What is the the Kyoto Protocol? Is it successful?

The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty, signed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and put into effect in 2005, whereby the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) has recognised the threat posed by global warming, and is advocating a reduction in the emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect, noting the anthropogenic influence on climate change. On February 16th 2005, the treaty was made effective among 192 members (Figure 1) and 83 signatories (comprising of the UN members, excluding Andorra, Canada, South Sudan and The US (unratified), but including the EU, Cooke Islands and Niue).

Figure 1 shows the countries in varied stages of involvement within the Kyoto Protocol. It shows there is a general North-South Divide regarding the legally binding nature of nations targets, e.g. countries in Africa, which as underdeveloped states do not contribute largely to the world's carbon footprint, along with South America which already paves the way for an emission free model of development while Asian Tigers and India and China's industry is supported by a lack of binding targets as Non-Annex B nations. However, the most developed nations in the EU and Australia as well as the 'Stans' are bound by legal measures to adhere to the Protocol. However, leniency and bias is shown in regards to the most polluting nations in terms of Russia, who opted out for the second period of the binding targets, the non legally binding nature of agreements with the BRICS in general, the unratified nature of the US and the departure of Canada highlight the Protocol's initial criticism.

The aim of the Kyoto Protocol was to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride and other chemicals to a level which reflects a 5.2% drop from the 1990 standards between the years 2008 to 2012, putting a particular pressure on more developed, Annex 1 nations (the EU, US, Canada and the Russian Federation). In most countries, these adopted policies would include restrictions on their largest polluters, manage transportation in an effort to reduce vehicle emissions and restructure their energy mix to include more renewable energy sources, for instance, the UK has shifted towards offshore wind turbines and bio fuels.

Criticism of the Kyoto Protocol have been multifaceted:

• Firstly, those who prefer the use of carbon taxing to reduce greenhouse emissions are critical of the Kyoto Protocol. One of these critics, James Hansen has claimed that not only is the Kyoto "cap and trade" system ineffective as "the developed nations want to continue with business as usual so they are expected to purchase indulgences to give a small amount of money to developing countries" but the use of carbon offsetting is also debated and may not in the long term be effective in combating climate change. 
• Another issue with the Kyoto Protocol is that it has yet to be ratified in the US, which until 2006, was the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world before the acceleration in growth of China.  Issues were highlighted in a conference in Doha in 2012 that the two nations hold the key to our approach to climate change. Despite China being a member of the Protocol, they have no intention of slowing down their emissions. 
• Furthermore, the conditions of the Kyoto Protocol and it's targets for improvement were demanded to be immediate and put into action by 2008, this was not deemed to be realistic, as it can take a matter of decades to show a shift in energy economy, highlighting in the words of McElroy, "a power plant lifespan may be up to 30 years" or the "average vehicle in the US is on the road for 12 years", this may be detrimental to economies and the population would not adopt these new policies.
• The Protocol also struggles with policy regarding those with large populations or rapidly growing economies such as the BRICS, which is particularly applicable to both China and India. 
• Ultimately, it's also been predicted by Robert N. Stavins that by 2050, emissions under the Kyoto Protocol will have only been reduced by around 2 to 3 percent, which is not enough to withdraw the Earth from it's tipping point in terms of global warming, rather than a strategy of adaptation, there is a consensus on the need to mitigate the threat caused by emissions.
• While it's claimed there has been a 5% drop in emissions of the 40 most developed nations from the 1990 level, this is most likely not due to the UNFCCC climate policy but the collapse of the highly inefficient energy production of the Soviet Union.

However, the framework of the Kyoto Protocol has been widely accredited for its contributions to the future of the UNFCCC's Copenhagen Accord in terms of technology transfer and monitoring, carbon markets and funding projects. The success of the Kyoto ratification is that it's also legally binding for Annex 1 states, in comparison to the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, which bases it's success on the willingness and good nature of the developed world to comply. The protocol has also shown huge success in nations with a large Research and Development budget such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark (Scandinavian region) particularly Sweden, who by the year 2006 was beating it's emissions target, with a reduction of 12.7% since the Kyoto Protocol's conception, aiming to be the first completely "oil-free" nations by 2020 in 2013, with European success discussed in Figure 2. 

The graph in Figure 2 suggests, despite other regions shortcomings, that the legally binding targets of the Kyoto Protocol were successful within the EU and other European countries which show a stabilization after the 1990's as a possible result of the pressures of the UNFCCC This has only been furthered since the ratification of the Protocol as Europe has shown a 5% decrease in emissions, mostly due to resorting to the alternative of renewable energy. These patterns are not shared in other areas of the world, emphasizing a success in the developed world which is not reflected in the underdeveloped world.

Ultimately, it has been claimed that the major accomplishment of the Kyoto Protocol is it's raising of awareness towards climate change, which up until around a decade ago was largely disregarded in the face of economic growth and industrialisation caused by supply and demand. However, the Protocol has achieved something important, forcing governments to openly recognise the ramifications of anthropogenic damage to our planet's climate and the enhanced greenhouse effect, showing an enlightenment in previously un co-operative nations such as the US and China. It's conception has also been seen as an opportunity for the possible success of the Copenhagen Accord in relation to it's contribution to technology, carbon markets and funding. However, the UN supported agenda is also a platform for the key players in developed countries governments to dominate the global system in regard to the "cap and trade" method and advantage of Research and Development and investment in renewable evident in the UK, France and Scandinavia. Also, the Kyoto Protocol's heavy number of criticism and controversies far outweigh the positives, for example the varied involvement of key players such as the US, Canada and the BRICS costs the treaty a large portion of it's legitimacy as well as it's struggle to reach targets, it has emerged that most of the reductions in greenhouse gases have occurred independently from the agenda, e.g. the fall of the Soviet Union, or the growth of energy awareness and attitudinal change within nations, e.g. the Green Party in the UK have offered change in terms of emissions which undermine the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol.

