What does Greepeace do?

What does Greenpeace do? Written By Victor 11/25
(1) Stop Climate Change
? Greenpeace tell people everywhere the realities of climate change and the struggle against it.
? To name names, protest corporations, shame governments - while helping make climate change solutions a reality.
? The expeditions document the impacts of climate change on people and ecosystems
? The professional negotiators, scientists and policy experts attend world climate conferences and persuade decision makers to take action.
? The volunteers and cyberactivists keep up the pressure on lawmakers and corporations.
? The activists put their safety and freedom on the line for even the smallest chance to change the world.

(2) Save Our Seas
? The 'Defending our Oceans' voyage is the single largest expedition that Greenpeace has ever undertaken. This incredible year-long journey will tell the story of the crisis facing our oceans from the Azores to Antarctica, take you to places few humans have been, confront the villains and promote solutions – and you can join us.

(3) Protect Ancient Forests
? Greenpeace believes that individual and corporate consumers have the right and responsibility to buy wood and wood-based products which do not contribute to environmental and social degradation.
? Greenpeace Book Campaign: The Greenpeace Book Campaign aims to 'green' the book publishing industry, who are currently printing the majority of their books on virgin (non-recycled) paper linked to ancient forest destruction in countries such as Finland and Canada. Leading international authors such as JK Rowling, Ian Rankin, G?nter Grass, Marlene Streeruwitz, Isabel Allende and Andrea De Carlo are just some of those working with Greenpeace to ensure that their future books are printed on 'ancient forest friendly' paper such as recycled and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified paper.

(4) Say No to Genetic Engineering
? These genetically modified organisms (GMO) can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organisms, thereby contaminating non 'GE' environments and future generations in an unforeseeable and uncontrollable way.
? GMOs should not be released into the environment as there is not adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health.
? Greenpeace advocates immediate interim measures such as labelling of GE ingredients, and the segregation of genetically engineered crops and seeds from conventional ones.
? Greenpeace also opposes all patents on plants, animals and humans, as well as patents on their genes. Life is not an industrial commodity. When we force life forms and our world's food supply to conform to human economic models rather than their natural ones, we do so at our own peril.
(5) Eliminate Toxic Chemicals
? Substituting hazardous chemicals with safer materials is the answer to governments and industry that have failed to control the spread of dangerous chemicals around the globe.
? Greenpeace requires companies to phase out and substitute the most toxic chemicals with safer alternatives.

(6) End the Nuclear Threat
? Safe nuclear power is a myth. Greenpeace is campaigning to end nuclear power, reprocessing and waste dumping.
? Greenpeace was born when a group of peace activists tried to sail into the US nuclear weapons testing zone near Amchitka, Alaska in 1971.

(7) Encourage Sustainable Trade
? The World Trade Organisation (WTO) promotes free trade for the gain of private interests, over and above our health and the environment.
? The WTO threatens crucial environmental agreements, like the first legally binding global agreement that allows countries to reject genetically modified organisms, the Biosafety Protocol.
? Greenpeace demands that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) adopts a policy of trade that truly works for all and that preserves and restores the environment.
? Greenpeace supports global environmental standards. Trade must not take priority. Governments must work to achieve sustainable development. This means integrating three things: environmental, social and economic priorities.
? Greenpeace campaigns to bring the concerns of citizens all over the world to the decision-makers at the WTO.

(8) Abolish Nuclear Weapons
? There are over 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world, with more than a thousand of them ready to launch at a moment's notice.
? Say no to war: Greenpeace went to Iraq in June 2003 with a small, specialist team to examine the local environment and to assess the extent of any nuclear contamination. The team took samples of soil and water for laboratory analysis and conducted on-site monitoring with specialist radiation detection equipment. While the extent of the Greenpeace radiological survey will not be comprehensive, it will provide some idea of the true level of risk to the people of the area and to the environment.
? Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): April, 2005 As delegates to the Non-Proliferation Treaty prepared for their meeting at the United Nations, leading experts from Korea and around the world gathered at a seminar in Seoul to share information, and solutions, on the increasingly dangerous situation in North East Asia. The seminar was sponsored by Greenpeace International.

