POLS2133 Week 1 Introduction and Overview

Agenda
1. Introduction: United Nations (UN) Resolutions on Israeli Settlements and Jerusalem
2. A Brief Theoretical Overview
3. Course Overview: The Semester Ahead
4. Logistics
5. Political Science Writing

1. Introduction- The UN in Action- Israeli Settlements and Status of Jerusalem

 Round 1- UNSC Resolution 2334 Against Israeli Settlements

o What is it?
 Legally non-binding UNSC resolution adopted Dec 2016 (does not
impose or command states to follow it, but force comes via public
opinion)
o What does it say?
 “1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the
Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem,
has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under
international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-
State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;
 2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease
all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory,
including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal
obligations in this regard...”
o Who voted and how?
(UNSC has 15 members, 5 permanent with veto power- China, US, France,
UK, Russia- 10 rotating members, needs 9/15 to go through)
 Yes:
 China, France, Russia, UK, Angola, Egypt, Japan, Malaysia, NZ,
Senegal, Spain, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela
 No:
 No-one
 Abstain:
 USA (Obama admin- wants Palestinian state and needs to
consider domestic Jewish-US support)
 Round 2- UNGA Resolution ES-10/19 on the Status of Jerusalem
(Nobody has veto, every country has 1 vote, everybody has vote)
o What is it?
 Legally non-binding UNGA resolution adopted Dec 2017
o What does it say?
 1. “Affirms that any decisions and actions which purport to have
altered the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy
City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be
rescinded... and in this regard calls upon all States to refrain from the
establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem...;
  Demands that all States comply with Security Council resolutions
regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem...;
 Reiterates its call for the reversal of the negative trends on the ground
that are imperiling the two-State solution...”
o Who voted and how?
 Yes- 128
 E.g. Britain, France, China, Russia, Germany, Japan, NZ, SK
 No- 9
 Israel, US (Trump), Guatemala, Honduras, Marshall Islands,
Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Togo)
 Abstain- 35
 E.g. AUS (did not want to alienate close Islamic neighbours),
CAN, Mexico
 The Politics of UN Resolutions- What happened in the UN?
o Key players
 Israel
 Target of both resolutions
 Substantial disagreement in Israeli society about settlements
and Jerusalem as diplomatic capital
 Palestinian people (instant refugees when state of Israel created)
 Since ’67, growth in settlements in occupied territories, incl. E
Jerusalem
 Settlements make a 2-state solution very difficult to achieve
 USA
 Relations with Israel, Jewish Americans
 Relations with allies
o Questions
 Imagine you are a foreign policy advisor to Israel/Palestine/USA. What
is your assessment of your country’s strategic situation in relation to
Israeli settlements and the status of Jerusalem?
 What policy option(s) would you recommend to advance your
country’s national interests?
 Round 1- UNSC Resolution 2334 Against Israeli Settlements Analysis
o Palestine’s Approach to Israeli Settlement Resolution
 Interests
 Get Israel to accept the 2-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian
conflict
 Evacuation of, or at least no new, settlements
 What Policy Options Available?
 War against Israel?
 Bilateral peace negotiation with Israel? (as of late 2016, how
to deal with the Netanyahu government, Hamas, and
impending Trump administration handover?
 Multilateral diplomacy within the UN?
 Policy Choice
  As early as October 2016, Palestinian diplomats began
lobbying for a UNSC resolution (and got it)
o Israel’s Approach to the Israeli Settlements Resolution
 Interests
 No UNSC resolution!
 What Policy Options Available?
 Avoid resolution getting on UN’s agenda
 (Next) convince important players to veto ... or abstain
 Policy Choice
