This assignment is a take-home essay consisting of 3 questions, 2 pages total, to test knowledge and assimilation of the course objectives. Please exclusively use the course materials to support each answer. To answer these questions paraphrase, do not use quotations.
Please answer all three questions below in a paragraph format by listing the number followed by your answer. I recommend using the MEAL plan to organize your paragraphs. For more information, please check out this link. Please cite your sources using in-text citations; a reference list is not needed. Please review your work for errors before submitting it and ensure that it is grammatically correct. Your submission should be no more than 2 pages in length.
1. Zewei’s article is about two competing forms of international relations. Zewei shows that they were incompatible. Both could not win. What was so different about the Confucian-based system of China’s celestial empire and the Western system ushered in by the western Empires? Why were they incompatible? You can find this answer by reading the full article.
2. What are three good things Steinberg sees in NGOs? What are three serious critiques Steinberg finds about NGOs?
3. What crises made people think of business and human rights as a topic, according to Cragg, Arnold, and Muchlinski article from week 6?
The Western system was characteristically incompatible with Confucianism because, on the one hand, the Confucian-based system was firmly based on religious principle while the Western system was not based on religion. Before the introduction of the Western ideology of governance in China, China’s Celestial Empire exclusively relied on Confucianism on all the matters of governance. Religious leaders were deemed invaluable when it came to the direct governance of China’s Celestial Empire given that they had substantial knowledge of the Confucian values which were critical toward the success of political regimes (Zewei, 2011). However, when the Western empire introduced the novel Western system, the two variants of international relations were conspicuously incompatible since the Western system clearly drew the line between religion and the state while Confucian-based system held on resolutely to the sense of religious identity (Zewei, 2011). Additionally, while the Western system focused on empowering the individuals to develop the society, Confucianism, from an analytical angle, focused on empowering the entire society as the essential conduit for assuring the prosperity of individuals. Therefore, one variant of international relations had to give in for another.
The Good Things
Steinberg sees NGOS as well-organized entities given that they have managed to command reverence; hence, ensuring that the civil society community is highly respected everywhere. Steinberg also sees NGOs as playing a strong role in salvaging different humanitarian situations which pose logistical issues to the governmental entities (Steinberg, 2011). Thirdly, Steinberg considers NGOs to have soft power which enables particular civil society groupings to have a voice in some international issues (Steinberg, 2011)).
The Serious Critiques
Steinberg argues that NGO’s use clandestine methods to fuel international conflict in the pretext of upholding human rights. According to Steinberg (2011), global civil societies which have managed to amass considerable resources as well as commanding deference from all over the globe have become rogue entities which foster the agenda of consistent conflict to remain powerful given that NGOs can only thrive when troubles exist. Secondly, Steinberg insists that NGOs engage in partisan politics at the expense of what they seem to defend, non-partiality. Such political favoritism, according to Steinberg only exacerbates the Israeli-Arab feuds. Thirdly, Steinberg (2011) criticizes the powerful NGOs for delegitimizing particular countries which are in conflict by offering skewed human rights reports based on the NGOs far-fetched interests in the disputes.
The tendency of governments to ostensibly relegate human rights was the reason people began linking the issues of human rights and business. Cragg, Arnold, and Muchlinksi (2012) mentioned that while the citizenry expected the political regimes to defend their rights the opposite was the case. At the international arena, the different regimes focused on their interests at the expense of the rights of the people they rule. That way, from the 20th century, people began to see the bigger picture of their human rights from the perspective of the political regimes; meaning, people began considering the political regimes as trading their human rights for other issues. People began speculating on why they had to look for their rights the same way that things happen in the enterprise world (Cragg, Arnold, and Muchlinksi, 2012). In many situations, people had to trade their human rights to the government, hence, they had good reasons to consider human rights and business as a topic.
Cragg, W., Arnold, D. G., & Muchlinski, P. (2012). Guest editors’ introduction: Human rights
and business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 1-7.
Steinberg, G. (2011). The Politics of NGOs, Human Rights and the Arab-Israel Conflict. Israel
Studies, 16 (2), 24-54.
Zewei, Y. (2011). Western International Law and China’s Confucianism in the 19th Century.
Collision and Integration. Journal of the History of International Law, 13(2), 285-306.