Int'l Org. Prep. Midterm

China Representation
The Chinese representation issue has been the most serious predicament with regard to the UN representation problem. We need to note that this issue was one of representation rather than one of membership. I will initially investigate this subject by introducing the issue’s historical legal development in the UN. Subsequently, the illustration of the political factors behind the legal question will be provided.
In retrospect to the history, from 1951 to 1960, the United States proposed to postpone the discussion and eliminated the issue from the formal agenda in the General Assembly. From 1961 to 1970, the question appeared as a proposal to accept the qualifications of the representatives of the People’s Republic of China rather than of the Republic of China. The USA advised to treat the problem as an important question, which requires a two-thirds vote. From 1966-68, some western countries issued a proposal of “Research Committee”, recommending the adoption of “double representation” of the Beijing and Taiwan to resolve the China issue. Finally, in 1971, the resolution 2758 was passed, and the People’s Republic of China was granted the formal representative right of the Chinese people in the UN.
It is clear that the China issue was as much a political contest as it was a legal question. During the 1960’s, the world was more or less evenly divided in the number of states that recognized each rival claimant to legitimacy. However, in the 60’s many of the United States’ closest allies refused to follow USA’s policy of non-recognition and economic boycott of the People’s Republic of China. In 1971, the United States switched its position to favoring a Security Council seat for the Beijing regime while maintaining places for both delegations in the General Assembly. In the end, the pro-Beijing tide defeated the U.S. proposal, with the advent of Beijing’s replacement of Taiwanese representation in the UN. Owing to the international society’s collective political support over the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan could not do anything but withdraw from the United Nations at last.
According to the historical experience and the pervasive realism among the states, the debate over the representation issue of China is likely to continue. The possibility of Taiwan’s rejoining the UN will depend on the reform of UN and, the most important of all, on the international political contest.
The Pro and Con of the Veto Power
Whether the veto power of the Permanent Members should exist in the Security Council has been a heated debate both in the UN and among the international relations scholars. The argument supporting the veto power suggests that the Security Council should adopt this voting rule in order to reflect the power politics. On the other hand, the opponent argues that the veto power in the Security Council do not represent the current great power distribution, but lead to a block to collective action.
As the proponent of the veto and the P-5 members indicated, the Security Council must reflect the actual distribution of wealth and power in the world, not abstract ideas of fairness and justice. Since the Security Council was originally intended to deal with the most vital issues of national interest and since the big powers possess the preponderance of means for enforcement, such an arrangement may be considered a necessary departure from the complete abandonment of unanimity.
On the other hand, in reality the current Permanent Members, which possess the veto power, have not necessarily been the most powerful countries of the day. Therefore, the currently P-5 does not reflect the status quo of international politics anymore. For instance, two permanent seats have been occupied by former world powers France and Britain -- countries that have steadily declined in importance and are now viewed as secondary on the world scene. Permanency of membership and the veto power often freeze the Council and prevent it from adequately reflecting world political realities.
Moreover, Vetoes, whether threatened or actually used, are a block to action, as UN performance in former Yugoslavia and other recent crises has clearly shown. A singe veto-wielding power can stop international response dead in its tracks and totally frustrate the will of the overwhelming majority of the international community. Vetoes thus result in the oftentimes inefficiency in the decision making process of the Security Council, which constitutes one of the opposing reasons to the veto power.
In general, the argument between the pro and con of the veto power cannot be solved immediately. Not only the UN’s reform effort, but also the great powers’ willingness to abandon their privilege, will lead to the compromise between major and middle powers, which is essential to the effectiveness of the Security Council and the just distribution of power in international arena.

Annan’s Report Summary
Six major sections are provided in Annan’s report. The first section is the introduction to the background of the historic opportunity of undergoing the UN reform; the subsequent three sections are the explanation of the so-called “Larger Freedom”, freedom from fear, freedom from want, and freedom to live in dignity; the fourth section offers the recommendations for a strengthened United Nations system; in the last section a short conclusion is delivered.
Introduction: A historic opportunity in 2005
The first section gives an introduction to the report and an appeal for the cooperation among the states in the UN. He states that the world must advance the causes of security, development, and human rights together, in order to provide the people a larger freedom. The cause of larger freedom can only be advanced by broad, deep, and sustained global cooperation among States.
Freedom from want
The second section primarily discusses the global shared vision of development and the Millennium Development Goals. In the last goal of the MDG, the partnership among the nations is grounded in mutual responsibility and accountability. Developing countries must strengthen governance, combat corruption, and maximize domestic resources to fund national development strategies, while developed countries must support these efforts through increased development assistance and debt relief.
Freedom from fear
The third section deals with the vision of collective security. Annan addresses that the United Nations must be transformed into the effective instrument for preventing conflict, by preventing the catastrophic terrorism, regulating the weapons of mass destruction, and reducing the prevalence and risk of war.
Freedom to live in dignity
In the fourth section Annan calls for the states to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for all internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms. The international community should make collective legal action against deeds against humanity. The Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights should be strengthened or replaced by a Human Rights Council. A Democracy Fund should be created at the UN to provide assistance to countries seeking to establish their democracy.
Strengthening the United Nations
The fifth section basically provides the recommendation for a more effective and strengthened UN system. With respect to the General Assembly, it should not only speed up the deliberative process but also establish mechanisms to engage fully and systematically with civil society. The Security Council should be broadly representative of the realities of power in today’s world, and deal with the issue of permanent membership and vetoes. The Economic and Social Council should be reformed so that it can effectively assess progress in the UN’s development agenda. Moreover, the Secretary General will create a cabinet-style decision-making mechanism in the Secretariat. Finally, the Commission on Human Rights suffers from declining credibility and professionalism, and should be, ad hoc, replaced by a Human Rights Council.
Conclusion: Our Opportunity and Our Challenge
Eventually, the last section is Annan’s plead for the governments to take action. Whether in promoting the international developmental cooperation, in mutually ensuring the collective security, or in safeguarding the basic human rights, it is undoubted that a larger freedom of the peoples--- freedom from want, freedom from fear, and freedom to live in dignity, will need the UN and States to take immediate actions and reforms.

