in this lesson what I want to do is talk about the impact of globalization on conflict resolution now this doesn't just include the the creation or the the ending or should I say of armed conflicts and the the prevention of armed conflicts but also General tensions and contentious arguments that are taken between states more more broadly so the common claim that is made is that conflict is reduced as the result of an increase in both political and economic globalization now to what extent is this the case well on its face this idea seems relatively palatable it seems relatively easy to justify because economic globalization increases incentives for further integration further integration in global economics will therefore disincentivize conflict because where we see greater Prosperity is where we see greater integration at the same time political globalization could also have the ability to allow states to resolve issues using diplomatic means rather than through conflict and tension so we have a number of different jurisdictions we have a number of different uh areas of adjudication within international law that allows for the uh for the resolving of disputes um diplomatically rather than doing it through armed conflict so that's the one hand that we can examine but what about the other hand what are the arguments on the other side of the debate that examine uh the extent to which globalization does actually have a detrimental impact on on the prevention of conflict worldwide well the increase in economic globalization can be shown through an increase in global integration through Supply chains so we have seen with economic globalization and economic integration uh a greater Reliance on this sort of Global Network of Supply chains where each state relies on others for Supply chains for certain products there is of course a certain degree of irrationality in the concept of armed conflict if you rely on one state for the uh for for certain goods and services and of particular economic products then it doesn't seem to be particularly rational to then go into armed con a costly armed conflict with that particular State because then you are breaking that supply chain and according to Thomas Friedman this is an example of what he calls dealt the devil theory of conflict prevention which simply states that where two states are integrated into the same Supply chains those two states will not go to war with each other it would not be rational for them to go to war with each other so this is the argument that that suggests that economic globalization reduces the chances of armed conflict if you have two countries that are integrated economically with each other then it doesn't seem likely that that will be the case that an armed conflict will break out and this is actually partly the initial justification for the establishment of the European Union the European Union began as a coal and steel integration um Union between some of the uh what now becomes member states and the argument was that if you have the industries of Steel Industries and the coal industries of various European States that are integrated with a supranational adjudication then this leads to a situation where those countries can't go to war with each other because you rely on those particular Industries to to go to war and so therefore if it is regulated at a supernational level then those states are less likely to get into conflict with each other that's the general introductory idea of how the European became what it is today and so therefore this idea of economic globalization is one that is very palatable but while we have seen economic globalization increase Global wealth creation there has also been a tendency for the distribution of that wealth to be very uneven in terms of who actually gets to benefit from this wealth um where this is the case we have seen a disparity between for example the global North and the global South and when this takes place conflict can arise out of both the perpetuation of policy uh poverty sorry and the resentment of the existence of said wealth inequality there is a certain amount of resentment that could exist between the global North and the global South where the global South is not as economically prosperous as the globe or not for a multitude of different reasons these reasons being of course historical relating back to the days of imperialism and colonialism uh also being the fact that there is a certain amount of disparity in neocolonialism that exists today with the exploitation of resources between the global North and the global South and this all of these things that put these states within the global North into a higher position of economic Prosperity than those of the global South and we have a situation where the global South is now having to catch up to this particular set of economic economically prosperous States so this is a problem that is going to be faced and is always being faced uh in the world to this day especially within economic law more generally and of course you have the problem of climate change that has to be resolved as well with the global South being the the regions in the world that are the most affected by climate change despite being the least uh the least contributors of of climate change the greatest contributors have climate change or of course Western Global North prosperous states with other states such as India and China catching up at a very increased rate but in terms of historical uh CO2 emissions you would argue that the United States United Kingdom other European states are definitely front and center in terms of the amount that they have contributed to climate change so we have all of these problems and now the environment is something that we're going to look at in the next lesson when we look at globalization and the environment but that is also a thing that has to be factored into all of these discussions what about conflict resolution more generally and like I said in the start of this lesson when we talk about conflict I'm not just referring to it in the military sense although I I am as well referring treated in the military into the military sense but also talking about broader tensions and disputes that can exist between States and how those disputes might be resolved well in the realm of international law there are ample examples of conflicts that are being resolved using different peaceful methods we have of course the contentious jurisdiction of the international court of justice if you have a a problem within public international law if you're a country that has a problem within public international law and you have a problem with another state you can sue that state and the international court of justice you can bring a case to the icj for adjudication similarly if you have a dispute resolver a dispute around uh economic trade uh or at least a a a a a violation of the particular different treaties within the WTO for example the Gat or the gats you can bring that to the World Trade organization's dispute settlement and so you could bring a case in that particular regard if you have investment disputes then there are a number of different ways in which you can adjudicate those for example the UN commission for international trade law or citrile or the international center for the settlement of disputes um and again you can resolve disputes using uh commercial arbitration in that way so and there are of course others there are there are tribunals for for the uh for uh dispute relating to the regulation of the sea for example the international law of the sea there are tribunals for for all kinds of different disputes that could exist in the world these are just some of the larger ones within public international law more generally what about the limitations what about all of the limitations that we can Levy towards globalization in this regard well there are indeed limitations in the reduction of armed conflict so for example within geopolitics more broadly the Trump Administration opted for an increasingly hostile foreign policy during their time in office we have them um reneging on the Iran nuclear deal we have their relations with China so the imposition of tariffs on China something that is seen almost universally as on the one hand not actually having much of a detrimental impact on China more having a detrimental impact on the United States and also being something that is uh not particularly helpful when it comes to the regulation of trade activities uh we also have um hostilities towards other International institutions that uh that the Trump Administration attacked so for example they attacked the international criminal court famously suggesting that the ICC was a kangaroo court that's what uh the uh I believe the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo once suggested in relation to the ICC also the World Trade Organization themselves have been attacked by the Trump Administration and also the Obama Administration and to an extent You could argue that the the bad Administration has not been particularly friendly towards the WTO either with the refusal to appoint Apple body members to the Apple body of the dispute settlement and so therefore we have this problem with the WTO that is now essentially uh Paralyzed by the fact that there is no legal recourse for the uh appointment of members to the apple of body if a state rejects any kind of option we also see with the rise of cultural globalization the dissemination of very dangerous ideas that can lead to an increase in Conflict so the dissemination of misinformation relating to for example Islamic extremism has been something that is quite prominent in the world um especially relating to uh dissemination of information from different terrorist organizations such as Isis into and across Europe for example with a number of different individuals um opting to leave their European country and join Isis as a result of the the indoctrination that essentially takes place um as well as of course the far right the growth in the far right and the growth in dissemination campaigns um by the far right and so again these all can lead to increased um conflict situations and also when it comes to dissemination of misinformation uh you have to make reference to the Russia Ukraine conflict because uh it's a very important example that you ought to cite if given a question on conflict resolution in international law and global politics more generally we see that the Russian invasion of Ukraine the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine is an unprecedented example of globalization and being unable to prevent conflict from taking place now conflict in Europe was something that had been prevented in this kind of way all the way back to the signing of the Helsinki Accords and so when we see that the the the the the breaking of Helsinki uh by the Russian Federation uh in the in the annexation of territory of Ukraine we see that clearly globalization has a long way to go when it comes to preventing conflicts from taking place so so in terms of globalization we have at least an argument for and against the impact of globalization on the prevention of armed conflict and conflicts more generally in the next lesson what we're going to do is talk about the impact of globalization on environmental issues and the environment more broadly