AO1: There has been a significant increase in the number of regional bodies, particularly those attempting to increase trade, in recent years with the European Union being joined by ASEAN, NAFTA and the AU. AO2: The growth in number and deeper integration of these bodies has taken place relatively recently and particularly during the post-Cold War 1989 period which many commentators point to as the key point for the acceleration of the modern process of globalisation AO3: . We may reach a judgement that there is a clear correlation between the timings of the accelerated period of globalisation and of the growth of regionalism which make the stated link clear AO1: The European Union is a WTO member and also a member of G20 which engages with the African Union and regional bodies seem to have an increased say in, or consultation with, other global bodies such as the G7. AO2: Membership or association of regional bodies and regionalism with global political and economic bodies like the UN and G7 – G20 seems to allow regional bodies to respond to and shape elements of globalisation (AO2). We may reach a judgement that states increasingly recognise that, in a globalised world, regional bodies offer them the opportunity to increase their economic power and influence in a way that they wouldn’t be able to otherwise operate AO3).There have been anti-globalisation protests at numerous regional body meetings in recent years, directed against regional bodies like the EU and NAFTA (now replaced by USMCA.) for their role in supporting globalisation. Critics of globalisation seem to consider regional bodies as central elements of globalisation and are critical of their support for the process where they enable the perceived negative impact of globalisation on industries, communities and jobs AO3: . We may reach the conclusion that the focus of the anti-globalisation protest movement on regional bodies makes clear that regional bodies have developed and grown into key elements of globalisation AO1: The process of globalisation is widely believed to have contributed to environmental degradation, global warming and cultural erosion alongside other detrimental actions including tax avoidance and slave labour which regionalism could tackle. AO2: Individual states seem unable to tackle globalised issues such as global warming, reduction in state sovereignty and cultural erosion whereas regional bodies seem to be able to better represent states issues and concerns AO3: . We may reach the conclusion that globalisation has brought many challenges which states are unable to tackle individually and that they have had to turn to regional bodies to make effective collective decisions and actions AO1: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 and sets out 30 articles detailing basic human rights as approved by the majority of UN members in 1948 with no states voting against. AO2: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is considered by most to be inalienable and applicable to all human beings regardless of nationality, residence, gender, national or ethnic origin, religion etc and have served as the basis for numerous UN Human Rights declarations and agreements since 1948 AO3: . We may reach the judgement that the construction by the foremost political global body, the United Nations, of a body of global norms that apply to all human beings, no matter which state they occupy, inevitably weakens state sovereignty by undermining previous national norms, values and cultural perceptions of humans AO1: The International Criminal Court was established in 2002 as a permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity etc. AO2: The ICC is intended to support existing judicial systems but can exercise its jurisdiction when national courts are unwilling or unable to take action as was the case when it issued an arrest warrant for the Sudanese leader, Omar al-Bashir AO3: . We may conclude that the ability and willingness of the ICC to take legal action against the citizens of states, even without the support of states, is a clear erosion of the Westphalian concept of state sovereignty AO1: UN Special Tribunals were created to deal with individuals accused of committing war crimes in Yugoslavia (1993), Rwanda (1994) and Sierra Leonne (2002) and led to the prosecution of numerous individuals for human rights abuses. AO2: The prosecution of key military and political leaders such as Mladic, Karazic, Milosovic and Charles Taylor suggested that the global community were willing to prosecute wherever and whenever human rights were abused AO3: . We may evaluate that the Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leonne prosecutions which included state leaders like Slobodan Milosovic and Charles Taylor showed that no one was safe from prosecution and that state sovereignty was consequently eroded AO1: The Responsibility to Protect political commitment was endorsed by UN member states in 2005. AO2: R2P is a commitment to address genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing even where a state leader is responsible for violations and has become an established international norm and expectation over the last two decades AO3: . This is important because it suggests that there is a developed global commitment and expectation to take action in protection of human rights even where it conflicts with the wishes of state leaders and of state sovereignty which inevitably weakens state sovereignty

