This lesson plan was developed by staff members of the Globalization101.org project of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. To learn more about this free resource, please visit: www.globalization101.org.

For a copy of this Lesson Plan in Microsoft Word click here.


Introduction

In this lesson, students will be introduced to the issues of state sovereignty and governance of international institutions. The first activity introduces the debate between internationalists and the rights of sovereign nations. Students will read an interview with Jeremy Rabkin, one of the most vocal proponents of state sovereignty, and a rebuttal in Foreign Affairs written by Peter Spiro. After becoming familiar with the two sides of the argument, students will role play one of the positions in a mock interview conducted by another member of the class.


Student Objectives

Unit Objectives	Your State Standard
Understand the concepts of state sovereignty and supranational bodies; Understand the balance between citizen rights and government power; Analyze the justifications used by states in their exercise of power; and Conceptualize the different ways political legitimacy is expressed by states	Click here for updated State Standards.

Materials

1. International Law & Organizations Issue Brief, "What is International Law?" and "The Issue of Sovereignty"
2. Sovereignty Handout (see below):
   
   
   
   • "A Defense of Sovereignty," Interview with Jeremy Rabkin, National Review Online, March 10, 2005
   • Peter J. Spiro, "The New Sovereigntists: American Exceptionalism and its False Prophets," Foreign Affairs, November/December 2000.
   • Role Play: Discussing Sovereignty

Time Required

2 classes


Procedure

Preparation

Have students read the International Law & Organizations Issue Brief sections on "What is International Law" and "The Issue of Sovereignty" along with the Handout 1 as homework. Students should provide brief written answers to the following questions:

1. List four sources of international law and three ways that international law is enforced.
   
   
2. How is enforcement of international law different from enforcement of domestic law?
   
   
3. What is the traditional notion of state sovereignty? Why is globalization forcing us to rethink this concept?
   
   
4. Describe Rabkin's notion of sovereignty and the effect of international law on the actions of the United States.
   
   
5. Rabkin contrasts the U.S. and EU views of sovereignty. Explain why he is troubled by the EU system of subordinating national constitutions to international agreements.
   
   
6. Critics have suggested that the notion of state sovereignty could be used as a shield to justify domestic atrocities such as genocide. What is the sovereignty-based argument against foreign intervention in cases of genocide? Does Rabkin sufficiently address this problem? (Hint: carefully review the National Review question and Rabkin's answer related to genocide.)
   
   
7. What does Spiro mean when he refers to a system of "international law a la carte"?
   
   
8. List four examples used by Spiro to illustrate the "New Sovereigntist" vision influencing U.S. foreign policy. Why are free trade agreements treated differently by "New Sovereigntists"?
   
   
9. "New Sovereigntists" argue that because international law is unenforceable, it is fundamentally weak and should not be respected. How does Spiro counter this argument?

Class 1 - Discussion of the Concept of Sovereignty

Using the discussion questions listed above, the teacher should lead an in-class dialogue on the idea of sovereignty and the arguments espoused by Rabkin and Spiro. If sufficient time is available, the teacher can use the topic of the death penalty as a case study of a domestic practice at odds with international norms. Students can discuss whether sovereignty is a good justification for continued use of the death penalty in the U.S. This will also prepare students for the role-play exercise for the following class.

Class 2 - Role-Play

This role-play is designed to reinforce the debate from the assigned readings and class discussion on state sovereignty and international law. Students will be assigned to argue these positions by participating in a television interview-style discussion of a hypothetical current event topic as set forth in the Handout 1. Each interview will be made up of three students: one moderator/reporter, one taking Rabkin's position, and the other supporting Spiro's position. The teacher should assign each student a role and a topic when the Handout 1 is given for homework.

---

Globalization101.org
Unit on International Law and Organizations
Handout 1

Sovereignty

A. "A Defense of Sovereignty," Interview with Jeremy Rabkin, National Review Online, March 10, 2005

B. Article by Peter J. Spiro, "The New Sovereigntists: American Exceptionalism and its False Prophets," Foreign Affairs, November/December 2000.



