Thucydides, Please

In the Eclipse of the State? Globalization and the Role of the State, Peter Evans argues that the effects of globalization flow through two interconnected but distinct channels. The increasing weight and changing character of transnational economic relations over the course of the of the last three decades have created a new, more constraining context for state action. As wealth and power are increasingly generated by private transactions that take place across the borders of states rather than within them, it has become harder to sustain the image of states as the preeminent actors at the global level. Ultimately, it is clear that the role of the state has absolutely not been eclipsed, in fact, is more critical than ever before to continuously be involved in regulation and accountability regarding MNCs.

One example of a country who has treated its labour standard regulations as essentially eclipsed is India. India is host to many multinational corporations that reap benefit from its low regulation and accountability by MNC’s. The International Labour Organization is a UN agency directly towards granting rights to workers by setting minimum labour standards. Out of the ILO’s 8 core conventions, India has yet to ratify 4. These include the right to organize, collective bargaining, minimum age convention, worst form of child labour. Notably, many of the MNC factories host child labour and human rights abuses while the existence of organized groups and trade unions is rarely existent or functioning to explain rights or protect.

To parallel, it seems that there is a tendency to treat the ability of a corporation to  take ownership and accountability for human rights abuses, pollution, and labour malpractices. Nike was the first targeted brand with connection to poor working conditions which was revealed to the public, largely because of their size and popularity. Since this, Nike has regularly published reports on working conditions and acknowledges issues within its factories. Public shaming and allegations forced Nike to change their bad reputation and show concern for improving working conditions.

In large part, India has established better judicial mechanisms reflecting human rights standards amidst outcry and disbelief from the international community. Similarly, companies such have Nike has been forced into greater transparency with the public to keep up a good public image. It seems that a myriad of actors who are able to shame, threaten or directly pinpoint to the global community major flaws in their capabilities, then change does happen. While some countries and companies have illustrated poor engagement to any remediation, applying pressure has made for positive change. By using media, freedom of speech, and transnational networks, efforts can be made that states and corporations can no longer chalk up human rights abuses under the guise of an eclipse out of anyones control.

Over the last several years, human rights abuses and labour standard  malpractices by multinational corporations have taken to the spotlight. Notably, a number of factory fires and collapses in export processing zones in Southeast Asia have been advocated for by the media, bringing much needed attention to the global consumer and international community. One example was the Rana Plaza collapse in Bangladesh in 2013 that left over 1,000, majority women, dead. It was reported that just that morning, a number of women complained about the buildings seemingly deteriorating structures and pleaded for someone to look into it. Much to the shock of the international world,  human rights abuse mechanisms and functioning trade unions were, and continue to be, nearly inoperable in many of these regions.

The Ruggie Principles were proposed to measure and strengthen the human rights performances of the business sector around the world. The “Protect, Respect, Remedy’ has been used as a framework for business and human rights.  Importantly, various studies have been conducted on business malpractices globally to consider whether corporations can be trained to recognize that working with the United Nations is positive.

A large scale comparative study conducted by Toffel (2015) produced positive data that supports Ruggies hypothesis. There are functioning accountability mechanisms to support that corporations can be trained to behave better through corporate social responsibility in respect to global labour standards. They found that suppliers are more likely to adhere to global labour standards when they are embedded in states that participate actively in International Labour Organization treaty regime and have stringent domestic labour law and high levels of press freedom. They also found that suppliers perform better when they serve buyers located in countries where consumers are wealthy and socially conscious. These findings suggest the importance of overlapping state, civil society, and market governance regimes to meaningful transnational regulation (Toffel 2015).

Therefore, Ruggies principles are relevant to the critical conversation over the relationship between multinational corporation accountability and state accountability. MNCs are complex international actors with rent seeking capabilities but exhibit certain elements of corporate social responsibility. To make Ruggies principles more meaningful, conversation on multinational corporations must continually adapt to consider a multiplicity of actors (state, global consumers, media, NGOs, people affected by externalities) and seek to hold each powerful actor accountable for the protection of workers and citizens.

Complimentarily, Keck and Sikkink produced interesting research on Transnational Advocacy networks in International and Regional Politics. Network is an appropriate term to describe the conditions under which increased social responsibility upon MNCs might be achieved. Networks allow us to consider the role of media, churches, trade unions, consumer organizations, intellectuals, NGOs, governments, foundations, local social movements, and a myriad of social and political actors. These international actors have widely divergent policies and goals, but their social priorities may place pressure upon larger and more powerful international and domestic actors to implement CSR.

