Lingua inglese. Lessons 10, 11,12

BREXIT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-51332761

WHY BREXIT HAPPENED AND WHAT TO DO NEXT
Questions:
1. What, according to Alexander Belts, was the worst consequence of the Brexit campaign on the referendum and the outcome?
2. What do you think Belt means when he refers to “Little England”?
3. What should contemporary politics be about today?
4. What does Belt understand about himself from the map he shows of the “Remain” and “Leave” areas of the UK?
5. What is the Great Lie that the politicians who proposed to leave Europe communicate to the electorate?
6. What are the pros and cons of globalization?
7. What are the 4 key solutions that Belt suggests in order to render the process of globalization more inclusive and less divisive both nationally and internationally?

THE PROS

ECONOMIC PROS OF GLOBALIZAION
Cheaper prices for products and services (more optimized supply chains)
Better availability of products and services
Easier access to capitals and commodities
Increased competition
Producers and retailers can diversify their markets and contribute to economic growth

CULTURAL PROS OF GLOBALISATION
Access to new cultural products (art, entertainment, education) Better understanding of foreign values and attitudes.
Less stereotypes and misconceptions about other people and cultures
Capacity to communicate and defend one’s values and ideals globally
Instant access to information from anywhere in the world
Customisation or adaptation of global cultural trends to local environment (“mestisage”)

POLITICAL PROS TO GLOBALISATION
Access to international aid and support
It contributes to world peace.
It reduces risk of invasions, more checks to big powers and limitation to nationalism.
Smaller countries can work together and gain more influence internationally
International organizations are often committed to spread values like freedom and to fight abuses within countries
Governments can learn from each other

LINGUA INGLESE LESSON 11
Dr Denise Filmer
[e-mail]

PROS AND CONS OF GLOBALISATION

THE CONS….

ECOMONIC CONS TO GLOBALISATION
Some countries struggle to compete
Extractive behavior of some foreign companies and investors
Strong bargaining power of multinational companies visà-vis local governments
“Contagion effect” is more likely in times of crises
Problems of “social dumping”
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/glossary_search/social-dumping_en

WHAT IS SOCIAL DUMPING?
The practice whereby workers are given pay and / or working and living conditions which are sub-standard compared to those specified by law or collective agreements in the relevant labour market, or otherwise prevalent there.

CONTAGION EFFECT
Financial contagion describes the cascading effects that an initially idiosyncratic shock to a small part of a financial system can have on the entire system

CULTURAL CONS OF GLOBALISATION
Dangers of cultural homogenisation
Westernisation, cultural imperialism or cultural colonialism
Some small cultures may lose their distinctive features
Dangerous or violent ideals can also spread faster
Spread of commodity-based consumer culture

POLITICAL CONS OF GLOBALISATION
State sovereignty is reduced
The functioning of international and supranational organizations is often not “democratic” in terms of representation and accountability.
Big countries can shape decisions in supranational organisations
Sometimes countries can veto decisions and slow down decision making processes
Coordination is difficult and expensive

https://marianopolisworldreview.com/2016/03/globalization-good-bad-mostly-ugly/
GLOBALIZATION: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE (MOSTLY) UGLY
Two points of view and two discursive essays

Since the end of the Second World War, the world economy has seen a level of growth unparalleled in human history. Many economists accredit this surge in international trade and prosperity to the policies that gave rise to the globalized market we benefit from everyday. However, while it is true that globalization has kept consumers in developed countries complacent with cheap goods and services, economists are looking at a flawed model for the future of world trade.
Categorically, there are serious ethical and viability concerns that plagues the so-called gold standard of global commerce. Firstly, globalization forces well-payed local jobs to relocate to countries that may lack labour laws. Essentially, this forces North American workers in most exporting industries such as manufacturing and energy to compete with their Mexican, Chines, or Indonesian counterparts – who make a few pennies or dollars a day. This unfair competition does two major things: it prevents skilled workers from accessing decent job opportunities, and encourages the mistreatment of labourers in developing countries. Secondly, the globalized economy prevents any real progress in reversing the effects of climate change. Companies grow uninterested in paying more to meet environmental protection standards and relocate their operations to jurisdictions with absent eco-friendly legislation in order to maximize profits. Not only does this destroy local communities in these areas by pumping toxins into the air, water, and ground, it also prevents governments from adopting significant green initiatives out of fear of driving out business.

