C17(d) - International Organization(s)
Date: Jun 14 | Time: 10:15am to 11:45am | Location: 680 Sherbrooke St. West 1085
Chair/Président/Présidente : Tay Jeong (McGill University)
Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Michael Lipson (Concordia University)
Burns from BREXIT and NATO Common Funding agreements: A universal comparative analysis of recent bargains confirms the loss of British position in Common Funding negotiations: Anessa Kimball (Université Laval)
Abstract: NATO Common Funding agreements serve as regular bargaining opportunities among partners to re-slice the burdens of managing its household budgets. This article demonstrates the continued slippage of the UK in terms of relative contributions over the last several decades. Moreover, the 2021 agreement confirms that French contributions no longer closely track with the UK both of which may be externalities of the UK exiting the EU. The consequences of the UK’s reduction of central role in NATO burden discussions alongside its economic stagnation offers several interesting, and unanticipated, consequences of exiting the European Union which bled into the transatlantic defence Alliance. The observation German and US contributions are set to equal since the 2021-2024 negotiations merits discussion. The implications of a ‘universal comparative’ analysis of the last funding agreement using publicly available data on economic capacity are discussed with attention to the crisis in Ukraine and the impending US Presidential election season which coincides with NATO’s 75th anniversary alongside enlargement to Finland (and Sweden). With Washington hosting the 2024 NATO Summit next summer while US Presidential primary campaigns should be in full swing, the chances of conservatives instrumentalizing the alliance, its funding and the crisis in Ukraine increase, therefore this article closes with recommendations for stakeholders.
UNDRIP, State Sovereignty, & Indigenous Collective Rights to Self-Determination: Makonen Bondoc (McGill University)
Abstract: Makonen E.G. Bondoc, PhD Candidate, McGill University
makonen.bondoc@mail.mcgill.ca
Supervisor: Professor Catherine Lu
catherine.lu@mcgill.ca
The paper I wish to present for the Canadian Political Science Association 2024 Annual Conference is a chapter from my current dissertation project. This research project potentially aligns with requests for contributions that address the visibility of some issues and the silence of others both within the fields of international relations theory, international law, and human rights. The paper itself can considered an analysis of the global and domestic silencing of issues surrounding Indigenous human rights recognition, protection, and implementation. The main problem explored in this paper is: how international law fails to affirm Indigenous collective rights to self-determination (CRSD). International law historically has accorded Indigenous peoples’ inferior status within international law, with implications for both Indigenous peoples’ exclusion from sovereignty recognition and from Indigenous peoples’ human rights realization. I will show how, beginning in the late 15th century, and continuing to this day, international law and the international system continuously evolved to create legal doctrines, categories, and mechanisms that closed off viable opportunities for Indigenous CRSD recognition from nation-states and international society at large. I will diagnose how international law continuously reproduces exclusionary dichotomies that serve to deny Indigenous peoples’ CRSD. Specifically, how these legal and rhetorical dichotomies establish and uphold sovereign exclusion and non-recognition of Indigenous peoples as legislative and diplomatic equals within nation-states and the international community. While the rise and development of international human rights has challenged sovereign domination in some forms, I show that, despite its promise and emancipatory potential, international human rights law, similar to international law, has failed to remedy the denial of Indigenous peoples’ CRSD in the international system. In so doing, I outline significant problems of international order in relation to Indigenous peoples’ CRSD, providing the background context for the central questions guiding my dissertation research project surrounding effective implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
‘We’re an organization that does stuff’: The International Organization for Migration, Logistics and Expert Authority in Migration Governance: Megan Bradley (McGill University)
Abstract: This paper advances accounts of expertise as a source of power in migration governance by examining how the International Organization for Migration (IOM) has cultivated authority as a logistical expert. Accounts of expert authority in global governance have traditionally focused on the production and control of information, particularly research and data. In contrast, this study demonstrates that logistical expertise was pivotal to the organization’s early successes and long-term survival, and shows how logistical prowess and values associated with the logistical frame—such as efficiency, flexibility, nimbleness and ‘value for money’—have underpinned IOM’s expansion in significant ways. Drawing on extensive archival research and in-depth interviews, the paper traces how IOM’s logistical operations have diversified over time, from interventions explicitly intended to facilitate the movement of (selected) migrants to a contemporary focus on a much wider range of activities such as humanitarian aid, returns, and data collection, that apply logistical techniques to manage or control mobility. The contribution is two-fold. First, the article advances understanding of IOM as an increasingly influential player in global migration governance by offering a concertedly historicized perspective focused on its logistical activities and identity. Second, by bringing scholarship on expertise and critical logistics into conversation, this work illuminates how logistics functions as a form of expertise, and demonstrates the power, risks and limitations of logistics as a source of expert authority in migration governance.
EVALUATING THE DOMESTIC IMPACT OF JOINING THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: A ‘BOTTOM-UP’ VIEW: Laszlo Sarkany (Huron University College)
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to evaluate what the operation of domestic political and bureaucratic programs reveal about state commitment to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The research will begin by analyzing programs established in Canada, and then will focus on evaluating similar programs in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Argentina, and Kenya. States join the ICC by passing domestic implementing legislation which obliges them to cooperate with the Court. The scholarly literature discussing why states comply with the ICC falls withing the broader discussion on state cooperation and compliance with international organizations. The discussion, however, tends to focus on those initial reasons and processes of joining. Even the literature that focuses on domestic politics – by Hillebrandt, 2014 ; Dukalkis and Johansen, 2013 ; Alter, 2014 ; and Simmons, 2009 ; and others – seem to focus solely on how those initial efforts to join an organization are determined by domestic political actors. Much less emphasis is placed on understanding what the domestic practices – once states have joined an IO – reveal about the commitment of states to these IOs. This paper seeks to begin to fill this gap in the literature by focusing on already established programs and gauging the long-term impact of domestic initiatives on commitment and compliance using comparative analyses. In a broader sense, this research seeks to add a much needed comparative dimension to the scholarly discussion about compliance and cooperation with international organizations.
Mending the Fences: Re-Examining Africa and International Criminal Court (ICC) Relationship: Eugene Danso (Concordia University)
Abstract: The refusal of some African states to cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been an obstacle in the adjudication of justice, especially in seeking fair trials and the presentation of substantive evidence for the prosecution of suspects. In response to these challenges, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has introduced some institutional reforms geared towards promoting cooperation. Despite the broad array of literature on the relationship between African states and the International Criminal Court (ICC), scholars tend to narrowly focus on African states resistance to the ICC without paying much attention to how institutional reforms adopted by the Court have contributed towards improving cooperation between the two (Kerr 2020; Rukooko and Silverman 2019; Vilmer 2016). The international law and politics literature narrowly explains state and international institutions’ relations on grounds of sovereignty (Clarke 2010; Oates 2019; Finnemore and Sikkink 1998) and legitimacy (Barnett and Finnemore 1999; Oates 2017), without placing emphasis on institutional reforms. This limits researchers’ capacity to understand the institutional mechanisms of the ICC and the extent to which cooperation is achieved in the adjudication of justice.
Using a within-case analysis, the proposed study seeks to test the liberal institutionalist framework by empirically examining institutional reforms adopted by the ICC and their impact on the Court’s relationship with African states.
The proposed study, therefore, goes beyond the standard narratives and seeks to assess the institutional reforms adopted by the ICC, and further advance academic knowledge on state resistance to international institutions and the approaches adopted towards cooperation.