News / National
Grace Mugabe debacle depicts the struggle between legal positivism and political realism
23 Aug 2017 at 01:54hrs | Views
A political commentator Pedzisai Ruhanya has argued that first lady Grace Mugabe's debacle in South Africa depicts the struggle between legal positivism and political realism.
This was after the SA authorities imposed diplomatic immunity to Grace after she assaulted a model in that country when she found her in the company of her sons.
"Explaining First Lady Grace Mugabe's SA problems from a REALISM analytic lens; is International Law Vs International Relations: International law and international relations have long been concerned with the ways in which states interact with one another, and both fields have traditionally build their theories on the twin assumption of state sovereignty and non-intervention, most notably embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia," he said.
"The Grace Mugabe debacle depicts the struggle between legal positivism and political realism; that is the supremacy of politics over law. Like realism in international relations, rationalism in comparative politics concentrates on "means-ends" calculations and how they affect political outcomes. But realism engages in methodological nationalism, whereas rationalism as it is deployed in comparative politics engages in methodological individualism. For realism, the ontological unit of analysis is the state as a unitary actor from which the models and explanations for events and political outcomes in international relations are derived."
He said for rationalism, the ontological unit of analysis is the individual, whose strategic interaction forms the basis of political explanation.
"The difference between the two perspectives thus resides in their focus on states and individuals, whereas the common affinity of the two perspectives is their emphasis on the UTILITY-MAXIMIZING of the units of analysis. Like the polarity of LAW and POWER (which is the case with First Lady Grace Mugabe's issue) in the fields of international law and international relations, rationalist and structuralist accounts of politics have created a polarity between structureless agents on the one hand and extreme rational choice and agentless structure on the other extreme structuralists. To address the problem, there is need to construct an EMPIRICAL MODEL," Ruhanya posted on facebook.
"If the norms contained in the international human rights regime are important, as legal proceduralists, neoliberal institutionalists and liberal-republicans argue, then there aught to be a positive relationship between international law of human rights (rights in principle) and the protection of human rights (rights in practice). Such an expectation is supported by Henkin's (1979: 47) claim that "it is probably the case that all nations observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost all of their time."
He said the most probable explanation on why the First Lady got away with her transigressions could be understood using the REALISM analytic framework specifically.Strict realists make six assumptions about the world.
"States are the primary and most powerful actors in the international sphere . The world is anarchic. Since there is no power over states and no state may command another, there can be no order in international relations. States seek to maximize their security power. Realists perceive the world as having limited resources that are evenly distributed and so they see states as primarily focused on maximizing power and security. States behave rationally in their pursuits of security or power. There is utility in the use of force
It is important to note that there is a major division within the Realist School regarding how states measure the maximization of power .Under classic realist theory states seek to make absolute gains in their power," he said.
"Under this view, a realist state does not care whether other states gain in the same transaction as long as the state that is acting makes a gain in power. Neo-realists argue that states seek relative gains. In this view states will want to know whether they will benefit more than other states based on the existing power structure. Based on these assumptions, realists tend to view the world as a series of prisoners' dilemmas. The classic prisoners' dilemma involves two suspects arrested for a crime. The suspects agree in advance not to say anything."
Ruhanya said the police interrogate them separately and over each leniency in return for a confession.
"If neither suspect cooperates, they will only face a light sentence for a lesser included offence. If both suspects confess, they will both go to prison for the full crime though they will get some leniency for their cooperation. If only one suspect confesses that suspect will be left off while the other gets the maximum sentence for the full crime. The best overall outcome for both suspects is when both choose not to confess. For each individual the best outcome is to confess while the other sticks to their agreement not to say anything. If either suspect believes the other will cheat by confessing, it is in their interest to also cheat and confess. Unless the two suspects are incredibly committed to their agreement this prisoners' dilemma should tend to end in both suspects confessing to protect themselves against worst possible outcome and possibly obtain the best outcome," he said.
"The basic idea from the prisoner's dilemma can be translated into the international relations sphere. For example, States will follow the Third Geneva Conventions (which protects prisoners of war and wounded soldiers) as long as they believe other states will also comply. Yet if one state suspects or knows that another state is violating the Third Geneva Convention, the other state would be motivated to break the treaty
Criticism."
He said while realism may explain certain choices made by states in the international sphere and thereby illuminate conduct (particularly economic and military conduct), it has difficulty explaining the acceptance by states of international human rights in such as self-centered and power focused world as understood by the realist theory.
