Theoretical perspectives Questionbank

Source A

Source B

Adapted from: The Guardian, “Small island states call for urgent climate action” (2022)

Small island developing states (SIDS) are among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, despite contributing the least to global emissions. Rising sea levels, saltwater intrusion, and more frequent natural disasters threaten not only their environments but their sovereignty, economies, and national identities.

Leaders from the Pacific and Caribbean have repeatedly called on major polluters to honor their financial and legal commitments under the Paris Agreement. They argue that without immediate reductions in emissions and substantial funding for adaptation, their countries may become uninhabitable.

Despite diplomatic efforts, many SIDS face barriers in global negotiations. Their political and economic influence is limited, and their voices are often sidelined by more powerful states with competing priorities. The lack of binding enforcement mechanisms in climate agreements further complicates accountability.

Nevertheless, SIDS have developed alliances such as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) to amplify their collective voice in global forums. They emphasize that climate justice is inseparable from human rights and development. For them, climate change is not a distant threat but an existential crisis that tests the inclusiveness and fairness of international cooperation.

Source C

Adapted from: UN News, “Tensions Rise Over Unequal Vaccine Distribution” (2021)

The global response to COVID-19 revealed serious fractures in international cooperation. Wealthy nations secured the majority of available vaccine doses early in the pandemic, often ordering far more than their populations needed. Meanwhile, many lower-income countries were left to wait for donations or rely on delayed shipments through COVAX, the global vaccine-sharing initiative.

While the WHO and other institutions called for equitable access, critics argue that structural inequality and national self-interest overwhelmed global solidarity. Some countries even blocked the export of vaccines or ingredients needed for production. Others engaged in "vaccine diplomacy," using access to doses as leverage in foreign policy.

This disparity not only prolonged the pandemic globally but also undermined trust in international institutions. Public health experts warned that “no one is safe until everyone is safe,” yet the response remained fragmented and competitive.

Some efforts were made to improve distribution, such as debt relief or technology transfer, but many states remained skeptical of international cooperation, viewing it as shaped by power imbalances and unequal benefits. The pandemic exposed the limitations of voluntary systems and raised questions about whether the current global order can respond effectively and equitably to shared challenges.

Source D

Adapted from: Human Rights Watch, “Corporate Power and Climate Accountability” (2023)

Multinational corporations play a major role in shaping global responses to environmental crises. Fossil fuel companies, agribusiness, and heavy industry sectors have significant financial interests in maintaining the status quo and are among the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this, they often present themselves as partners in sustainability through public-private partnerships and voluntary climate pledges.

However, many corporations continue to lobby against environmental regulations, fund climate denial, and delay transitions to green alternatives. Investigations have revealed discrepancies between corporate sustainability reports and actual practices, leading to accusations of "greenwashing." Critics argue that voluntary commitments lack transparency and accountability, enabling powerful actors to appear cooperative while undermining real progress.

Civil society groups and investigative journalists have exposed how corporate influence distorts policy outcomes, particularly in international negotiations. Some corporations wield more economic power than states, making it difficult for governments, especially in the Global South, to enforce compliance or prioritize the public interest.

While some companies have made genuine efforts toward decarbonization, the imbalance of influence raises concerns about the democratic legitimacy of global environmental governance. Human Rights Watch calls for stronger regulatory frameworks to ensure that climate justice and public welfare are not sacrificed for profit.

Source A

Source B

Adapted from: “The End of Liberal Internationalism?” by John Ikenberry, Foreign Affairs (2021)

Liberal democracies have long claimed a moral authority based on principles such as individual freedom, rule of law, transparency, and institutional accountability. These values have traditionally underpinned their legitimacy both domestically and internationally, reinforcing the liberal international order after World War II. However, in recent years, liberal states, particularly the United States and its allies, have faced growing criticism for failing to uphold these values consistently in practice. Critics argue that foreign policy decisions, such as the abrupt withdrawal from Afghanistan, the use of drone strikes, and support for autocratic allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have weakened democratic credibility.

