Roadmap for Answer Writing
1. Introduction (40-50 words)
- Introduce the role of international institutions (e.g., UN Security Council, WTO) in promoting fairness in global relations.
- State that, while these institutions set rules for fairness, states often prioritize their national interests, sometimes overriding the moral principles and objectives set by these bodies.
2. The Role of International Institutions in Promoting Fairness (50-60 words)
- UN Security Council: Ensures international peace and security, promoting fairness in conflicts and global relations.
- World Trade Organization (WTO): Aims for fair trade practices and resolving trade disputes.
- Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam: India’s philosophy promoting fairness globally.
- Mention how these institutions promote collective justice through standards, like prohibiting trade-distorting practices.
Source: UN Charter, WTO Agreements
3. Reasons States Prioritize Their Own Interests Over Moral Values (150-180 words)
A. Sense of Insecurity and Power Politics
- Countries often act in ways that increase their security or influence, even at the expense of fairness.
- Example: Nuclear proliferation (e.g., North Korea and India’s nuclear programs) despite their commitment to non-violence.
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
B. Regional Supremacy and Economic Interests
- Countries often act to secure regional dominance, disregarding fairness in their relations with other states.
- Example: China’s support for Pakistan, including vetoing sanctions against it, disregarding the concerns of India.
Source: Global Policy Forum, 2021
C. Colonial Hangover and Interference in Internal Affairs
- Some countries continue to interfere in the internal matters of former colonies or other sovereign nations.
- Example: UK Parliament discussing the abrogation of Article 370 in India, reflecting continued political influence.
Source: The Guardian, 2020
D. Distributive Justice and Climate Change
- Developed nations often fail to take responsibility for climate change, focusing on their own economic growth instead.
- Example: Developed countries’ reluctance to help developing nations mitigate climate change impacts.
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2021
E. Self-interest vs. Global Standards
- States often place their citizens’ needs ahead of international fairness, especially when it comes to economic or strategic goals.
- Example: India’s reliance on fossil fuels for industrial growth, which conflicts with global carbon reduction goals.
Source: Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests (2020)
4. Conclusion (40-50 words)
- Summarize that despite the efforts of international institutions to ensure fairness, states often prioritize national security, economic growth, and regional dominance, which undermines the objectives of these institutions. Highlight that moral practices in international relations are necessary to address global issues such as climate change and terrorism.
5. Relevant Facts for Answer (Sources and Examples)
- UN Security Council & WTO: Both aim to promote fairness, but often countries act based on power politics (UN Charter, WTO Agreements).
- Nuclear Proliferation (North Korea, India): Despite commitments to non-violence, countries pursue nuclear weapons for national security (IAEA, 2020).
- China-Pakistan Relations: China’s support for Pakistan illustrates how regional supremacy can conflict with international fairness (Global Policy Forum, 2021).
- UK and Article 370: Example of former colonial power meddling in domestic affairs (The Guardian, 2020).
- Climate Change: Developed nations’ reluctance to fund climate change mitigation efforts in developing nations (IPCC, 2021).
- India’s Fossil Fuel Reliance: Conflicts with global climate goals (Indian Ministry of Environment, 2020).
6. Key Tips for Writing the Answer
- Use a structured approach: Introduction → Key Points → Examples → Conclusion.
- Provide relevant examples with appropriate facts.
- Mention sources for data and support the examples.
- Balance between moral values and self-interest in international relations.
- Ensure clarity and coherence in writing.
In international relations, states often prioritize their own interests over moral values, despite the existence of institutions promoting fairness. Realism, a key theory in this field, emphasizes that nations act primarily to enhance their power and ensure self-preservation. For instance, Russia’s support for Bashar al-Assad during the Syrian civil war illustrates this. Despite widespread calls for intervention due to human rights abuses, Russia maintained its alliance to safeguard its strategic interests in the region.
Similarly, China’s relationship with North Korea demonstrates how national interests override moral considerations. China’s economic ties with North Korea persist despite the latter’s human rights violations and aggressive nuclear testing, as Beijing seeks to maintain regional stability and its influence.
These examples highlight that while institutions like the United Nations promote cooperation and ethical standards, states often sideline these ideals when their core interests are at stake. The realist perspective suggests that moral considerations may be secondary to the pursuit of power, revealing a persistent tension in global politics where ethical aspirations frequently clash with national agendas.
The answer provides a solid foundation for discussing the prioritization of state interests over moral values in international relations. However, it could benefit from additional depth and specificity.
Missing Examples and Data:
The answer mentions Russia’s support for Bashar al-Assad and China’s relationship with North Korea but lacks specific data or statistics to bolster these claims. For instance, citing the number of UN resolutions against Assad or specific trade figures between China and North Korea would enhance credibility.
Broader Context:
Including more examples, such as the United States’ actions in Iraq or its relations with Saudi Arabia, would provide a more comprehensive view of how states act in their self-interest.
