Student examples

Paper 2

1. GRADE THE PAPER 2s.

2. How can you improve each essay? Go into the essays and look at use of concepts,
theories, details, building up argumentation – structure of paragraph, bias. (Use the
scaffolding). Colour your writing and write into the document so that you can see
which changes you do.

2. Justify the statement that “the sovereign state is the most significant protector as well as
the biggest threat to human rights”. 

Sovereignty, as a key concept, is the defining feature of a state. Based on the principles of
self-interest, survival and non-interference, sovereignty dictates the idea of the existence of a
nation state in the present world. The constitution of a nation-state establishes the state’s
power in terms of instating laws within a particular region. However, the international pursuit
of human rights poses certain threats to the non-interference aspect of the key concept of
sovereignty. Human rights gained special emphasis on the international stage as a direct
consequence of the World War II aftermath. Ingrained in international law mechanisms
through covenants and treaties, the pursuit of human rights is “encouraged” but the lack of
legality makes them unenforceable. Hence, the idea that the sovereign state is the most
significant protector of human rights is established. On the other hand, as the sovereign state
has full control over the nation’s internal affairs (internal sovereignty), there is a lack of
accountability in terms of adhering to the international standards. Hence, the question rises- to
what extent does a sovereign state have the power to influence the pursuit of human rights?  

A realist perspective strongly adheres to the non-intervention principle of the concept of

sovereignty. Essentially, this dictates that outside influence (such as IGOs, MNCs etc) cannot
have control over a nation-state’s laws; the sovereign state dictates the legality of
all clauses pertaining to human rights. For instance, the CEDAW, which is an international
convention treaty ratified by various countries, is not fully recognized by various states. India,
Hungary and Germany have reservations against Article 9 of the convention. Similarly, Saudi
Arabia contents the article which addresses the equality of a woman in marriage. Essentially,
even though these states have ratified the CEDAW, they have the power to determine which
particular clauses they will pertain to within their sovereign state. Here, the legitimacy of the
state also becomes essential; as a sovereign state, their decision to opt out of certain clauses,
owing to their sovereignty plays out with no consequences. In the specific case study of the
CEDAW, India, Hungary, Germany and Saudi Arabia face no consequence because they have
simply exercising their internal sovereignty; the sovereign state becomes a protector through
enshrining particular clauses of the CEDAW in their constitution but also threatens the full
and absolute pursuit of human rights through reservations against certain clauses. A realist
stance becomes clear as the sovereign state accepts no intervention in terms of their self-
interest.
  
The emphasis of human rights after World War II also led to the establishment of covenants
such as the Right to Protect (R2P). Essentially, the pillars of R2P dictate that if a sovereign
state has been unsuccessful in pursuing human rights within their nation state to a large
extent, military intervention is acceptable; the sovereignty of a state is challenged through
such interventions. For instance, the NATO-led intervention of Libya in 2011 is an example
of Libya’s sovereignty being impeached. Based on humanitarian grounds, the NATO-led
military established intervened against the Gadhafi regime in 2011 to pursue the Security
Council resolution 1973. As the government of Libya posed a threat to the civilians in Libya,
the R2P became a channel through which an international body became a protector of human
rights. A liberalist stance becomes clear; for the pursuit of human rights, the international
stage cooperated through the IGO of the UN. Libya’s sovereignty is impeached because their
legitimacy is questioned and Pillar I, II and III and of the R2P are qualified for humanitarian
intervention. On the other hand, even though the initiative is led by an international body.
Military power is cooperated through the sovereign states of NATO. Hence, it can be argued
that in this case as well, the sovereign state is the protector because the action on ground was
carried out by sovereign states.  

Even though the international stage emphasizes the pursuit of human rights, the sovereign
state dictates the legality of human rights and hence, determines the success of their pursuit.
For instance, international conventions on the rights of workers and labour are contested by
industrializing countries. Using development as a rationale, India and China contest
conventions on labour rights and environmental laws. Taking a strong realist stance, China
and India employ the argument that they need to be provided with similar flexibility, in terms
of labour laws and environment considerations, that allowed the Western countries to
industrialize during the Industrial Revolution. Development, as a key concept, becomes the
channel through which China and India maintain their sovereignty. Similarly, the case study
of the Uighur Muslims in China points out that the sovereign state becomes a threat to the
pursuit of human rights. Placed in “re-education” camps, the Uighur Muslims face clear
impeachment of their human rights. However, other than condemnations from other sovereign
states, China faces no real action. The sovereign state remains a priority as China cites this as
an internal matter. The key concept of power also becomes relevant; with one of the largest
economies, countries don’t intervene on humanitarian grounds as they face a possible threat
of trade wars with China.   