AO1: China has enjoyed spectacular economic growth in the last few decades and is developing bilateral trade relations and relations with numerous other states in order to develop power and influence globally. AO2: China appears powerful enough to defend its economic and other interests in a globalising system without significant membership of, particularly, economic regional bodies AO3: . If countries like the BRIC states are able to increase their power and influence without membership of regional bodies then we may conclude that regionalism isn’t a necessary or inevitable consequence of globalisation AO1: The United Kingdom rejected continued membership of the European Union in a referendum in 2016 which led to its withdrawal from the organisation and there has been opposition to EU decision making processes and policies including immigration policy in other member states. AO2: Some in the United Kingdom and in other current regional body members believe that the UK position could be strengthened, in a globalised world, by withdrawal from the European Union, which allows the UK greater freedom to negotiate in its best interests rather than allow the EU to negotiate in the best interests of the bloc in its entirety AO3: . We may conclude that there is sufficient opposition to regionalism at state level and within states to believe that regionalism is not a long-term sustained consequence of globalisation AO1: Globalisation is generally accepted to have developed since 1989 with the collapse of communism and with the USA economic system of free trade becoming dominant globally. AO2: The origins of the EU go back to the European Economic Community of 1958 or even the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951. The European Union is not the only regional body to predate the period of globalisation with the NATO organisation created in 1949 and the Arab League created in 1945 and ASEAN founded in 1967 AO3: . We may conclude that as many regional bodies predate the process of globalisation and some like NATO have developed for military reasons rather than typically economic or cultural reasons under globalisation that regionalism is clearly not an invariable consequence of globalisation AO1: More and more states appear to be keen to join regional bodies, which offer a deepening of integration in areas like trade where larger markets are being created. AO2: As markets grow in size and trade increases between states, we see an increase in cultural, legislative, political and other homogenisation as states willingly surrender national sovereignty for the associated benefits AO3: . We could reach the judgement that it may actually be regionalism which is driving the process of globalisation rather than globalisation that drives and leads to regionalism particularly as some regional bodies predate the more recent globalisation period AO1: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) is not legally binding. AO2: Any agreement which lacks legal force is open to abuse as states decide to ignore elements of it and can’t be compelled to abide by it AO3: . We may conclude that, if states are able to choose whether or not they abide by the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights then they clearly retain power and sovereignty AO1: The Bangkok Declaration in 1993 emphasised the principle of sovereignty and non-interference whilst reaffirming commitment to the UNDHR, and the 1990 Cairo Declaration criticised the UNDHR for failure to take into account the cultural and religious context of non-western countries. AO2: Resistance to the concept of Universal Human Rights is clear in these declarations where a western-focused concept of Universalism clashes with other cultural interpretations and where states make clear their determination to hold to the principle of non-interference and state sovereignty AO3: . We may conclude that the concept of Universal Human Rights is open to debate and is rejected by some states who are determined to retain their own sovereign powers rather than accept a global and universal interpretation which would have weakened their sovereign powers AO1: China has been accused repeatedly of committing human rights abuses, including against the Uighur people, Russia has been accused of committing human rights abuses in areas like Chechnya, and the United States has been accused of human rights abuses in Iraq and elsewhere. AO2: Major powers such as China, the Unites States, Russia and their client states have acted with impunity where they have been accused of committing human rights abuses because of their power and influence in global politics AO3: . This shows that the international community has limited ability to take action against states with the military and political power to resist any erosion of their sovereign authority AO1: There are 123 member states in the International Criminal Court (2022). AO2: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United States are not full member states and the African Union has debated withdrawal from the ICC, particularly given that its historic focus has been on prosecution of Africans. The ICC does not have universal membership and there are numerous states who have refused to recognise its authority and legitimacy, as well as states who have withdrawn their signature or threatened to do so if it challenges their sovereignty, whilst tribunals have only operated in a very small number of cases prior to the establishment of the ICC AO3: . We may conclude that the courts and tribunals responsible for human rights protection are unable to challenge certain states who are unwilling to accept the authority of courts and tribunals where the courts and tribunals have the potential to undermine their sovereignty