Justice and Globalization

Please read the four questions that follow. Answer three questions in no more than 1000 words each.

1) Climate Change

Design an experimentalist regime to tackle the problem of climate change. Describe the goals, procedures and other relevant elements of your regime. Why would an experimentalist regime be an interesting or effective alternative to an interstate solution? Why have interstate climate change negotiations failed? (You don’t need to provide a specific description of the diplomatic negotiations, but you should understand and explain the reasons why states have failed to reach a compromise).
For the purpose of designing your experimentalist regime, how would you understand and define the causes and consequences of climate change? Would you consider only solution around cutting emission or also geo-engineering? What are the burdens and costs that your regime would impose, who would bear the costs and why?
Why do you think that many climate change scholars, activists and politicians have argued that a solution to climate change should be just? How would you respond to this demand for justice? In other words, how would you justify your experimentalist regime and how would this justification answer some of the problems behind the failure of past climate change negotiations?

2) Global Health & Poverty
Define the global health problem. How are global health problems related to the global poverty crisis? Depending on how you have defined the problem of global health and poverty, what are the global justice arguments you would articulate in order to support greater redistributive obligations regarding the global poor who do not have access to fair standards of health? You may discuss general ideas about how to change the global governance structure, or more specific proposals like the Health Impact Fund.

3) Fair Trade

You are out of IUC and in Central America. You are working as a consultant for a Fair Trade Organization. You have been sent to Central America to write a report on the ‘coffee crisis’. Coffee prices in general as well as fair trade prices have decline in the last two decades. Prices no longer sustain incomes above poverty for most small producers in the developing world. The Fair Trade movement is sharply divided between those who defend the certification and labeling model as a way of advancing an economy based on fairness and solidarity and those who believe in profit maximization and the potential of labeling as a market differentiation strategy, for both coffee producers and for the food industry showing commitment to corporate social responsibility.
On the other hand, the social movement both in the North and in the South, has radicalized and has began to oppose Fair Trade labeling and certification as a real alternative to global income inequality and poverty. Social movements have grown skeptical of an international trade system they describe as unjust.
Your boss at the Fair Trade Organization is confused about this scenario. All three positions (the moderate certification and labeling camp, the corporate social responsibility certification camp and the radical anti-globalization camp) invoke justice to justify radically different proposals. Since you have taken a class on global justice, you volunteered to spend a few months in Central America to study the problem and write a memo.
Your boss asks you to explain the ideas of justice articulated by each of the three camps. But he also asks you to explain the debate between these three positions in the context of the international trade system and in relation to the idea of international trade as a development policy.
Finally, your boss tells you: enjoy writing the memo while drinking a good cup of fair trade coffee!

4) Humanitarian Intervention
When to intervene and when not to intervene? What are the reasons (global justice reasons) you would invoke to defend intervention and non-intervention?
Choose two examples, one in which you would support intervention and another in which although a humanitarian crisis is happening, you would support non-intervention. You may discuss a real example or invent a case study, but in both situations there is a serious humanitarian crisis that has neither been resolved domestically, nor internationally (namely, permanent members of the Security Council have not reached consensus in relation to authorizing an intervention).
Try to have one example where the geopolitical dimension of the crisis is relatively more important than other dimensions. Try to have another example where the basic structure of global governance, rather than specific geopolitical interests of great powers, is a more relevant dimension to understand the causes and possible solutions to the crisis.

The writer can choose which 3 questions to answer. He gets a little bit more than 800 words for each answer.Total 2475 words