Public Authority

Public authority is necessary to maintain some level of control over violence between states. Since public authority binds actors to a common promise, which autonomous sovereigns willingly commit too, the likelihood of fighting decreases. This is especially true concerning the use of nuclear weapons. For example, when the U.S., Soviet Union, China, France and the U.K, signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970 they agreed to take “effective measures  relating to cessation of the nuclear arms and to nuclear disarmament”. Moreover, the treaty allowed actors to gain nuclear technology but not use it. In this case, the treaty acted as a public authority by preventing the signatories use of nuclear power. While public authority is not a complete peace guarantor it does prevent aggression between actors through treaties. 

In Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination, Gusterson discusses the common perception that nuclear weapons are most dangerous in the hands of Third World leaders. While both western and non-western countries share the same arguments to defend their weapons, the Western discourse on nuclear proliferation legitimates the nuclear monopoly of the recognized nuclear powers, thus legitimating western violence to deter non-western countries from obtaining such weapons. Claiming that nuclear weapons is dangerous in the hands of Third World nations is clearly a double standard. For example, American politicians and the media criticized India for investing on nuclear energy while poverty was rampant there. However, there has been poverty in America too. Americans have also claimed that nuclear energy can provide more security for less money. If that is the case, then surely a developing nation like India would also like “more bang for the buck”. And lastly, Americans claim military spending is good for economic development. If so, then why wouldn't India want to invest in nuclear energy? Obviously, India would. “Legitimate violence” exists when an actors narrative becomes dominant and thus, Westerners tend to believe it is acceptable when western countries harbor and use nuclear weapons but not when non-western countries do.

Multilateral treaties may be considered useful tools for promoting peace because they deter actors from doing certain things like using nuclear force (ie. Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970). This type of public authority is binding on the actors through their own volition so it does not impede on their sovereignty. However, these treaties have the capacity to make signatories a force larger than themselves, a sort of collective that is able to drive specific narratives or markets in ways that benefit them, as in the Western discourse on nuclear proliferation. To conclude, public authority can be viewed in a positive and a negative light. In some cases it may help avert war but in others it may be used by dominant actor(s) to undermine non-signatories.

References

Gusterson, Hugh. "Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination." Cultural
Anthropology 14, no. 1 (1999): 111-43. doi:10.1525/can.1999.14.1.111.

Comments

  1. EHJune 30, 2018 at 11:19 PM

    I think public authority works very well for mostly-rational, sovereign states with large influence, ie the US or Russia. Problems seem to occur when smaller states or non-state organizations/groups try to make their voices heard, violently or otherwise, and can't be heard over the machinations of the larger states.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousJuly 3, 2018 at 3:46 PM

    I would agree with both the premise and Emma's comment. I think that treaties area necessary tool to pool resources and create some sort of balance in the international arena. I do think, as well, that small countries or those that feel alienated will not be compelled to join if the benefit really doesn't outweigh the cost. I would argue, however, that large countries have just as much to gain from deviating from the agreement under the table. If I can't use nuclear weapons, then perhaps I can use chemical weapons. Or, perhaps, if I can't use nuclear weapons, I can still fund other pariah states to obtain and use theirs. I feel that such treaties that attempt to limit the scope of power for nations only works on the surface, the playing field isn't 2D when evaluating how to work outside the scope of a treaty.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anarchy in the USA

           While discussing realist motives and intentions, it seems that the United States is headed down a curious path worth looking at. Clearly a powerful nation, the United States should be in a unique position to latch onto globalization in order to secure a stable future. Calm, cool, collected domination is a much better look than ramping up rhetoric and perceived might, because your neighbor's interest to attack is seemingly when they are most threatened by show of force.             The United States has long taken advantage of its allies, while using economic bargaining to secure peaceful existence. The European Union is a clear ally in the spread of Democracy and Capitalism, two tenants central to the existence of the United States. It is this point that makes recent events troubling with regards to a peaceful future.             In an effort to bolster nationalism, our country has tur...
Read more

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more