A significant shift in global thinking would be to consider multinational corporations as sources of governance, in the way that we see states this way. Ruggies principles are in part are asking us to shift our way of thinking. Rather than seeing MNCs and states as separate units, considering the relationship between the two as nuanced, dependent, and equally capable of supporting and respecting the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights. Further, by considering a myriad of actors, appropriate accountability mechanisms for human rights abuses and labour standards will influence the state-MNC relationship towards a more socially responsible unit.

Toffel, M. W., Short, J. L., & Ouellet, M. (2015). Codes in context: How states, markets, and civil society shape adherence to global labor standards. Regulation & Governance,9(3), 205-223. doi:10.1111/rego.12076

Crawford, R. (2019). MNC’s and the Evolution of Global Governance (Lecture). Multinational Corporations & Globalization. 

Kenneth N. Waltz takes a neorealist approach providing incredible insight into the functionality and application of a neorealist thinker. Waltz published the article Why Iran Should Get the Bomb in an issues of Foreign Affairs in which he contributed to the conversation on the Iranian Nuclear Crisis. He argues that Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons would provide security and would ultimately reduce the unsustainable imbalance of military and nuclear power in the Middle East. He urges US, European and Israeli actors must abandon their fear of the militarization and nuclearization of Iran and see it instead as a vessel for stability and a balance of power using the neorealist perspective.

Waltz provides three possible outcomes to Iran’s nuclear program. Firstly, an unlikely set of sanctions on Iran which could push them closer to the development of nuclear weapons under for the safety net of security. A second outcome might see Iran developing an advanced nuclear weapons program in a breakout capacity in order to quickly develop a weapon without testing. Finally, Iran could go public in testing nuclear weapons. Waltz argues that the third scenario would result in Middle Eastern states restoring the balance of power and experience stability in the region.

Waltz highlights that the balance of power in the Middle East between Israel and Iran shifted greatly in Israel’s favour due to their weapons capacity. The balance of power must therefore be restored by allowing Iran to develop a nuclear capacity themselves as mentioned in Waltz’ third scenario. He boldly makes the claim ‘where nuclear capabilities emerge, so, too, does stability’. This article is a continuity of the opinions forged in Cold War Era that highlight the role of the security dilemma at a state level. He makes the claim, ‘by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less’. As discussed in a prior class, Waltz is providing a defensive response to the phenomena he is seeing and the role of weapons in securing this response.

Waltz’s article highlights the neorealist’s imperative focus on the structure of the international system that allows the interaction of state actors. He sees the weaponization as a movement in the rise of state powers and increasing their security in a comprehensive international state system. He views states as the next level in this analysis as broad-based actors that have equal right to nuclear weaponry for ‘greater security’ and to avoid’ international isolation and condemnation’.  Waltz articulates his interest in powerful state actors on the rise, Iran, but also super power actors who are conducting speculative defensive analysis such as the US, European and Israeli actors within the international system.

This paper absolutely sheds light on the applications of an archetypical neorealist thinker. Waltz’s article is invaluable as it is a primary example of  the neorealist focus on the balance of power, security, and multifaceted structural system in which states interact. While some of the resources provided in this course compare and summarize many views, this article dives deeper. It gives a perspective on phenomena and main issues of contention provided by a renowed neorealist thinker. It gave me that critical tools to recognize the main elements of a neorealist thinker on subjects I will likely see in the news and outside of this course.

As a fourth year student, I originally set forth in the course to push my Political Science and Economics degree deeper into the world of International Relations.  I started this course (and still hold) an understanding of Political Science and Economics being heavily reliant upon one another and existing in union. I have less of a heavy dependence on the theoretical and therefore was interested in integrating theory further into my current education.  To reiterate, I have really engaged with the quantitative aspects of UBC’s Political Science program and further into the economic realm of its applications. However, I was interested in discovering a more comprehensive theoretical vessel to apply learned theory to real world concepts.

I was immediately struck with the understanding that our disciplines understanding of theory and the world was much more complex than I had ever expected.  Skimming through the textbook and doing some background research into the discipline, I began to question how this course was going to piece together. Is this lecture hall simply a space to allow us to determine which theory we relate to most? Or will we be expected to follow the yellow brick road of realism so famously highlighted as classical international relations theory? How was I going to draw from a severely broad-based index of theorists and opinions and navigate my way through this course while keeping my feet on the ground?

So far I have been left with a question mark regarding not only the relationship of theory and real world phenomena but even so far as to say my discipline, Political Science. Retrospectively, POLI 367B has somewhat disembodied the ideologies that UBC’s Political Science department features and further divulged how other students across the country or world engage in the phenomena around us (or whether we should engage with phenomena at all). I am starting to see why I have always felt a HUGE disconnect between the quantitative aspects of my learning and the theory I was introduced to earlier in my degree. At this point I’m tightening my seatbelt on this rollercoaster and I’m interested to see what is to come.