 When draft resolution circulated 21 Dec, Israel intensified
lobbying to postpone vote and persuade US to veto. Failed.
 E.g. Israeli PM called NZ’s Foreign Minister hours before vote,
warning that Israel viewed NZ’s push for the resolution as a
“declaration of war.” Cut off relations for ~ 6 months.
o US’s Approach to the Israeli Settlements Resolution
 Interests
 Peace and security in Middle East
 Continued support of Israel
 Obama admin saw Israeli settlements as obstacle to 2-state
solution
 What Policy Options Available?
 Gunboat diplomacy vis-à-vis Israel? (too significant of a move)
 Bilateral negotiation with Israel?
 Not vetoing UNSC Resolution 2334?
 Policy Choice
 By not vetoing the UNSC resolution, Obama administration
sent a signal to Israel about US commitment to 2-state
solution, whilst still making its overall support of Israel clear
 Round 2- UNGA Resolution ES-10/19 on the Status of Jerusalem Analaysis
o Palestine’s Approach to Status of Jerusalem Resolution
 Interests
 Prevent Jerusalem from becoming Israel’s (int’l) capital
 What Policy Options Available?
 War?
 Trilateral negotiation w/ US and Israel?
 UN multilateral diplomacy?
o UNSC not possible: Trump admin vetoed
o Palestine is UN ‘non-member observer’
 Policy Choice
 Yemen (Chairman of Arab Group) and Turkey (Chair of Summit
of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) requested UNGA to
take matter up
o Israel’s Approach to Status of Jerusalem Resolution
 Interests
 Have Jerusalem become Israel’s (int’l) capital
 Undermine any efforts contra the above
  Policy Choice
 Get parties to vote against in UNSC (esp. US to veto)
 Get as many parties as possible to vote against in UNGA (Israel
made “immense efforts” to persuade traditional allies and
developing states to abstain/ vote against the UNGA
resolution)
o US’s Approach to Status of Jerusalem Resolution
 Interests
 Have Jerusalem become Israel’s (int’l) capital
 • Undermine any efforts contra the above
 What Policy Options Were Available?
 Block/stymie efforts in UNSC, UNGA
 Policy Choice
 Veto UNSC resolution
 Vote against UNGA resolution
 Lobby others to vote against UNGA resolution
o E.g. threaten to cut aid to UN member states who
support resolution
o “The US will be taking names” (Nikki Hayley)
 What does this say about the UN’s Relevance and Power?
o For some, these examples show that UN is inconsequential:
 Non-binding resolutions, so no legal effect
 US support in UN may have emboldened Israel, which continues to
support settlements
 “The UN has such great potential but right now it is just a club for
people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad!” (DJT)
o For others, these examples show that UN does matter:
 Forum for discussion and peaceful disagreement, a place to achieve
things that would’ve been harder or impossible in a unilateral or
bilateral context
 States engage seriously. Many believe Israel (and US) have incurred
substantial reputational costs as result of efforts to stymie resolutions
 Israel cut off diplomatic relations w/ NZ ... Temporarily.
 The Point
o The world has many problems that affect welfare and interests of many
countries
o States can’t manage these alone – not even superpowers. Past century has
witnessed creation of remarkable system of intergovernmental organisations
(IOs) to do things like:
 Facilitate cooperation and coordination between governments, and
increasingly non-state actors and individuals
 Create int’l rules, as well as mechanisms to monitor behaviour and
secure compliance
 Provide services, e.g., information collection/provision, dispute
adjudication, food distribution
 So what? Why should we care?
 o You care about global challenges: IOs are critical component of (maybe
impediment to) solutions to big challenges of our time
o You care about your state’s national interests: IOs offer important
mechanisms for states to pursue their objectives, but also place constraints
on what they can and can’t do
o You want to work in foreign policy, for an IGO/NGO, or in international law:
you need to understand the politics to succeed at your job
o You’re an IR nerd: The existence and activities of IOs are foundational
questions of contemporary IR. Many interesting research questions