Int'l Org. Past Exam

International Organizations
Midterm
Nov. 13, 2002

Part I. Answer ANY TWO of the following questions. (40%)

1. Explain the three streams of developments of international organizations in
the 19th century.
2. What is international regime?
3. Evaluate the successes and failures of the League of Nations.
4. Explain the China representation cases in the U.N.
5. Analyze the pro and con of the veto power in the Security Council.

Part II. Essay Question (60%)

In the view of the founding fathers, what are fundamental objectives and
basic principles of the United Nations? Also explain the structure and major
functions or the principle organs of the U.N.


International Organization Midterm Exam
2003.11.12

Part A. Explain any two of the following questions. 40%

1. Important Question and Veto
2. Representation of China
3. Dependency theory
4. Collective security

Part B. Essay Question 60%

What are the common assumptions of liberal theories? Compare them with
realist assumptions. According to realism and liberalism, what kind of roles
IOs play in international politics? Apply realist OR liberal approaches to the
discussion of the roles and achievements of the United Nations.


International Organizations
Mid-term
Nov. 10, 2004

Part I. Answer ANY TWO of the following questions. (50%)
1.Evaluate the successes and failures of the League of Nations.
2.Explain the China representation cases in the U.N.
3.Analyze the pro and con of the veto power in the Security Council.

Part II. Essay Question (50%)
In the view of the founding fathers, what are fundamental objectives and basic
principles of the United Nations? How are the decisions in General Assembly
and in Security Council taken?

November 5, Shi-Lin nightmarket and Chicken Lil

Chicken Lil is a movie full of family values, laughters, and fun. The Majesty movie theatre, and of course, the movie itself provided me with a pleasant time, despite the fact that before I stepped into the theatre the movie did not actually catch my sight very much. I thought it was but a funny silly animation. As with the rest of the movie, it was quite a night... The nightmarket was too crowded that I sweat a lot. I ate the salty chicken breast, a lil piece of stinky tofu, and the BEST EVER creamy shaved icecream. After the nice snacks came the beautiful scenery along the Ki-Lung River. I even saw a clubbing boat on the river, which reminded me of the Toronto Orientation on the Ontario Lake. A nice night ended, and shall I not forget this day, and also that moment.

公共選擇理論報告分析---(1) 法律是道德的底限 (2) 人的自由以不侵犯他人為自由

法律是最後的道德　 操作性分析

違反法律，或觸犯法律規定不得為之事，是毫無疑問地不道德的；反面而言，凡是法律層面所未規範到的作為，卻因此可視為道德的。然而，以法律當作道德判斷之基準點下，不違反法律的行為，果真皆符合道德標準嗎？舉例來說，意淫他人，在法律上因並不構成外部行為之侵犯，不屬法所規範之不道德，因此就本句衍伸出「若無違反法律，便是道德的」之意涵來看，意淫之舉，算是道德的。然而，此舉在一般認知中卻是絕對不道德的，該如何解釋？

上述以法律為道德與不道德二分法所導致的謬誤，以外部性來分析，事實上「法律是最後的道德」的意涵，代表某些違背道德的行為，若是僅以道德而不以法律作規範，會對他人造成太大的外部性。因此法律所未界定之不道德行為，並不因法律之排除使其行為具道德，僅是違反此事所造成的外部性，尚未達到法律界線外的外部性規模而已。　（350）


一個人的自由以不侵犯他人自由為度　操作性分析

一個人的自由以不侵犯他人自由為度，然而「不侵犯他人自由」這項前提，是否相對地因限制了一個人某些先天賦予的自由，而導致其自身終究不自由？又為何人會自願剝奪先天擁有的自由呢？

在霍布斯的自然（戰爭）狀態下，每個人都有無限自由，但卻會造成　　　?a condition of all against all?，人們原應享有之自由因此受到剝奪。對此霍布斯認為由Leviathan確保人們相互不侵犯彼此，便可保障原本的自由。然此解釋仍隱含人們必須讓步某些自由給Leviathan，才可脫離無政府的自然狀態，相對於外部成本分析概念，並無法完全解釋為何個人自願在自由作某些程度上的犧牲。

若以外部成本概念來看，個人之所以選擇與社會上其他人達成妥協，乃因其考量到戰爭狀態下對其自由造成的外部成本，遠大於集體訂定人身自由互不侵犯約定之外部性，因此在個人自利誘因下，所犧牲的某些自由，換取整體成本評估後自利之增加，其行為不但不悖常理，更合乎理性。（367）