US Policy Regarding Transnational Crime
This is a rather short article regarding the definition of transnational crime and how the United States should attempt to combat it. The beginning of the article goes into a short description of what types of crimes are considered transnational and what each of them means, before going more into what the US and other states should do on their own and together to combat the threat. This article directly relates to class because it is another article defining transnational crime, much like the one we were going to read for class on Thursday but that was postponed until next week.
One of the most interesting parts of the article is when it starts to talk about what the US (and thus other states as well) should do to combat transnational crime. Specifically, one line says that policing activities must go beyond national borders. I found this to be interesting for several reasons. The first being that the article is advocating for increased international cooperation between the US and other states in their intelligence and policing activities. To me, I saw this as an increase in globalization and the further interconnectedness of the world as states join together to fight other global actors. I think that transnational crime has inadvertently reinforced the power of the state. Further, however, I think there is now a question of where jurisdiction over transnational crime ends and begins. I think this could challenge the sovereignty of some states as powerful states begin to impose their will to combat transnational crime organizations, even if that organization is not in their state's borders. This could be the future of globalization as some states may fail to recognize the sovereignty of others if they harbor transnational crime organizations, leading to an increasingly murky future for the state system.
I agree with your second point, that transnational crime challenges or diminishes the power of the traditional state. In addition to international criminal organizations, we have international crime-fighting organizations (for lack of a better phrase), such as INTERPOL and The Hague. I think that these organizations on the enforcement side of international crime have also played a role in reducing the importance of the State. The world has established institutions to deal with large criminal organizations like this, that threaten the safety and security of more than one state and citizenry. This establishment, like the international criminal organizations themselves, may also pose a threat to the traditional sovereignty of states.
ReplyDeleteI think one very important point that you brought up was the idea that transnational crime is causing difficulty distinguishing where borders end and begin. Because states are working together to combat these issues, it is causing individual states to lose power, especially the smaller ones. I think this is one of the problems that is seen in globalization, even when there are benefits as to stoping crime.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that with the increased pressure on world collaboration to stop this crime it will give more power/influence on the world powerhouses and take away power/sovereignty from smaller states?
Similar things have happened with terrorism and human rights violations. Do you think there is a tension between liberal ideals and the state system more generally?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tim's question, I do think that stronger states with more military and intelligence capabilities will become even more powerful, possibly at the expense of some smaller/weaker states. I think that these powers may dominate international organizations in which they work together, or states may leave international organizations altogether and work more on an ad hoc basis of working with people when they need to. I think that there is a tension between liberal ideas when applied to states in that western countries see the world in a certain way and want to impose that vision on the rest of the world, but often in order to do so they have to violate state sovereignty or in some way try to leverage it and bend it to its will. As you mentioned, the two biggest examples of this are counterterrorism and combating human rights violations.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading this, I had the same thought as your second point relating to sovereignty. Especially since organized crime generally manifests in weaker states. Some international actors may think the more powerful states are just taking advantage of the situation. Do you think the international community will allow organized to violate sovereignty rights of weaker states? What makes it ok for a the community to intervene in situations of organized crime?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Julie's questions I believe that certain actors in the international community will allow organized crimes to violate sovereignty rights of weaker states because it benefits them and then other powerful international actors will set in and object to the weakening of sovereignty within a nation.
ReplyDelete