Thirdly, globalization relies on the idea that labor and raw materials are in infinite supply; Just as our economy grows, so does global consumption and waste. For example, the average North American consumes at rates that would strip the world of all its natural resources if generalized to the global population. It is clear that the world economy as it stands emboldens a lifestyle of immoderation and overindulgence.
Lastly, a globalized economy ties countries together through dependencies. This can be dangerous for two reasons: if the system fails, countries will lack essential goods and services, and if there is an outright failure, the repercussions will ripple throughout the world. The latter was best observed in the 2008 financial collapse which resulted primarily from the US subprime mortgage crisis. An example of the former is the 1970s oil crisis where the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) placed an embargo on US oil export, which eventually drove the American economy into a recession.
Ultimately, we should not settle for an economic model that drives the cycle of poverty, that allows the environment to continue to deteriorate, that desensitizes us to the realities of finite resources, and that imperils us when disaster strikes half a world away. One thing remains clear, the system in which globalization has been allowed to thrive in is deceiving; the deal that world leaders and lobbyists marketed is not the fiscally responsible, sustainable package they sold to us. No doubt, globalization had a necessary role to play and led to the amassing of great wealth, but the economy of the future will require us to reconsider the value in dynamic, local economies that can preserve and enhance our way of life in the 21st century and beyond.
Written by MWR writer Yanni Stavrakis

Globalization as a sustainable and reliable asset in the international market economy
Globalization is not a new phenomenon , it has been around since the time of the Romans and their innovative trade routes, to the fall of Constantinople, once giving access to the spices of the East, that pushed explorers to reach the far corners of the New World. While globalisation hasn’t always been associated with its benefits, it proves to be a sustainable and reliable asset in the international market economy. Not only has globalisation made us richer, it has made us more culturally diverse, more educated, and has increased the quality of goods and services we consume while reducing the cost.
GLOBALIZATION HAS MADE US RICHER
Most European and North American academic economists would agree, as they have successfully argued, that governmental regulations diminish prosperity by limiting growth. In fact, by allowing production to have a more diverse background than before we have increased the world’s economic output. Some may argue that it has only helped to increase the wealth of already rich countries and individuals, or even that it takes away jobs for the low-middle class in those countries. However, companies that move their manufacture globalization from high to low income countries help a greater number of people to receive better living standards, or more plainly, that get better off than they were before.

Without implying a direct causal relationship, in the past 30 years, which saw the greatest surge of globalization thanks to the increase in technological advances, 600 million people have emerged from poverty. By finding jobs in safe and regulated manufactures, populations have been able to ensure a more secure, healthier, and richer future for themselves and their children. Furthermore, around 25 million people around the world living in a different country than the one they are a citizen of have been found to send back money to their families. Indeed, remittances, which is the pay that workers often send from a high income country to a lower income country, is, in competition with international financial aid, one of the largest contributors to monetary inflow in low income countries. In Tajikistan, for example, remittances represent 35% of the total GDP, and in 2015, the World Bank estimated that remittances reached $440 billion in developing countries.
GLOBALIZATION HAS MADE US MORE CULTURALLY DIVERSE
It would be an understatement to simply say that globalization has increased global communication, because it essentially has created what experts call a ‘global village’: a community of people from different nationalities, speaking different languages, with different cultural and heritage backgrounds, that has enabled us to become more tolerant and open to different peoples. Some opponents of globalization have stated that globalization has ‘Americanized’ other cultures, and while American products, like the series Friends or Diet Coke, are accessible nearly everywhere, we could also say the same thing about a number of other cultures. When was the last time you ate sushi for lunch, ordered Chinese take out for dinner, or went out to a tacos place at 2 am?

