The group presentations compared coercion and rational bargaining. Through these presentations I was able to see that sometimes there is a thin line between coercion and rational bargaining. While it was clear to determine which method some organizations used, such as the World Bank, others were a little more complicated. The one organization I found this to be most true was the one assigned to my group, Amnesty International (AI).
Through our presentation it was easy to determine the mission of AI; an international advocate for human rights. It was also clear on the methods AI uses in order to accomplish their mission. In order to accomplish their mission AI exposes human rights abuses as accurately as possible by using individual case studies, patterns, etc. These finding are then publicized in conjunction with a mobilization of public pressure on those performing said abuses.
As Matt pointed out in his comment, one could say that AI uses rational bargaining because it is not a governmental body and therefore has no real power with which to coerce. The premise is that AI uses rational bargaining because those performing such abuses will think rationally and do what is in their best self interest. In doing what is in their best interest abuses would be stopped to protect said nation's image and minimal impact socially, economically, etc.
On the other hand coercion is about using power, pressure or fear to get a desired outcome. Is it not true that AI has power because they have the ability to impact public opinion? Is is not reasonable to say that if AI's campaigning and research led to a UN resolution that they must have power? AI uses pressure to get a desired outcome. While AI may not be able to follow it with force they can follow it with concrete actions if needed. Isn't that essentially what coercion is?
It's hard to determine if rational bargaining or coercion is used by AI. In my opinion, AI is between both and depending on your views swing either way. For this reason I feel that AI was a good organization to examine to show the thin line between coercion and rational bargaining. Where does one start and the other begin in a case like AI? There is no real power, yet it is still able to influence a nation to achieve their desired outcome.
Dori, you're right. We definitely agree. As to your question "...was Hobbes right in stating that coercive power is needed for peace?", I'd say that Hobbes wouldn't even be concerned with the notion of peace, but rather with the security of the sovereign nation. My assessment of Hobbes' view on this is that as long as the sovereign is providing for the security of the people (the reason there is a sovereign in the first place), then it doesn't really matter if the country is at war or peace. The sovereign is accomplishing the assigned role with the authority provided. Now if war is impacting the sovereign's abilities to provide security (say through a reduction of trade and taxes), then Hobbes would probably agree that peace is better. But I'm not sure that Hobbes would see peace in and of itself as necessary as long as security exists.
ReplyDelete