Chat with us, powered by LiveChat International Relation Progress Assignment | All Paper

International Relation Progress Assignment

This assignment is a take-home essay consisting of 3 questions, 2 pages total, to test knowledge and assimilation of the course objectives. Please exclusively use the course materials to support each answer. To answer these questions paraphrase, do not use quotations.
Please answer all three questions below in a paragraph format by listing the number followed by your answer.  Please cite your sources using in-text citations; a reference list is not needed. Please review your work for errors before submitting it and ensure that it is grammatically correct. Your submission should be no more than 2 pages in length.
1. Explain what Zewei’s article from the week 4 reading was all about. Be sure to identify the thesis and conclusions.
2. What are the main ideas in Steinberg’s article?
3. Based on the Cragg, Arnold, and Muchlinski article from week 6, when and why did “business and human rights” become an international topic? What explains the delay?JHIL

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/187119006XXXXXXX

Western International Law and China’s Confucianism
in the 19th Century. Collision and Integration

Yang Zewei*

Professor of Law, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China

The Confucian world view in China was based on the concept of the Celes-
tial Empire of China and embodied in the Tributary System. The Chinese
view could not fit into the equal international relationship asserted among
European countries. In the mid-19th century, especially after the Opium
Wars, international law embarked on a furious collision with Chinese tra-
ditional Confucianism. Threatened by forces of Western powers, the Qing
government had no choice but to come to compromise with the Western
powers. Consequently, the Confucian world order based on the Celestial
Empire of China collapsed and Chinese officials and scholars began to learn,
accept and apply international law.


Due to its special history and culture, China did not build a diplomatic
system based on the principle of sovereign equality. The Confucian world
view based on the concept of the Celestial Empire and the Tributary System
lasted until the mid-19th century. The Opium War (1839–1842)1 not only

* Ph. D. E-mail:
1) From the late eighteenth century, Britain began to export opium to China. In 1838 more
than 40000 chests of opium were exported to China. In consequence, opium flooded China
and the Qing Government fell into a severe financial crisis because the outflow of silver
caused its soaring price. In the end of 1838, Emperor Daoguang sent Mr. LIN Zexu as the
imperial missioner to ban opium in Guangzhou. In June, 1840, the British government,

Journal of the History of International Law 13 (2011) 285–306

286 Yang / Journal of the History of International Law 13 (2011) 285–306

forced China to learn about the modern international relations, but also
forced a way for international law, a European norm of a new international
relationship, into China. From then on, international law began to collide
as well as integrate with Chinese traditional Confucianism.2 Threatened by
the force of Western powers, the Qing government had no choice but to
come to compromise with Western powers. Consequently, the Confucian
world order based on the Celestial Empire of China collapsed and Chinese
officials and scholars began to learn, accept and apply international law.
Meanwhile, although the Qing Government had been forced to enter into
the international community and an international legal system, international
law played little role in China’s foreign relations. Instead the Unequal Treaty
Regime played an important role.

This article includes four sections. Section I is an introduction to the
Chinese Confucian world order regime, centered on the Celestial Empire of
China and the Tributary System. Section II discusses the collision between
modern international law and Ch24

Gerald M. Steinberg

The Politics of NGOs, Human Rights
and the Arab-Israel Conflict


Terms such as “non-governmental organization” or “global civil society” are
used to describe tens of thousands of groups, varying greatly in structure,
objective, funding, impact, and other key aspects. The main influence of
these organizations results from the application of “soft power” as “the
ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or
payments”. NGOs are particularly influential on issues related to human
rights and humanitarian aid. Their soft-power is based on the perception of
technical expertise, combined with morality and normative goals, untainted
by partisan politics or economic objectives, and projected through the
media and other channels. Powerful NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch,
Amnesty International, and the International Federation of Human Rights,
work cooperatively in transnational advocacy networks, using the language
and frameworks of human rights and humanitarian assistance, These orga-
nizations spread their views and campaigns via frameworks such as the UN
Human Rights Council, in alliance with diplomats and political leaders
from selected governments with similar objectives. Israeli policy has been
a central focus of this NGO soft-power influence from the 2001 Durban
NGO Forum through the UN Goldstone Commission on the Gaza war.
The central role of NGO influence is reflected in the Goldstone Commis-
sion’s mandate, procedures, and reports, and the campaign to implement its
recommendations. The article examines the influence of NGO activity in
the political conflict, and on Israeli foreign and security policy in particular.