Not only is culturally diverse food becoming more and more accessible, so is cinema. In an article for the Wall Street Journal, Micheal Lynton, chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment, remarks: “Citizens of other countries also like their own heroes and villains, actors and directors. They want to see stories, stars and issues that relate to their own societies and are portrayed and examined in their own languages. That’s why, in recent years, we have seen an explosion of creativity from outside Hollywood.” Not only has entertainment been improved, so has tolerance. By increasing contact between people of diverse backgrounds and identities, we effectively become more tolerant, and more importantly, understanding of communities that are not our own. Globalization, through exposure and representation has bettered the lives of women, given greater respect to human rights, and lessened stigmatization towards people living with HIV/AIDS.
Nonetheless, while the downsides of globalization weren’t addressed in this piece, it would be imprudent to believe there are none. However, when we look at everything globalization has given us, and the ways it has corrected itself thus far, we can effectively say that globalization is a sustainable and reliable asset in the international market economy.

LINGUA INGLESE LESSON 12
Dr Denise Filmer
[e-mail]

WHAT IS INTERNATIONAL LAW?

INTERNATIONAL LAW
Public international law is the body of rules, laws or legal principles that govern the rights and duties of nation states in relation to each other. It is derived from a number of sources, including custom, legislation and treaties. These treaties may be in the form of conventions, agreements, charters, framework conventions, or routine conventions. Custom, also referred to as customary International law, is another binding source of law, and originates from a pattern of state practice motivated by a sense of legal right or obligation. Laws of war were a matter of customary law before being codified in the Geneva Conventions and other treaties.

INTERNATIONAL LAW
International institutions and intergovernmental organisations (or Non-Governmental Organisations) whose members are states have become vehicle for making, applying, implementing and enforcing public international law, especially since the end of World War II. The best-known inter-governmental organisation is the United Nations, which develops new advisory standards, e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Other international norms have been established through international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war or armed conflict

QUESTIONS…
Can a nation state be compelled to obey international law? If so, how? Can you think of any examples of countries that have violated international agreements?
What is a supranational legal framework?
Can you think of any examples?

DEFINING TERMS...

TREATY, CONVENTION, AGREEMENT, CHARTER...WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
Charter: The term ‘charter’ is used for particularly formal and solemn instruments, such as the treaty founding an international organization like the United Nations (‘The Charter of the United Nations’).
Convention: is a formal agreement between States. The generic term ‘convention’ is thus synonymous with the generic term ‘treaty’. Conventions are normally open for participation by the international community as a whole, or by a large number of States. Usually the instruments negotiated under the auspices of an international organization are entitled conventions (e.g. the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1989).

TREATY, CONVENTION, AGREEMENT, CHARTER...WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
Treaty: A ‘treaty’ is a formally concluded and ratified agreement between States. The term is used generically to refer to instruments binding at international law, concluded between international entities (States or organizations). Under the Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties, a treaty must be (1) a binding instrument, which means that the contracting parties intended to create legal rights and duties; (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power; (3) governed by international law and (4) in writing.
Declaration: The term ‘declaration’ is used for various international instruments. International human rights declarations are not legally binding; the term is often deliberately chosen to indicate that the parties do not intend to create binding obligations but merely want to declare certain aspirations. However, while the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example was not originally intended to have binding force, its provisions have since gained binding character as customary law.
These definitions are adapted from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (8th edition), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990 and United Nations Treaty Collection, Treaty Reference Guide, 1999, available at http://untreaty.un.org/English/guide.asp.

INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS (INGOS)
Names?
United Nations
WHO – World Health Organisation
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Amnesty International
WWF World Wildlife Fund
Greenpeace

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDgIVseTkuE

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDgIVseTkuE