Introduction To World Politics

FIRST SCENARIO

1-If you are opposed to the United States being subject to the ICC, what changes in the ICC’s procedures and jurisdiction would change your mind?

Sovereignty is a serious concern and countries are extremely sensitive. As per classical understanding of sovereignty, in the context of the contemporary state, a state must be able to take decisions, about different matters, independently. Also, only the state has the right to take a case in a court (federal/state) against a defendant (citizen) and prosecute him/ as per the law of the land. If another body, such as ICC, can indict and prosecute an American, accused of a crime, then it will undermine the sovereignty of the United States, and it will also undermine its strategic objectives and not just state institutions. Another reason is that the United States is an expansionary state, with an aggressive foreign policy. Some of its decisions and actions, such as the Iraq War, are highly controversial; therefore, becoming part of it also has strategic and political ramifications.

However, certain kind of changes may soften the United States’ stance on ICC. For instance, if state institutions of the United States acknowledge that a crime has been committed by a US citizen or organization, then and only then ICC can indict that individual or company. Also, ICC must prosecute an American citizen or organization, which has committed a crime, as per American Law.

2-What do you make of the following results of two surveys taken just a few months apart in 2002–2003. In the first, 71 percent of Americans said the United States should agree to the ICC as a court that could try individuals for war crimes “if their own country won’t try them.” The second survey asked about support of the ICC given that it could try U.S. soldiers accused of war crimes “if the United States government refuses to try them.” Only 37 percent supported the ICC on this question.

It must be acknowledged that when the first survey was conducted or take, the tragic event of 9/11 had occurred. People were shocked, and they were in favor such mechanism, which could indict and prosecute an individual or organization, which has committed a crime. Americans may have felt that such organization would make it easy for the international community to indict and prosecute criminals, who have committed a terrible crime and such institution would also avoid wars. However, after the United States’ invasion of Afghanistan and in the manner the war was conducted, the opinion, regarding the ICC, might have started to change. The Afghan War was followed up by Iraq War, considered one of the unpopular wars, in which the US committed various wars-crimes. Therefore, Americans may have started to believe that the ICC could be a two-edged sword.

3-Small, weak countries sometimes criticize the ICC because all its investigations and indictments have so far have involved small, weak countries. Why has this been the pattern occurred?

In any court of law, whether national or international, credibility and integrity matter the most. The higher the credibility and integrity, of a court, greater the confidence plaintiff/accused has in court and its decisions. However, its decision of a court suggests that the court only decides in favor of power and it is harsh against the weak, then its credibility starts to dwindle, which also takes down its integrity with it. From the individuals, who have been indicted so far, it seems that the ICC is more comfortable at indicting and prosecuting individuals from developing countries of Africa. It has not indicated, so far, any western head of state, such as Tony Blair, for invading a country on a pretext of possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction. This pattern and history of indictments question the credibility of the institution.

SECOND SCENARIO

1-What has been your perceived experience from global warming?

There is a difference between climate and weather. It is essential to understand the concept and issue of global warming. Weather is an atmospheric condition in a particular time and space; whereas climate is changing the weather pattern for a very long time. All the evidence, regarding climate, is historical (time-series data), which provide us understanding regarding the changing patterns in weather. My understanding, regarding the global warming, is based on the available data regarding the issue. It is quite apparent from the data that global warming is real and it is adversely impacting the planet. However, I have not personally experienced any dramatic change in weather; last winter was less cold than 2017/18 winter.

2-There has been a tendency among Americans, at least, to support restraints on CO2 emissions and other steps to curb global warming but to resist paying the lifestyle or economic price to implement many of the steps such as higher gasoline taxes to suppress use. How far would you be willing to go to support such steps?

Americans acknowledge that CO₂ emissions must be cut to keep the planet inhabitable for generations to come. However, they are not willing to take drastic steps to meet these challenges of global warming. There are several reasons for that, which include the fact the Global Warming is a distant monster, which is not very apparent. Also, in the United States, global warming is a very controversial subject, which means that Americans, which include American President, are not very convinced that Global Warming is a real issue. Therefore, Americans are not willing to go very far, or they are willing to take serious measures, which could effectively mitigate the ramifications of global warming. I support the introduction to innovation/technology to meet these challenges, but I too will take moderate measures to aid government or state in combating this issue. However, incentives can encourage me to take drastic measures.

3-How would you feel about paying a “global energy tax” of one-half of 1 percent of your income with the funds going to help poorer countries that cannot afford clean energy equipment and alternative sources?

It is not a huge amount, and I will be willing to pay more than that. It is because I understand and acknowledge that West or the Industrialized world is chiefly responsible for global warming. During the period of the Industrial Revolution, we were extremely insensitive regarding the physical environment, and our actions affected the physical environment adversely or negatively. Therefore, I am willing to pay the one-half of 1% of my income for this global and noble cause.