Under what circumstances is humanitarian intervention justified?

Humanitarian Intervention is a state's use of military force against another state with the intent to end human rights violations being perpetrated by the state. However, as a narrow definition, this can also be combated by the use of humanitarian aid and international sanctions. This means that when addressing the justification of humanitarian intervention, we should encompass non-forcible methods which can be closely associated with soft power.

Humanitarian Intervention immediately questions the authority of the sovereign state. The idea of 'responsible sovereignty' means that for a state to have absolute sovereignty, by principle, they are required to respect their own people but must also co-operate with other nation states on an international level. This issue is exemplified in the Kosovo Crisis in 1999 as it saw tensions between state sovereignty and humanitarian intervention. As NATO attempted to end human rights abuses in Kosovo, using military force without the approval of the UN Security Council. With the states' autonomy was relinquished, the cost of an independent Kosovo 10 years later was the killing of 4000 civilians.

It has now become increasingly clear that, in reference to the UK and US at least, humanitarian intervention has become unjustified. This is largely due to a distrust in global politics and reasons for intervention. For instance, the War on Terror, beginning in 2001, culminating in the Iraq War in 2003, has been debated in it's justification, the belief that the US led coalition was a form of 'window dressing' for other political means; of which could include exploration for oil, replacing governments led by dictators etc. under the idea of a humanitarian crisis.

From a realist standpoint, states are largely unable to carry out intervention unless acting out of self defence and the most importance is placed on sovereignty, however, in a world where liberal democracy is growing, along with the development of intergovernmental bodies, there is an increasing approach regarding human rights and holding sovereign states accountable.

Common Morality also means that regarding intervention, should there be a universally set standard of human rights? Some nations do not uphold the same common values as liberal democracy, considering the intervention of these states as oppressive of their ideology or religion in the Middle East, or in Asia whereby socio-economics and quality of life are placed above the rights of the people. This makes human rights hypocritical to the way some cultures live and makes intervention controversial.

Ultimately, humanitarian intervention is a controversial matter, particularly after the War on Terror, as we begin to question the effectiveness and the reasoning for intervention. However, in states where human rights atrocities are being carried out, there is sometimes little choice on the part of groups such as NATO to intervene.

Could Hillary Clinton be the next US President?

In light of recent news, Hillary Clinton declaring she will run as a Democratic candidate in the next US Presidential Elections in 2016, there has been discussion and debate over whether she can become the next US leader.

Hillary Clinton was a United States Senator from New York from 2001 to 2008, serving as Secretary of State under the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2013. As the only First Lady to have ever run for office, she's a political figurehead. Clinton has been central to the promoting of 'smart power', economic and military power in conjunction with diplomacy and soft power techniques in regards to foreign policy, and is outspoken about the empowerment of women. As a liberal politician, Clinton may draw large support from minority communities, due to her support of gay marriage and citizenship for illegal immigrants stands in stark contrast to traditional Republican views.

However, there is very little opposition to Hillary Clinton within the Democrat Party, which has become less divided during Barack Obama's administration since 2008. However, it has been rare throughout history for a new candidate to attain a third term for either Democrats or Republicans, examples being Al Gore in 2008 and John McCain in 2000, respectively. This could pose a problem for the Democrat Party generally, no matter who is in leadership of the party.

With the campaign line, "Everyday Americans need a champion. I want to be that Champion." Hillary Clinton appeals to the average citizen, as Bill Clinton did from 1993 to 2001. The legacy of her husbands Presidency can be construed as beneficial or detrimental to her campaign. Positively, Bill Clinton in responsible for achieving the largest budget surpluses and debt reduction in American history by 2000 using tax cuts on the wealthiest and spending cuts. Also developing the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement to allow free trade and cut down barriers between neighbouring states, Clinton also demanded welfare reforms as put in place by previous governments. His efforts to regulate gun control, equal rights somewhat reflect the policies of domestic policy, this consensus could give Hillary Clinton an advantage, particularly due to her experience in the White House. But their ideas differed in foreign affairs, claiming "We cannot, indeed, we should not, do everything or be everywhere." His approach to intervention has been less decided than Hillary's support for the 2003 Iraq War. This may be negative for her campaign, as this is a pivotal point for a large amount of the electorate. Furthermore, the links between scandals and the Clinton administration has made support of Hillary very much polarized. Alongside claims that American politics has become a Clinton-Bush game, with the possible candidacy of Jeb Bush for the Republican Party.

However, positively, the idea of Hillary Clinton being the US President has been an underlying theme of US politics for nearing on a decade as though her previous bid failed to Obama, it has been regarded by some as only a matter of time before she becomes to power with the Democrats. Furthermore, while a disillusionment of the population can cause a problem for long time political figures, Clinton seems to be a vote that furthers democratic and more modern values as US citizens perspective of politicians and political culture is changing in what some could say is general popular support of the Democrats. It has never been questioned legitimately whether Hillary Clinton could be the US first female President, following the election of Barack Obama.

Ultimately, the campaign in 2016 will be a difficult one for Hillary Clinton, but this could be said of any candidate at this point. She will struggle to convince some voters of her ability in terms of foreign policy and other policy concerns, it is clear that she is more likely than ever to become Democrats candidate and therefore win the election due to uncertainties with the Republican party, the legacy of the previous Clinton administration and the advocating of liberal policy.