These contradictions raise questions about whether democracies are still committed to the ideals they promote. When democracies act primarily in self-interest or align with non-democratic regimes, their moral authority appears selective and strategic rather than principled. This erosion of global trust in liberal democracies damages their ability to claim legitimacy beyond their borders. The gap between declared values and actual conduct, especially in foreign policy, has led some observers to question whether power has overtaken principles as the primary source of state legitimacy. As liberal states lose influence in a more multipolar world, these tensions become increasingly visible and contested.

Source C

Adapted from: Freedom House, “Freedom in the World Report 2023”

Global freedom has been in decline for 17 consecutive years, with over 100 countries experiencing worsening conditions. Freedom House reports that out of 195 countries, only 20% are rated as “Free,” while 43% are either “Not Free” or “Partly Free.” This erosion of freedom is closely linked to the actions of authoritarian regimes that consolidate power by undermining democratic institutions. Governments in countries such as Belarus, Iran, Myanmar, and Venezuela have restricted civil society, controlled the media, and politicized the judiciary to silence dissent and maintain control.

These regimes often pass laws under the guise of national security, such as anti-terrorism or “foreign agent” legislation, to criminalize protest, restrict NGOs, and marginalize opposition figures. By monopolizing state institutions, these governments project an image of stability and order while violating democratic principles. In some cases, democratic countries tolerate or even enable these practices when it aligns with their economic or geopolitical interests.

The report also highlights that even in democratic states, populist or nationalist governments are adopting authoritarian methods, eroding checks and balances, limiting civil liberties, and weakening judicial independence. These trends suggest a broader, more systemic challenge to the legitimacy of democratic governance, with significant implications for global order and human rights.

Source D

Adapted from: “Populism and the Crisis of Democracy,” by Cas Mudde, Journal of Democracy (2022)

Populism has emerged as a major challenge to liberal democratic systems, particularly in Europe and Latin America. Populist leaders claim to speak for “the real people” and portray political elites, judges, journalists, and international institutions as corrupt or out of touch. This anti-elite rhetoric helps populists win elections, but once in power, they often erode democratic norms by concentrating authority in the executive, weakening opposition parties, and attacking media freedom. Countries such as Hungary, Brazil, and India illustrate how democratic backsliding can occur within an electoral framework.

Although these regimes hold elections, the playing field becomes increasingly uneven. Courts may be stacked, civil liberties restricted, and dissent labeled unpatriotic. Populist governments often frame legitimacy not around democratic accountability, but around “popular will,” undermining minority rights and constitutional protections in the process. This blurs the line between democracy and authoritarianism.

At the same time, some populist regimes benefit from high approval ratings and a perception of authenticity, particularly among older or economically disaffected voters. However, such popularity does not guarantee long-term legitimacy if it comes at the cost of institutional integrity. As populist-authoritarianism spreads, questions arise about whether formal democracy alone is sufficient to ensure legitimate and accountable governance.

Source A

Adapted from: Freedom House, "Freedom in the World 2023: Marking 50 Years in the Struggle for Democracy" (2023).

Source B

Adapted from: The Economist Intelligence Unit, "Democracy Index 2022: Frontline Democracy and the Battle for Ukraine" (2023).

The Democracy Index 2022 report shines a spotlight on the profound impact of the ongoing war in Ukraine, illustrating how this major geopolitical crisis has compelled democratic nations around the world to take stock of their core values and re-examine the strength and reliability of their strategic partnerships. In the face of renewed threats to the international rules-based order, governments have reaffirmed commitments to free expression, rule of law, and collective security, yet the data also paint a sobering portrait of global governance as a whole.

According to the Index, a mere 8 percent of the world’s population now live in what are classified as “full democracies,” where electoral processes are competitive and fair, civil liberties are robustly protected, and political participation is both widespread and meaningful. By contrast, 37 percent of people reside under authoritarian regimes, states in which political power is concentrated in the hands of a few, opposition voices are routinely silenced, and the mechanisms of government serve to entrench incumbent rule rather than reflect the public will.