Swapna you can use this feedback also
Institutional Impact:
Discussing how institutions like the United Nations have attempted to address these issues—such as sanctions or diplomatic efforts—could illustrate the gap between institutional goals and state actions.
Theoretical Framework:
While mentioning realism is essential, a brief explanation of how this theory contrasts with liberal perspectives on international cooperation could enrich the discussion.
Incorporating these elements would strengthen the argument and provide a more nuanced understanding of the complexities in international relations.
Freed from the burdens of war, entities like the United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO), and International Monetary Fund (IMF) emerged within the tangled web of international relations to instill fairness, cooperation, and stability across the world. Yet in practice, countries often put their own interests first, rather than working in accordance with the moral principles and goals defined by these organizations. A leading instance is the UN Security Council, which is pivotal to preserving peace and security globally. Here, member states with power have used their veto rights to obstruct resolutions that are contrary to their national interests. For instance, the US has employed its veto power to deny proposals criticizing Israel in resume to its endgame interests in the Middle East and sees that it will not be able to get through its strategic and diplomatic ambitions in the region if the Palestinian independence issue, that states that peace can only be reached with the independence of Palestine when the displacement of the Palestinian population is discussed ágain in the future. Likewise, China has blocked sanctions on Syria, motivated both by its non-interference principles and its close ties to Assad.
On the economic front, the WTO seeks fair and equitable trade practices, but dominant economies frequently seek agreements that favor their own commercial sectors. The trade war sparked in 2018 by the U.S. with China is a perfect example of how national interests preempt the tenets of open and fair trade. The decision for the U.S. to impose tariffs to protect domestic industries — even at the cost of destabilizing the global economy and violating the WTO’s mandate against such unilateral action — was rational behavior in a world where security has become scarce and economic systems are opaque. In conclusion, while global institutions are central in exporting international standards, these examples show the overarching hindrance to global fairness and cooperation is the self-serving nature of nations.
The answer effectively discusses the tension between state interests and the objectives of international institutions like the UN and WTO. However, it could be improved by addressing several key points.
Clarity and Structure:
The answer is dense and could benefit from clearer organization. Breaking it into distinct sections (e.g., introduction, examples, conclusion) would enhance readability.
Missing Data and Examples:
Specific statistics or data regarding veto usage in the UN or quantitative impacts of the US-China trade war would strengthen the argument. For instance, mentioning the number of vetoes the US has cast concerning Israel would provide concrete evidence.
Swaswati You can use this feedback also
Including more examples, such as the EU’s response to migration crises or Russia’s actions in Ukraine, would illustrate the broader pattern of prioritizing national interests.
Theoretical Context:
A brief explanation of how realism contrasts with liberalism in international relations could provide valuable context to the discussion.
Implications of Actions:
Discussing the long-term implications of such actions on global governance and cooperation would add depth to the analysis.
By addressing these areas, the answer could present a more nuanced and substantiated view of the complexities in international relations.
Model Answer
Introduction
International institutions like the UN Security Council and the World Trade Organization aim to promote fairness in global relations. However, states often prioritize national interests, disregarding moral values and the objectives set by these institutions. This leads to a gap between stated commitments and actual practices in international relations.
Reasons for States Not Adhering to Fairness (200-220 words)
1. Sense of Insecurity and Power Politics
International relations are often driven by a balance-of-power politics, where nations act out of insecurity, focusing on maximizing their power. Even nations that pledge non-violence and peaceful conduct often pursue nuclear weapons to secure their sovereignty.
Example: Despite commitments to non-violence, countries like North Korea and India have pursued nuclear weapons for security reasons.
2. Regional Supremacy and Economic Interests
Nations often prioritize regional dominance and economic self-interest over fairness, supporting other nations or taking actions that serve their objectives.
Example: China’s support for Pakistan, including arms funding and vetoing international sanctions, highlights its regional aspirations and its disregard for the wider impact on other countries, particularly India.
3. Colonial Hangover and Interference in Internal Affairs
Despite the global commitment to sovereignty and non-interference, some states continue to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries, often out of historical legacies or geopolitical considerations.
Example: The UK’s discussions in Parliament about the abrogation of Article 370 in India demonstrated how former colonial powers continue to influence domestic affairs.
4. Distributive Justice and Climate Change
Developed nations, who are primarily responsible for climate change, often fail to contribute equitably to climate mitigation, prioritizing their own economic growth over global sustainability.
Example: Developed countries often resist providing the necessary support to developing countries in addressing climate change, despite being the major contributors to it.
5. Self-interest vs. Global Standards
States often pursue policies based on their own national interests, which may conflict with global standards of fairness and justice.
Example: India’s industrial growth, fueled by fossil fuels, conflicts with international climate change agreements that prioritize carbon reduction.
Conclusion
Although international institutions aim to ensure fairness, states often prioritize self-interest, security, and economic gains over the moral standards they publicly uphold. This discrepancy challenges global cooperation and underscores the need for ethical practices in international relations, especially in addressing global crises like terrorism and climate change.