INTL 101 Culture and Society in International Perspective Take Home FINAL EXAM Spring 2019 Professor Gilson This is a five part essay, with parts two, three, and four individually tied directly to the argument and discussion in part one. Part Five is a concluding paragraph. All of the material you need is either attached directly to this assignment as a PDF or was assigned reading during the quarter. You may not use additional sources or include outside research. Read the prompt in its entirety with attention detail to make certain that you understand what you are being asked to do. If you need clarification, please ask. As with the midterm, your grade will be based on how well and thoroughly you craft an argument in response to the questions posed here. What you argue for is far less important than how you argue for it. I am looking for how thoroughly you conceptualize and analyze an issue area and, then, argue about appropriate state action. Your essay should be no longer than seven pages, typed double-spaced in 12 point font and with standard one-inch margins. Your name, PID, and TA name should be on the top left of page one. No title page, please. Due Date and Time: Wednesday, June 12th at 12:00PM NOON to Turnitin.com via Triton Ed. Each teaching assistant will have a final folder as with the midterm. NO late papers will be graded. Papers not uploaded to Turnitin will not be graded. All exceptions to these requirements must be requested at least 24 hours in advance and will require documentation. The requirements of academic integrity are taken very seriously in this course. I encourage you to discuss the issues raised by the readings for this essay, but once you begin to draft outlines and text the work must be entirely and exclusively your own. All ideas, paraphrases, and verbatim use of text drawn from the material assigned here must be properly cited. If you have any questions about citation use and form, please ask. All suspected cases of plagiarism will be sent to the Office of Academic Integrity. If plagiarism is confirmed, the essay will receive a failing grade. Please see the following website if you have questions about the rules: http://academicintegrity.ucsd.edu. Overview of the Assignment: We began the quarter discussing the nature of states and governance, state sovereignty, and citizenship. We looked at this both historically, as these evolved from ancient forms and norms, and emerged in modern form following World War II, the creation of the United Nations, and the codification of the several agreements that establish the obligation to protect human rights. At the heart of our discussion has been a puzzle: even in very ‘free’ countries where there is resonance between the rights outlined in the UDHR and those of political citizenship, the expectation of the protection of human rights likely challenges state sovereignty and state capacity in some way. In doing all the things that it must do in its direction and oversight of society, a state cannot do whatever it wants. By human rights standards, good governance puts precedence on some policies over others. As has been said in lecture, whether to abide by human rights norms or not is a policy choice. Part One: In the first part of the course, we spent a great deal of time talking about state sovereignty, legitimate government as governance of a people, and the obligations that states have for everything from winning wars to making certain that the institutions of society in all areas are promoted, protected, and made available to all. To remind yourself of the way we talked about these things: 1) Go back to your lecture notes from Weeks Three through Week Five. 2) Review your reading notes from the chapters assigned in the Donnelly and Whelan— especially chapters 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11. 3) Review the argument that Miles Kahler makes about sovereignty in his piece on humanitarian interventions. 4) Also, attached to this prompt are two pieces by Stephen Krasner about the evolution of thinking about state sovereignty. The piece titled Think Again is the most recent and is a less academic version of the attached journal version, titled Abiding Sovereignty. This latter influenced class lectures on the evolution of states and the international system. Construct an argument about the characteristics of legitimate governance. Think in terms of the following: 1) What is a state for and what should it do? 2) What are the constraints under which it operates both domestically and internationally? 3) What are the normative requirements of legitimacy both domestically and internationally? 4) How do we best measure good governance? In other words, what makes a government a good government and why? Parts Two, Three and Four: A Free Press, Environmental Rights, LGBTQI Rights You MUST address ALL three of these issue areas, each in a separate section of your essay. Each presents a different kind of policy challenge for even the best government. The rights argued for and the opposition they face are both specific and multidimensional. The attached articles (and readings assigned in class) are designed to help you think through the inherent multidimensionality of these rights areas. You may address the details of these articles in your answer, but a good essay will use them mostly to widen the discussion. The articles are resources, not the point of your essay. In each section, you must do at least the following: 1) To the fullest extent you are able, explain the specific rights argument. How does the fulfillment of the right and the denial of the right affect an individual human being? In other words, what is at stake? 2) What are the policy challenges faced by governments in addressing these rights claims? 3) How should governments balance these claims against other obligations that it carries? 4) Are there legitimate governance reasons for denying these rights in part or in their entirety, and, if so, what are they? Part Five: Conclusion Your concluding paragraph should return to the topic of legitimate governance—What makes it legitimate? How does it weigh the rights of minorities over majorities? What is the role of open debate and inclusive participation?