Source C

Adapted from: Human Rights Watch, "World Report 2023: Authoritarianism’s Global Impact" (2023).

Authoritarian leaders around the world are increasingly weaponizing legal frameworks to suppress dissent and restrict civil society. This growing trend involves the strategic use of legislation to target individuals and groups that challenge government authority. In countries such as Myanmar and Russia, regimes have introduced broad and vaguely defined laws that allow them to clamp down on opposition parties, independent journalists, human rights defenders, and civil society organizations. These laws are often justified under the pretext of protecting national security or preserving social order, but in practice, they criminalize free expression, peaceful protest, and political opposition.

For instance, in Russia, laws labeling individuals and groups as “foreign agents” or “extremists” have been used to discredit and dismantle NGOs and silence investigative reporting. In Myanmar, following the 2021 military coup, authorities used legal tools to imprison elected leaders and violently suppress peaceful demonstrations. These actions reflect a broader pattern in which authoritarian governments entrench their power by manipulating the rule of law, turning legal systems into instruments of repression rather than justice.

At the same time, international institutions face major obstacles in responding effectively. Deepening geopolitical rivalries and lack of consensus among powerful states often paralyze global efforts to hold these regimes accountable, enabling further democratic backsliding.

Source D

Adapted from: Pippa Norris, "Cultural Backlash: Populism and the Erosion of Liberal Democracy," Cambridge University Press (2019).

The rise of populism reflects a growing backlash against liberal democratic norms and institutions. Populist leaders typically portray themselves as the true voice of “the people,” positioning themselves in opposition to traditional political elites, technocrats, and established institutions. By claiming to represent the general will, they often bypass or undermine democratic checks and balances, such as independent judiciaries, free media, and legislative oversight. This erosion of democratic norms is especially apparent in regions grappling with deep economic inequality, cultural divisions, and widespread disillusionment with conventional political parties.

In such contexts, populist rhetoric resonates with citizens who feel left behind by globalization or ignored by out-of-touch elites. By offering simple and emotionally charged solutions to complex problems—such as immigration, unemployment, or national identity—populist movements gain support across the political spectrum. However, while populism may mobilize discontent and energize political participation in the short term, its longer-term consequences often include democratic backsliding and institutional decay.

Leaders who concentrate power in the executive branch, delegitimize opposition voices, and attack the independence of the press can gradually transform democratic systems into authoritarian-leaning regimes. Ultimately, although populism may emerge from democratic processes, it frequently undermines the very foundations of liberal democracy it claims to revitalize.

Source A

Source B

Adapted from: "The Hidden Costs of Military Power", an article by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2022)

"Military bases abroad are often seen as tools of hard power, enabling states to project influence, deter threats, and strengthen alliances. However, maintaining these bases can also fuel resentment, infringe on sovereignty, and burden national budgets. The US operates the most extensive overseas military network in history, with over 750 bases in more than 80 countries. Critics argue that such global reach can escalate tensions, provoke regional arms races, and undermine international norms of non-intervention. Proponents claim these bases are essential for preserving a rules-based order."

Source C

Adapted from: "China’s Rise and the Shift in Global Power", The Diplomat (2023)

"China's expanding economic power has begun translating into greater political influence.

Through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China offers infrastructure investment in exchange for strategic partnerships. Though not traditionally associated with military intervention, China has established its first overseas base in Djibouti and maintains access agreements with ports globally. Some analysts view this as a form of 'soft militarization', while others see it as a necessary step for a rising power asserting its sovereignty and securing global trade routes."

Source D

Adapted from: "Power in the 21st Century: Beyond the Battlefield", Chatham House (2022)

"Power today is increasingly exercised through non-military means: economic dependency, technological dominance, and control of information. Although traditional military capabilities remain relevant, especially among established powers, rising states and non-state actors frequently deploy hybrid tools. Cyber operations, disinformation campaigns, and economic coercion can shape global outcomes without a single shot being fired. Asymmetric power no longer means weakness; it means using alternative strategies to offset conventional military superiority."