NGOs (non-governmental organizations) or CSOs (civil
society organizations) have become important actors in the “soft power”

The Politics of NGOs, Human Rights and the Arab-Israel Conflict • 25

arena of international diplomacy. In the United Nations system, over
four thousand NGOs are accredited to the Economic and Social Council
(ECOSOC),1 giving them privileged access to many UN activities, includ-
ing meetings of the Human Rights Council (HRC),2 the 2001 World Con-
ference on Racism3 (also known as the Durban Conference), and special
frameworks such as the UN Committee on Inalienable Rights of Palestinian
People,4 the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,5 and
the Committee Against Torture. NGO officials speak in the sessions, meet
with participating diplomats, and submit documents that are quoted in
final reports.6 Diplomats, journalists, academics, and other decision-makers
and opinion leaders routinely accept NGO claims, in most cases without
independent verification.

NGOs, both individually and through wider “transnational advocacy
networks” or a “global civil society” framework, are influential in many
fields, from environmental issues to human rights and humanitarian aid.
Their moral claims are a major source Guest Editors’ Introduction
Human Rights and Business

Wesley Cragg
York University

Denis G. Arnold
University of North Carolina, Charlotte

Peter Muchlinski
School of Oriental and African Studies

ABSTRACT: We provide a brief history of the business and human rights discourse
and scholarship, and an overview of the articles included in the special issue.

KEY WORDS: business, human rights, UN Framework, Ruggie, corporations

DISCUSSION OF BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS from an expUcitly ethicalperspective has a unique history. Prior to the last decade of the last century, it
was rarely discussed or examined. This might at first glance seem rather surprising.
The idea of human rights has been the subject of intense inquiry and debate now
since the renaissance and on some accounts before (Lloyd 1991, Lee and Lee 2010).
The pursuit of human rights has motivated revolutions, for example the American
and French revolutions. Debates about their ethical, political and legal status and
foundations have played a central role in academic and political discourse since the
Enlightenment. In the twentieth century, the practical political challenges of embed-
ding human rights in intemational law have dominated the agendas of emerging
intemational institutions like the United Nations, particularly since the end of the
Second World War. In contrast, the first discussion of business and human rights
in intemational institutions can be traced back only to the 1980s with the draft UN
Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations (United Nations 1984). Even with
this UN initiative, significant academic attention to the topic was ignited only in
the early to mid-1990s (an important early work is Donaldson 1991). Surprising
as this late emergence of the subject might seem, the reasons are not hard to find.
Until late in the last century, it was conventional wisdom that the responsibility for
protecting and advancing and etihancing respect for human rights lay with govem-
ment (Ruggie 2006 and 2007). On this view, the only human rights responsibilities
of the private business sector were indirect legal responsibilities. It was only in the
1990s that doubts about the efficacy of this allocation of responsibilities began to
gain widespread attention, driven, it is widely agreed, by the phenomenon of glo-
balization (Chandler 2003, Ruggie 2006, Kobrin 2009, Cragg 2010, Lee and Lee

©2012 Business Ethics Quarterly 22:1 (January 2012); ISSN 1052-150X pp. 1-7


2010). By extending the economic importance and reach particularly of multinational
corporations, a process encotiraged and facilitated by national and intemational laws
and treaties limiting in significant ways the capacity of governments to control the
movement of goods based, for example, on the conditions under which they were
produced, globalization gave rise to serious questions about both the ability and
the willingness of national govemments to fulfil their human rights responsibil