Global Governance: Human rights & Environment Topic
JUNE 2019 Past Paper
SECTION C
Answer TWO questions from 3(a) OR 3(b) OR 3(c).
In your answer you should make connections between relevant areas of politics
studied from Global Politics.
1 Evaluate the extent to which human rights are more effectively protected by
humanitarian intervention than by international courts and tribunals.
You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.
Outline arguments:
- Humanitarian intervention is when states
feel a moral obligation to intervene if a
catastrophe is taking place in another
state
- Should the world stand by when
innocent men, women and children are
facing genocide, crimes against humanity
and war crimes?
- flip side (not as effective cuz) states that
intervene can be seen as using
humanitarian grounds as an excuse to
INTRO increase their power and further their own
interests, or even as a pretext (excuse) for
the control or annexation (possession
taken of a piece of land or a country,
usually by force)of another state
Order of arguments:
● Agree- HR are more effectively
protected by humanitarian
intervention e.g western
intervention in Libya 2011
● Disagree- International courts and
tribunals effective after the
immediate aftermath of WWII, there
were 2 internation tribunals to deal
with those responsible for
genocide, war crimes and crimes
against humanity in Europe by the
Nazis and in the far east by the
, Japanese P519
● Agree- The decision for western
forces not to intervene in Syria
2011 and the aftermath caused
because they didn’t intervene
shows its effectiveness
Point: Agree
- Human rights are more effectively
protected by human intervention, the west
see themselves as upholding liberal,
humanitarian values
- It saves lives by preventing mass
atrocity crimes, such as massacres
- Links to the liberal perspective,
development of international law will
increase the interconnectedness and
interdependence of states by promoting
the rules and norms of behaviour which
all states will adopt- lessening chance of
conflict
Example:
- western intervention in Libya 2011 HR
watch informed the world of crimes
against the libyan people by government
Paragraph 1: HR is forces under the control of Colonel
better protected by states Gaddafi
- UN security council authorised military
intervention in Libya
Counter argument:
- Did the intervention do more harm than
good?
● Created global implications in
terms of the displacement of
peoples and refugees crisis
● Destabilisation of local regions
● the potential to bring global powers
into conflict over what action to
take
● Humanitarian intervention if often
seen as an excuse to further the
interests of powerful states
Judgement:
- The world isn’t always as we would like it
to be, there are; inequalities, injustices
and innocents who suffer all around the
world
- If a state fails to protect its own citizens
and uphold responsibility, then in the
interest of protecting humanity this
JUNE 2019 Past Paper
SECTION C
Answer TWO questions from 3(a) OR 3(b) OR 3(c).
In your answer you should make connections between relevant areas of politics
studied from Global Politics.
1 Evaluate the extent to which human rights are more effectively protected by
humanitarian intervention than by international courts and tribunals.
You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.
Outline arguments:
- Humanitarian intervention is when states
feel a moral obligation to intervene if a
catastrophe is taking place in another
state
- Should the world stand by when
innocent men, women and children are
facing genocide, crimes against humanity
and war crimes?
- flip side (not as effective cuz) states that
intervene can be seen as using
humanitarian grounds as an excuse to
INTRO increase their power and further their own
interests, or even as a pretext (excuse) for
the control or annexation (possession
taken of a piece of land or a country,
usually by force)of another state
Order of arguments:
● Agree- HR are more effectively
protected by humanitarian
intervention e.g western
intervention in Libya 2011
● Disagree- International courts and
tribunals effective after the
immediate aftermath of WWII, there
were 2 internation tribunals to deal
with those responsible for
genocide, war crimes and crimes
against humanity in Europe by the
Nazis and in the far east by the
, Japanese P519
● Agree- The decision for western
forces not to intervene in Syria
2011 and the aftermath caused
because they didn’t intervene
shows its effectiveness
Point: Agree
- Human rights are more effectively
protected by human intervention, the west
see themselves as upholding liberal,
humanitarian values
- It saves lives by preventing mass
atrocity crimes, such as massacres
- Links to the liberal perspective,
development of international law will
increase the interconnectedness and
interdependence of states by promoting
the rules and norms of behaviour which
all states will adopt- lessening chance of
conflict
Example:
- western intervention in Libya 2011 HR
watch informed the world of crimes
against the libyan people by government
Paragraph 1: HR is forces under the control of Colonel
better protected by states Gaddafi
- UN security council authorised military
intervention in Libya
Counter argument:
- Did the intervention do more harm than
good?
● Created global implications in
terms of the displacement of
peoples and refugees crisis
● Destabilisation of local regions
● the potential to bring global powers
into conflict over what action to
take
● Humanitarian intervention if often
seen as an excuse to further the
interests of powerful states
Judgement:
- The world isn’t always as we would like it
to be, there are; inequalities, injustices
and innocents who suffer all around the
world
- If a state fails to protect its own citizens
and uphold responsibility, then in the
interest of protecting humanity this
