Comments on: When Business Avoids Environment (Again) https://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=790 Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:50:06 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8.10 By: Culture Kid https://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=790&cpage=1#comment-48997 Fri, 23 Nov 2007 03:28:37 +0000 http://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=790#comment-48997 I should clarify. Albright was saying that national governments have a responsibility for each of the individuals living within their borders, and that through a legal recognition of their existence and importance, these individuals should become part of a national (and international) economy. I have several problems with this idea – namely, the subjective notion of citizenship. Pastoralist groups in Africa, for example, transcend the borders of several nations in their annual migration cycles. Thus what country are they citizens of, and what economy should they be paying taxes to if they are not reaping the benefits of ANY markets? Some of the money from Bob Geldof’s Live Aid concert went to national governments in Africa to attempt to sedentarize pastoralists. Is this what Madeleine Albright meant by bringing poorer citizens into the “formal legal economy”? If so, I vehemently disagree with her ideals.

As discussed outside class and outside this blog, another of Albright’s ideas was to recognize the importance and power of multinational corporations on the global scale. She suggested the influence MNC’s have in world markets and political decisions makes them more powerful than some nations, and that perhaps they should have a seat on the United Nations Security Council. While yes, I agree that we should recognize the immense influence some MNC’s yield, I think the absolute WRONG thing to do would allow them further power by giving them a formal place in an international decision-making institution.

I did not go into these issues in my blog post, but Dr. Albright’s ideas of nationalism and the importance of the nation-state in the modern world are where I begin to butt heads with her. The suggestions she gave for the organization of nation-states with respect to a global economy make me squirm with fear at the potential destruction this may have on the environment. Thus, as I mentioned in the blog post, I think the connection between poverty and the environment must be recognized more fully by politicians and other decision-makers.

]]> By: merle https://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=790&cpage=1#comment-48975 Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:44:15 +0000 http://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=790#comment-48975 s prerogative to bring their poorest citizens into the national and global legal realm, to officially recognize their human right to become part of a “formal legal economy.”", but I think it might be a dangerous idea. It seems to presuppose 1) what is referred to as a "realistic" conception of the state, i.e. that the state is and should only be motivated by its self-interest and 2) that the domain of justice is limited by the frontiers of nation-states. According to this typical conception of relation among states, we are justified in exploiting other humans as long as they are not within the frontiers of our state, or, if we recognize the positive duty not to exploit others, then we don't have the negative duty of trying to prevent or put of stop to the exploitation, all this because it is the duty of the state wherein the exploitation takes place to protect its citizens, not the duty or responsibility of anyone else. I think that there are numerous things which are wrong with this picture, but to identify only one, it seems to presuppose a very naive idea of the state by ignoring (or hiding) the possibility of corrupt states which are maintained by more powerful states in order to exploit their populations and prevent those very states from protecting their citizens. So, saying that "it should be every nation-state’s prerogative to bring their poorest citizens into the national and global legal realm" ignores that some nation-state might not be in a position to do it and that the responsibility may then fall upon other states or international institutions.]]> I am not sure I quite understand the idea that “it should be every nation-state’s prerogative to bring their poorest citizens into the national and global legal realm, to officially recognize their human right to become part of a “formal legal economy.””, but I think it might be a dangerous idea.
It seems to presuppose 1) what is referred to as a “realistic” conception of the state, i.e. that the state is and should only be motivated by its self-interest and 2) that the domain of justice is limited by the frontiers of nation-states. According to this typical conception of relation among states, we are justified in exploiting other humans as long as they are not within the frontiers of our state, or, if we recognize the positive duty not to exploit others, then we don’t have the negative duty of trying to prevent or put of stop to the exploitation, all this because it is the duty of the state wherein the exploitation takes place to protect its citizens, not the duty or responsibility of anyone else.
I think that there are numerous things which are wrong with this picture, but to identify only one, it seems to presuppose a very naive idea of the state by ignoring (or hiding) the possibility of corrupt states which are maintained by more powerful states in order to exploit their populations and prevent those very states from protecting their citizens. So, saying that “it should be every nation-state’s prerogative to bring their poorest citizens into the national and global legal realm” ignores that some nation-state might not be in a position to do it and that the responsibility may then fall upon other states or international institutions.

]]>