2. A Brief Theoretical Overview

 How we study IOs in this course

o What are IOs, and why do they exist?
 a) Why do states create them?
 b) What problems are they designed to solve?
 c) What obligations do states take on when joining them?
o When are IOs successful (and when not)?
 a) When/why do states comply with, or violate, obligations?
 b) What mechanisms do IOs have to enforce obligations on states?
 c) How (if at all) do IOs affect world politics?
 What is an IO?
o 2+ governments
o Established by treaty or some other international legal document
o Permanent (headquarters, staff etc.)
o Regular meetings and decision making processes
 Realism and IOs
o Core assumptions:
 States are rational utility-maximisers
• International system is anarchic
• States care about absolute and relative gains
o Views of IOs:
 Anarchy makes international cooperation difficult because of
insecurity and unequal gains
 IOs usually reflect, rather than altering, power relations
 IOs are typically epiphenomenal
 Neoliberal Institutionalism and IOs
o Core assumptions
 States are rational utility-maximisers
 Int. system is anarchic
 States care about absolute gains
o Views of IOs
 Int. coop can be challenging but happens a great deal
 IOs help states structure and manage relationships
 IOs can transform states’ interests
 Constructivism and IOs
o Core assumptions
  Human interaction is determined by ideas, not just interests
 Core components of IR, including anarchy itself, are socially
constructed
o Views of IOs
 IOs are usually established to promote a normative goal
 IOs help promote, define, and reshape norms
 To understand IOs, we have to look beyond the state
 IOs can be(come) dysfunctional, developing pathologies
 Ideas can promote cooperation, just as they can inhibit cooperation

3. Course Overview

 Week 1:
 Introduction to the course
 Week 2:
 What are the basic tenets of the realist approach to IOs?
 Week 3:
 What are the basic tenets of the neoliberal institutionalist approach to IOs?
 Week 4:
 What is the basic structure of the UN? What does the UN do, and how?
 Week 5:
 What are the basic tenets of the constructivist approach to IOs?
 Week 6:
 How successfully has the UN Development Programme fostered interstate
cooperation in development assistance? What explains the origins and track
record of the UN’s Millennium Development Goals?
 Week 7:
 What role has the UN played in maintaining or restoring international peace
and security?
 Week 8:
 How successfully has the International Criminal Court dealt with genocide,
crimes against humanity, and war crimes?
 Week 9:
 How successfully has the World Trade Organization fostered international
trade cooperation?
 Week 10:
 What explains the establishment and track record of the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
 Week 11:
 How can we put what we have learned together in a meaningful way?
 Week 12:
 No lecture – Public holiday.
Tutorial 1

Reasons why UN is useful

 World benefits from having this forum

o Facilitates discussion
o Discussion could move from bilateral to multilateral because of the UN
o Everyone’s viewpoint is clear- no confusion, provides clarity and frameworks
for future discussion and cooperation
 Even if no legally binding outcomes, affects a state’s reputation and affects how
states interact with each other- real relations and real effects
o E.g. Israel cut off trade ties with NZ temporarily- affects state’s material
o Affects their standing in the international community, regardless of size of
country involved
 However, because it does not have enforcement mechanisms, Israel
continues to build regardless of Int.Com negative views
 Prevents use of force or violence straight away- provides another barrier preventing
threat of use of force or use of force
 Used as a tool to put pressure on the Israeli government
 Credibility- operating through an IO is sometimes more effective than going through
with direct discussion
 Contributes to normative behaviour

Reasons why UN is bad

 Does not take tangible action, enforcement mechanisms are lacking (but
reputational costs to conforming comes in)
o Only carrot, no stick in the equation
 Peacekeeping cannot compel members to do anything
 Only serve the interests of a few countries- only the interests of the P5
 Only contributes to relative power gains
 Contributes to divide of international community into blocs circa Cold War
o Bloc congregation
 E.g. all US allies and proxies who may not agree, but votes with US to
not lose aid
 Relative power imbalance- when a country is powerful, this doesn’t
affect its reputation as significantly
 It only exists because states want them to- if they don’t they won’t follow anything
o They exist due to states- only a tool via which the powerful project power
 But the fact that there is a forum is important (created a normative
system- contributes to the endurance of a neoliberal order)
o Reputational mechanism only vs enforcement mechanism
Realism- self help- no one to help you
Neolib-