate formulates unfair distribution of benefits and burdens individuals acquiring moral and equal values. According to the views of cosmopolitan scholars, change in climate is likely to affect individuals to a great extent (Berger 2014). In order to provide appropriate solution to such issue, different ideas were formulated by the scholars for the purpose of prioritizing individuals over states. In this regard, Thomas Pogge laid emphasis on such prioritization by defining three different rights which poses as a threat to individuals. The three rights can be emphasized as right to health, right to food and right to life. However, the cosmopolitan scholars ensured that prog rams combating climatic changes shall not in any way violate the three basic rights. In this regard, cosmopolitan scholars also emphasized that individuals prefer to live in an environment which contributes adequately to their wellbeing (Adler-Nissen 2014). In this regard, the cosmopolitan scholars presented their argument by stating that priority is not concerned with the protection of individuals as it is the major concern of international laws (Risse 2016). However, the creation of rights related to climatic changes must be defended to the highest priority. The cosmopolitan scholar focused on the conception of rights with the inclusion of both procedural and substantive rights (Chan et al. 2015). The procedural and substantive rights are associated with the participation of policy implementing procedures where individuals shall have the right to share their concern about the prevailing conditions and policies (Nikolayevich Chumakov 2014). The cosmopolitan scholars were not only concerned with basic human rights however; their main concern was regarding the implementation of fair procedures. Thomas Pogge was right in his view as he pointed out that traditionally the principle of cosmopolitanism is concerned with the issues of both states and individuals. Therefore, the cosmopolitan scholars argued that individuals can contribute in lowering environmental hazards by including the participation of state-authorities and international financial institutions (Holzscheiter 2014). Various debates have been conducted between cosmopolitan and traditional scholars where various ideas were circulated concerning states and individuals. While discussing about the factors of climatic changes, global justice scholars rightly opted for the discipline of International Relations in order to reach a new destination. Since time immemorial, the theory of International Relations is concerned with the issues of global disturbance (Welch 2014). In this regard, cosmopolitan scholars effectively contributed in widening the theoretical outlook of International Relations by shifting the existing concern from states to individuals. In this way the cosmopolitan scholars were able to address the issues of global disorder efficiently (Weiss and Wilkinson 2014). In spite of various approaches on the part of scholars, the states involved themselves with the duty of managing warfare and conflict between states other than addressing the issues of individuals by encompassing global agreements. According to Pogge, in modern times global justice has been represented as an issue which has not gained recognition as compared to other theories like liberalism and realism (Aradau and Huysmans 2014). However, in recent times, with the advent of issues regarding transnational terrorism, immigration issues, climatic change s and global inequalities the principles of global justice achieved worldwide recognition as it could efficiently address the issues regarding global conflict and cooperation. It has been argued by Cosmopolitans that every international community is vested with a responsibility to involves themselves for the benefit of the individuals. The international communities are involved in the process of active intervention in order to safeguard the rights of vulnerable individuals from violation. They initiated the development of cosmopolitan justice which is governed by the principles of global rule of law (Buzan and Lawson 2014). Many scholars highly criticized the arguments placed by the cosmopolitan scholars by on the grounds of illogical and unreasonableness (Welch 2014). According to them, the cosmopolitans could not address the issues regarding systematic and chronic organizational factors which undermine the major cases of threats faced by the individuals of the states as a whole (Welch 2014). The arguments of the cosmopolitan scholars were examined where it was observed that how the intervention of humanitarian military failed to safeguard the interests of the individuals. It can be emphasized the arguments circulated by contemporary cosmopolitans narrowly focused on the crisis of structural changes. However, the cosmopolitan scholars could recognize the principles of humanitarian intervention and therefore actively contributed in incorporating the regulations of distributive global justice (Acuto and Curtis 2014). The cosmopolitan scholars were able to secure the position of individuals by protecting their moral rights (Kelley and Simmons 2015). The cosmopolitans rightly stated that in order determine the regulations of international relations, it is important on the part of the international community to contribute efficiently towards failed states. However, focus should be solely on the aggressive states in order to maintain peace and order. In the perspective of Pogge, the principles of global justice reflected equal concern towards individuals while addressing the issues of states (Pegram 2015). The cosmopolitans were of the view that the traditional theory of global justice was responsible for inequalities between states and individuals (Chan et al. 2015). It is noteworthy to mention here that such inequalities arose as a result of unequal development within states. However, in some cases, such inequalities may arise as a result of decisions taken by state members who are at the obligation of taking appropriate decisions regarding individuals. However, cosmopolitan scholars emphasized that the elimination of such inequalities could be possible by improving the condition of socio-political institutions (Aradau and Huysmans 2014). The cosmopolitan scholars emphasized that the principles of global justice focused on reducing the inequalities between individual to a large extent. Why Thomas Pogges views gained much recognition: Thomas Pogge forwarded his opinion by stating that from the very beginning the concepts of domestic tyranny and international transactions are not connected. International transactions are associated with the fair exchange of market prices which involves the