Source A

Source B

Adapted from: Montevideo Convention and International Legal Commentary (2022).

The Montevideo Convention defines a state as an entity with a permanent population, defined territory, government, and the capacity to engage in relations with other states. These legal criteria aim to provide an objective framework for statehood. However, political realities complicate this definition. Many entities that meet these requirements, such as Taiwan, Kosovo, and Palestine, lack full United Nations membership or diplomatic recognition from powerful countries. International recognition has become as much about politics as about legal status. For instance, Taiwan has strong institutions and a democratic government, yet China’s geopolitical influence has prevented most countries from officially recognizing it. Similarly, Palestine is recognized by over 130 countries but lacks universal recognition due to opposition from the U.S. and some European states.

Recognition affects a state's ability to access international aid, enter treaties, and participate in global forums, impacting both legitimacy and sovereignty. States without widespread recognition often face limited foreign investment, restricted travel rights for citizens, and security vulnerabilities. Thus, recognition does not only acknowledge a state's existence, it significantly shapes its legitimacy in global politics and its capacity to act as a sovereign actor on the international stage.

Source C

Adapted from: “Cyber Power and the Modern State,” by Joseph Nye (2022).

The digital age has redefined the landscape of state sovereignty. While sovereignty once relied on physical borders and exclusive control over territory, modern states now face challenges from cyber threats that are transnational and often anonymous. These threats originate not just from rival states but also from criminal networks, hacktivists, and private actors who operate independently of national governments.

Cyberattacks, ranging from infrastructure sabotage to mass disinformation, have targeted elections, hospitals, banks, and government institutions. Countries like the United States, Estonia, and Ukraine have suffered major disruptions that exposed vulnerabilities in even highly developed states. Sovereignty, in this context, no longer means just control over land, but also control over data, networks, and public trust.

States have responded by investing in cyber defense and enacting digital sovereignty laws, but the decentralized nature of cyberspace complicates enforcement. The traditional state monopoly over the use of force is weakened when states cannot fully identify or deter cyber aggressors. As a result, sovereignty is becoming increasingly fragmented. In the modern era, power may lie less in armies and borders, and more in who controls digital infrastructure and the narrative online.

Source D

Adapted from: “Private Military Companies and Sovereignty,” by Deborah Avant (2021).

The rise of private military companies (PMCs) has introduced a major shift in how power is exercised in global politics. Traditionally, the state has held a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. However, in recent decades, PMCs like Wagner (Russia) and former firms like Blackwater (U.S.) have operated in armed conflicts across Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, often with little oversight or accountability.

These companies blur the line between state and non-state actors. While some PMCs operate under government contracts, others pursue corporate interests or support authoritarian regimes in exchange for access to resources. In fragile states, PMCs have sometimes replaced national armies altogether, undermining state authority. Critics argue that this outsourcing of violence erodes state legitimacy and weakens the international system based on sovereign control. Others claim that PMCs increase efficiency and reduce state burden, especially where formal militaries are weak.

Regardless, the trend reflects a transformation in global power structures: non-state actors are now deeply involved in functions once exclusive to sovereign governments. This development raises fundamental questions about accountability, legitimacy, and whether the state is still the primary unit of power in international relations.

Source A

Adapted from "Costa Rica Frowns on Maduros Venezuela" a cartoon illustrating the views of Intergovernmental Organizations on the Venezuelan 2024 Election by The Costa Rica Star (2024).

Source B

Adapted from "FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2022" a report by the NGO Freedom House (2022).

The Freedom in the World 2022 report underscores a stark, ongoing erosion of global democratic norms, with 60 countries experiencing declines in political rights and civil liberties and only 25 showing improvements. The year marked the continuation of a 16-year downward trend, with authoritarianism advancing globally. High-profile examples include Myanmar’s military coup, Nicaragua's oppressive elections, and the Taliban's takeover in Afghanistan. Even long-standing democracies like the United States, India, and Brazil struggled with internal threats such as undermining electoral systems, attacks on media, and the erosion of judicial independence.