Overall, the sovereign state has immense influence on the pursuit of human rights, Despite the
liberalist ideology that characterizes the international arena in terms of cooperation for human
rights, the sovereign state remains the only legitimate channel through which human
rights can be instituted. Even in the case of humanitarian intervention, as seen in Libya in
2011, the sovereign state’s military power is the leading instrument through which human
rights are protected. Moreover, as seen in China and India, even though international
conventions are acknowledged, the sovereign state determines the legality and hence, the
execution of human rights.  

1. Discuss the limitations of measuring development with reference to one method you have
studied. 

z. Generally speaking, development has been a key issue the world tackles with to institute
peace. Development is defined as the perpetual rise in the standards of living. Standards of
living encompass various factors; access to clean water, sanitation, nutrition, a stable
economy, the pursuit of human rights, the socio-political systems and the environment are a
few factors that indicate the standards of living in a country. Perhaps the oldest measure of
development is the GDP (gross domestic product) which calculates the total output a country
produces in a year. With strong emphasis on the economy of a country, the GDP ought to
have certain limitations in terms of measuring standards of living as a whole. Hence, the
question rises- to what extent is the GDP a successful measure of development?  

A leading economy with a GDP of over $3 trillion, India is the 6th largest GDP in th’e world.
Hence, if GDP is a legitimate measure of development, India should have high standards of
living. However, the country is defined as a “developing country”; with a flawed democracy
and high poverty rates, GDP as a measure of development, is not valid in India’s case. The
standard of living of a developing country is characterized as low; millions do not have access
to clean water, proper nutrition and health facilities. Moreover, the institutions of the
sovereign state also remain flawed; corruption serves as an impediment to development for a
country with a large economy. The legitimacy of a state is questioned; despite a high GDP,
the government fails to raise the standards of living. The dependency theory manifests as a
relevant concept; despite many resources that contribute to a high GDP, the resources transfer
from th periphery to the core as India becomes a large producer of goods for the West.
Postcolonial theory also becomes relevant as the aftereffects of colonialism left India
impoverished which partly contributes to the state of the nation. All in all, the GDP proves to
be a faulty measure of development as despite a high GDP, the standards of living remain
low. 
 
A key distinction between the two facets of GDP contribute to the understanding of the
measure’s success. GDP per capita is defined as the total GDP of the country divided by the
population. As opposed to a high GDP, India has a low GDP owing to its large population.
Hence, the measure of GDP per capita may provide a more relevant understanding of the
development situation. For instance, Norway which is categor ized as a “developed
country” has high standards of living as reflected by a high GDP per capita. With a strong
democracy and a welfare state that provides a stable economy to all citizens, Norway
possesses high economic development. Similarly, socio-political development also remains
high with strong institutions and virtually no corruption. Human development is also
maintained as all citizens have access to housing, sanitation and nutrition. The concept of
peace becomes relevant as positive peace is ingrained in the society through strong welfare
systems. Moreover, the key concept of sustainability also becomes prevalent with Norway’s
focus on sustainable development through their oil fund which is meant to cater to future
generations. Hence, GDP per capita becomes a successful measure of development as it
appropriately indicates the standard of living in Norway.  

With the 10th largest GDP per capita in the world, the USA is also defined as developed
country. Although the country maintains a relatively decent standard of living in terms of
economic and human development, the GDP or the GDP per capita does not serve a
successful indicator in terms of socio-political development. Owing to the strong emphasis on
modernization theory, the country has the largest economy (and GDP) in the world but
development in terms of institutions remains conflicted. With large differences between the
standards of living, the issue of institutionalized oppression emerges. For instance, systemic
oppression unequally affects the lives of African Americans that face high rates of poverty
and incarceration. Moreover, the rise of dissent points at an ideologically split nation that
affects the cohesioln in society contributing to the low socio-political development.
Additionally, a strong emphasis on capitalism further incites inequality; the prison-industry
complex of the early 2000s aimed to increase prison populations for the sake of profits of
private companies which led to the large rates of incarceration of African Americans. Despite
the largest GDP and the 10th largest GDP per capita, the USA develops with slow pace with
minimal focus on sustainable development owing to a natural resource driven economy.  
Overall, the GDP or the GDP per capita is not successful in measuring development to a large
extent. With an absolute focus on economic power and economic development, the measure
overlooks human and socio-political development which are essential to determine standards
of living. Moreover, environmental factors and sustainability are not addressed and hence, the
GDP and GDP per capita remain limited measures of development due to a singular focus.  

c/