C. Role Play: Discussing Sovereignty

In each interview group, one student will support the "New Sovereigntist" position, another will support an internationalist perspective, and the third will act as an interviewer/reporter. The format is that of a brief television interview segment pitting one supporter of an issue against the other. Interviewers should act as moderators, reading aloud each scenario and asking the questions to each side. During the interviews, moderators/reporters should take notes on positions taken, which will be later presented to the class. Each group will be assigned one of the following three topics:

Issue One: Global Trade Court


The U.S. is currently debating whether to join the proposed Global Trade Court (GTC). The GTC would have the authority to hear any case between two or more member countries that involved an international trade dispute. The U.S. is currently the only major industrialized country not to join the GTC. If the U.S. joins, it would agree to enforce any GTC decision, including changes to U.S. law. A panel of three judges, named to the GTC by respected international law professors, would decide each dispute.

Questions:
1. Would the GTC require the U.S. to give up some of its sovereignty? What would the U.S. get in return?
2. How could the average U.S. citizen influence the way the GTC is run? Is this a problem?
3. Should the U.S. join the GTC? Why/why not? What additional information would be useful in making a decision?


[Teacher Notes: The GTC situation addresses sovereignty and international institutions. Neosovereigntists should be troubled that the U.S. would be giving up some of its authority in joining the GTC, while the internationalists should point out possible benefits of the GTC. Similarly, Neosovereigntists should point out that American citizens cannot directly influence the court (i.e., it is not accountable), while internationalists can discuss the actions of member state governments and the international legal community in ensuring that the court operates smoothly.]


Issue Two: Nuclear Weapons

The citizens of Pipik, a peace-loving, democratic country in Southeast Asia, are worried. Their neighbor to the east, the Sovereign Republic of Schmengal, has become quite belligerent. Pipik and Schmengal are historical enemies, and recently the President of Schmengal vowed to pay back Pipik for the humiliating military defeat it suffered in the "Long War" between the two countries (1823 - 1911). Schmengal began a nuclear power program several years ago, and some international experts believe that some day Schmengal will have the capability to make an atomic bomb. The Schmengalese government is notoriously brutal and is responsible for prohibiting its citizens from using the Internet. Pipik's government is debating a preemptive military strike on the Schmengal nuclear facility, but is concerned that the international community will deem its actions unlawful under international law.

Questions:
1. Should Pipik be concerned about the opinion of the international community or, if need be, act unilaterally?
2. Pipik has its own nuclear program, which was started a year before Schmengal's. Does this make Pipik's proposed military strike more difficult to justify?
3. The Treaty of Bloosh, which ended the Long War, specifies that if Pipik and Schmengal have a dispute, it should be taken to the International Court of Justice. Does this limit Pipik's options?


[Teacher Notes: This situation addresses sovereignty, war and self-defense. Internationalists will put more emphasis on working with other countries to solve the problem, including taking the dispute to the International Court of Justice. Neosovereigntists will emphasize self-defense as a way to justify unilateral action.]


Issue Three: Pollution

The countries of Tannery and Downhill are dependent on water from the Foamy River, which begins in the mountains of Tannery's ski district and runs through its capital city of Shyburg, home to numerous meat processing and leather goods companies. Waste products from Shyburg are dumped into the Foamy River on the Tannery side and are carried across the border to Downhill, whose citizens are now complaining of serious health effects. Tannery has thus far ignored Downhill's complaints, arguing that Shyburg's economy depends heavily on access to the Foamy River and that as a sovereign nation it can make the river as foamy as it wants. As tensions rise, the United Nations steps in and mandates that Tannery immediately clean up the river and stop polluting.

Questions:
1. Should Tannery stop polluting the river?
2. If stopping the pollution is a good outcome, how far would you be willing to support punitive action against Tannery? Should Downhill cut off trade with Tannery? Cease diplomatic relations? Drop a bomb on Shyburg?
3. Do you support the UN action? How should Tannery react?


[Teacher Notes: Environmental issues can illustrate the limitations of the Neosovereigntist and internationalist arguments, even if both sides agree that the pollution should be stopped. Internationalists may support a UN solution, but may also admit that a harsh mandate is problematic. Neosovereigntists may argue that Downhill has the right to protect itself, but students may find it difficult to "draw the line" on how far Downhill should go.]

Process:

The teacher will have the students break into their interview groups. Students should be given 15 - 20 minutes to complete the interview. Each group's moderator/reporter will be responsible for writing brief notes on the major positions taken by each side. After the interviews are over, the teacher can then lead the class in discussions on each of the three topics, asking the moderators to report on the different positions taken.

---

For a copy of this Lesson Plan in Microsoft Word click here.

Contributed by Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) and Globalization101.org.

Back to main curriculum page.



Return

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• Delicious
• Digg
• StumbleUpon
• Reddit
• Facebook
• Google
• Yahoo