Globally, authoritarian regimes, led by powers like China and Russia, consolidated their influence, diminishing the democratic international order. These regimes offered an alternative to democracy, often built on corruption, oppression, and economic manipulation. Tactics ranged from transnational repression to leveraging economic clout to suppress dissent. The result is a world where only 20% of people live in "Free" countries, the lowest proportion in decades, while 38% live in "Not Free" conditions.

Despite these challenges, pockets of democratic resilience persist. Countries like Ecuador and Zambia made progress with credible elections and peaceful transfers of power. Grassroots resistance against autocratic regimes, as seen in Myanmar and Sudan, highlights the enduring global demand for democracy. The report calls for urgent, coordinated international efforts to reinforce democratic institutions, counter authoritarianism, and safeguard fundamental freedoms.

Source C

Adapted from "El Salvador under Nayib Bukele: the turn to electoral authoritarianism" an article by the Political Science Magazine of the Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile (2024).

El Salvador Nayib Bukele has transformed El Salvador into an electoral autocracy by manipulating the constitution and leveraging state resources to consolidate power. Nayib Buleke's regime has systematically dismantled checks and balances, subordinated the judiciary, suppressed media freedom, and undermined opposition parties. Bukele’s Nuevas Ideas party dominates political institutions, effectively eliminating meaningful dissent and reducing democratic processes to mere formalities.

Central to Bukele's rule is the "state of emergency," initially framed as a Content Teamown on gang violence but increasingly weaponized to target critics and consolidate control. Over 77,000 arrests have occurred under the emergency, with widespread reports of human rights abuses, including arbitrary detentions, torture, and inhumane prison conditions. Bukele uses these measures to portray himself as a strongman restoring order, garnering significant public support despite international criticism.

Economic policies, such as the adoption of Bitcoin and high-profile infrastructure projects, are framed as tools for modernization but are criticized for neglecting systemic issues like poverty and inequality. These initiatives are seen as primarily benefiting Bukele’s allies, while exacerbating environmental and social inequalities. Furthermore, the regime’s fiscal mismanagement, reliance on remittances, and ballooning debt threaten economic stability.

Bukele’s authoritarianism thrives through a sophisticated media strategy, blending personalistic populism with targeted disinformation. State-controlled outlets and social media bolster his image while vilifying opponents, leading to severe repression of independent journalism. Journalists face surveillance, harassment, and exile, fostering widespread self-censorship.

The 2024 elections solidified Bukele’s power, marked by electoral manipulation, intimidation, and unequal campaign conditions. International actors have shown limited willingness to challenge Bukele’s autocracy, as his policies align with regional priorities, such as curbing migration. With constitutional reforms paving the way for indefinite re-election, Bukele appears poised to entrench his regime further. The document concludes that reversing this trajectory will require significant civic education, a credible opposition, and resilience from civil society to counteract Bukele’s narrative and policies.

Source D

Adapted from "Defending the Global Human Rights System from Authoritarian Assault: How Democracies Can Retake the Initiative" a report by National Endowment for Democracy (2023).

Authoritarian influence in multilateral institutions is rising, threatening democratic values and human rights. Governments like China and Russia undermine accountability mechanisms in bodies such as the United Nations, using these platforms to promote favorable narratives and block resolutions addressing their human rights abuses. Democracies must unite to defend the global human rights system, ensuring it can still assist activists and victims worldwide.

Dr. Rana Siu Inboden's report explores how authoritarian regimes exploit international institutions to advance illiberal agendas. It outlines how democracies can counter this by working together to uphold human rights. Key strategies include maximizing democratic representation in bodies like the UN Human Rights Council, building cross-regional alliances, and forming flexible coalitions to address specific issues like electoral integrity and civil society participation.

To combat authoritarian influence, democracies must develop new tools to expose attacks on accountability mechanisms, support civil society networks, and match the resources authoritarian regimes invest in subverting multilateral institutions. A coordinated, long-term effort is required to preserve the effectiveness of human rights institutions and defend global freedoms. Without this robust response, authoritarian regimes may continue to erode international human rights protections.