Description
Rising global authoritarianism is reducing the effectiveness of international leverage to fulfill global responsibilities, such as those concerning the responsibility to protect (R2P) and international human rights norms. This ‘Leverage Challenge’ has several elements, from the effects of international condemnation being watered down by reduced consensus to authoritarian powers offering alternatives to trade and aid without any human rights conditionalities attached. How should those concerned about the fulfilment of global responsibilities respond to the Leverage Challenge? This paper explores the case for inculcating international leverage to fulfill global responsibilities. It first sets out the prima facie case for inculcating international leverage, before considering three objections. It rejects the first two objections – that inculcating leverage is wrong because (1) leverage is paternalistic and (2) inculcating leverage increases the preponderance of stronger actors over weaker ones. The paper then presents a third, more nonideal objection. This accepts that leverage can be, on occasion, justifiably inculcated, but (3) also holds that the dangers of authoritarian capture of leverage can render inculcating leverage unjustifiable.