"The problems are two fold: Realists must find some benefit for states in agreeing to and complying with international human rights norms and other norms of good governance. Even if such a benefit could be found, realists would need to show why there would be a strong incentive to cheat under the prisoner's dilemma," he said.
This was after the SA authorities imposed diplomatic immunity to Grace after she assaulted a model in that country when she found her in the company of her sons.
"Explaining First Lady Grace Mugabe's SA problems from a REALISM analytic lens; is International Law Vs International Relations: International law and international relations have long been concerned with the ways in which states interact with one another, and both fields have traditionally build their theories on the twin assumption of state sovereignty and non-intervention, most notably embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia," he said.
"The Grace Mugabe debacle depicts the struggle between legal positivism and political realism; that is the supremacy of politics over law. Like realism in international relations, rationalism in comparative politics concentrates on "means-ends" calculations and how they affect political outcomes. But realism engages in methodological nationalism, whereas rationalism as it is deployed in comparative politics engages in methodological individualism. For realism, the ontological unit of analysis is the state as a unitary actor from which the models and explanations for events and political outcomes in international relations are derived."
He said for rationalism, the ontological unit of analysis is the individual, whose strategic interaction forms the basis of political explanation.
"The difference between the two perspectives thus resides in their focus on states and individuals, whereas the common affinity of the two perspectives is their emphasis on the UTILITY-MAXIMIZING of the units of analysis. Like the polarity of LAW and POWER (which is the case with First Lady Grace Mugabe's issue) in the fields of international law and international relations, rationalist and structuralist accounts of politics have created a polarity between structureless agents on the one hand and extreme rational choice and agentless structure on the other extreme structuralists. To address the problem, there is need to construct an EMPIRICAL MODEL," Ruhanya posted on facebook.
"If the norms contained in the international human rights regime are important, as legal proceduralists, neoliberal institutionalists and liberal-republicans argue, then there aught to be a positive relationship between international law of human rights (rights in principle) and the protection of human rights (rights in practice). Such an expectation is supported by Henkin's (1979: 47) claim that "it is probably the case that all nations observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost all of their time."
He said the most probable explanation on why the First Lady got away with her transigressions could be understood using the REALISM analytic framework specifically.Strict realists make six assumptions about the world.
"States are the primary and most powerful actors in the international sphere . The world is anarchic. Since there is no power over states and no state may command another, there can be no order in international relations. States seek to maximize their security power. Realists perceive the world as having limited resources that are evenly distributed and so they see states as primarily focused on maximizing power and security. States behave rationally in their pursuits of security or power. There is utility in the use of force
It is important to note that there is a major division within the Realist School regarding how states measure the maximization of power .Under classic realist theory states seek to make absolute gains in their power," he said.
"Under this view, a realist state does not care whether other states gain in the same transaction as long as the state that is acting makes a gain in power. Neo-realists argue that states seek relative gains. In this view states will want to know whether they will benefit more than other states based on the existing power structure. Based on these assumptions, realists tend to view the world as a series of prisoners' dilemmas. The classic prisoners' dilemma involves two suspects arrested for a crime. The suspects agree in advance not to say anything."
Ruhanya said the police interrogate them separately and over each leniency in return for a confession.
"If neither suspect cooperates, they will only face a light sentence for a lesser included offence. If both suspects confess, they will both go to prison for the full crime though they will get some leniency for their cooperation. If only one suspect confesses that suspect will be left off while the other gets the maximum sentence for the full crime. The best overall outcome for both suspects is when both choose not to confess. For each individual the best outcome is to confess while the other sticks to their agreement not to say anything. If either suspect believes the other will cheat by confessing, it is in their interest to also cheat and confess. Unless the two suspects are incredibly committed to their agreement this prisoners' dilemma should tend to end in both suspects confessing to protect themselves against worst possible outcome and possibly obtain the best outcome," he said.
"The basic idea from the prisoner's dilemma can be translated into the international relations sphere. For example, States will follow the Third Geneva Conventions (which protects prisoners of war and wounded soldiers) as long as they believe other states will also comply. Yet if one state suspects or knows that another state is violating the Third Geneva Convention, the other state would be motivated to break the treaty
Criticism."
He said while realism may explain certain choices made by states in the international sphere and thereby illuminate conduct (particularly economic and military conduct), it has difficulty explaining the acceptance by states of international human rights in such as self-centered and power focused world as understood by the realist theory.
"The problems are two fold: Realists must find some benefit for states in agreeing to and complying with international human rights norms and other norms of good governance. Even if such a benefit could be found, realists would need to show why there would be a strong incentive to cheat under the prisoner's dilemma," he said.
Source - Byo24News