intervention on individuals (Weiss and Wilkinson 2014). However, the concept of domestic tyranny is completely unjustified. According to Pogge, every individual should have the ability to address the right questions. In this regard, the right questions can be labeled as How to provide eradication of global poverty?or How to organize the world in a better way? The theorists of Cosmopolitan emphasized that from the very beginning the principles of global justice were concerned with the states. However, the condition of nation-state has been challenged by the intervention of global forces. Therefore, the best possible way to protect the interests of the individuals is to promote the development of new political institutions. It is important to note that according to the perspective of relational cosmopolitans inequality between individuals should be reduced. However, such perspective can be totally related to the wellbeing of individuals and the relation between them. As stated by Pogge, the basic structure of international relations should not be governed by interstate principles; however the principles of cosmopolitans shall apply in order to address the inequalities between individuals and states. In this regard, various differences formed between Pogge and the other scholars for the purpose of deciding the actual mechanisms that shall be required for addressing the inequalities. According to the perspective of Pogge, the terms of agreement of international relations shall be framed in such a way so that the social inequalities which arise from natural consequences tend to disappear overtime (Risse 2016). Justice is about the equal wellbeing of the individuals as a whole. Justice is associated with va rious other objectives like to practically involve in foreign policy and global intervention. Firstly, in order to address the inequalities, the states are at the duty to reform the rules of international order which are in existence (Pegram 2015). Since time immemorial, the rules of international relations have been discriminating between the rich and poor. However, at present the rules of international trade is subsidizing the rich and thereby the access of the poor countries towards natural resources has been blocked. In some cases, the poorest countries do not have any access to imports. The objective of Global Justice is to order the rich countries so that they provide access of their markets to poorer countries. It was argued by Pogge that the rich countries can easily open opportunities towards the poorer countries however; such initiation shall not cause any disproportionate harm on their part (Nikolayevich Chumakov 2014). Such reforms are no longer in existence and are not a matter of concern to the individual states. However, it is important on the part of individual states to participate in various global forums like the WTO. According to the Cosmopolitan scholars the states are at the authority to initiate the creation of an international order which should not in any way harm the interests of the poor section of the society (Nikolayevich Chumakov 2014). It is worth noting that such duty is applicable on the part of both the international societies and individual states for the purpose of changing their acts and practices. The multilateral agreements in which such individual states and international agreements are parties shall also change their outlook. Conclusion: In the conclusion it can be stated that in order to achieve the Global justice it is important on the part of the states to develop an ideal theory. In order to provide ideal principles individuals it is important on their part to serve as productive members. Therefore it is important for the states to understand the principles of international relations in order to act effectively towards failed states as well as towards states that threatened peace and stability. Based on the ideas emphasized by Thomas Pogge it can be finally concluded that the basic structural framework of international relations should be governed by the principles of cosmopolitan that identifies the inequalities between individuals rather than focusing on states. References: Acharya, A., 2014. Global International Relations (IR) and Regional WorldsA New Agenda for International Studies.International Studies Quarterly,58(4), pp.647-659. Acuto, M. and Curtis, S., 2014. Assemblage thinking and international relations. InReassembling International Theory(pp. 1-15). Palgrave Pivot, London. Adler-Nissen, R., 2014. Stigma management in international relations: Transgressive identities, norms, and order in international society.International Organization,68(1), pp.143-176. Aradau, C. and Huysmans, J., 2014. Critical methods in International Relations: The politics of techniques, devices and acts.European Journal of International Relations,20(3), pp.596-619. Berger, T.U., 2014. Norms, Identity, and National Security.Security Studies: A Reader. Buzan, B. and Lawson, G., 2014. Rethinking benchmark dates in international relations.European Journal of International Relations,20(2), pp.437-462. Chan, S., Asselt, H., Hale, T., Abbott, K.W., Beisheim, M., Hoffmann, M., Guy, B., Hhne, N., Hsu, A., Pattberg, P. and Pauw, P., 2015. Reinvigorating international climate policy: a comprehensive framework for effective nonstate action.Global Policy,6(4), pp.466-473. Fabbrini, S., 2016. From consensus to domination: the intergovernmental union in a crisis situation. Journal of European Integration, 38(5), pp.587-599. Holzscheiter, A., 2014. Between communicative interaction and structures of signification: Discourse theory and analysis in international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 15(2), pp.142-162. Hurd, I., 2014. The International Rule of Law: Law and the Limit of Politics. Ethics International Affairs, 28(1), pp.39-51. Kelley, J.G. and Simmons, B.A., 2015. Politics by number: Indicators as social pressure in international relations. American journal of political science, 59(1), pp.55-70. Nikolayevich Chumakov, A., 2014. Global world: a problem of governance. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 31(2/3), pp.108-120. Pegram, T., 2015. Governing relationships: the new architecture in global human rights governance. Millennium, 43(2), pp.618-639. Risse, T., 2016. Domestic Politics and Norm Diffusion in International Relations: Ideas Do Not Float Freely (Vol. 34). Taylor Francis. Weiss, T.G. and Wilkinson, R., 2014. Rethinking global governance? Complexity, authority, power, change. International Studies Quarterly, 58(1), pp.207-215. Welch, D.A., 2014. The Justice Motive in International Relations: Past, Present, and Future. International Negotiation, 19(3), pp.410-425.