The second assessment will assess students’ ability to critically analyse information, provide practical solutions and present in an appropriate form. You are presented with a scenario of a fictitious country faced with opposing views of the merits of globalisation and joining the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Working in teams you are required to build an argument for a debate, for or against the proposal to join the WTO and the issues of globalisation. The task below has the following aims and learning outcomes Aims This task will help you ï‚· Understand the key issues of globalisation in the context of e.g. free trade, economic development, international institutions and migration ï‚· Understand the legal framework and the merits/consequences of joining the WTO Learning Outcomes ï‚· Define globalisation ï‚· Understand the link between globalisation, free trade, fair trade and international institutions ï‚· Demonstrate understanding of the legal merits of WTO, principles and membership ï‚· Understand and articulate current debates ï‚· Awareness of the conflicts between institution, state interest and responsibility ï‚· Develop debating and negotiation skills Assessment Criteria Guidelines: ï‚· evidence of wide and relevant research ï‚· clear and logical consideration of relevant law and case law ï‚· analysis of the topic areas ï‚· well written and structured with appropriate references and bibliography. ï‚· clear and concise presentation, use of appropriate slides, media ï‚· group cohesion, presentation skills Please refer to the module booklet for further details Read the case study “Globaphiles v Globaphobes . You are asked to prepare for a debate to be televised by Newland News (30 minutes). The debate will be between: Prime Minister and the government of Newland who advocate the benefits of globalisation and WTO membership (Globaphiles) and the opposition -The “New Coalition for a Better World” (NCBW) Globalphobes, who do not. Debate – 30 minutes Groups welcome to use other media eg direct your own film etc to support the debate. 2 Globaphiles v Globaphobes Last Sunday, more than 50,000 people demonstrated in the streets of Nontes, the capital of Newland, against economic globalisation, free trade and the Government’s plan to join the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The Republic of Newland is a developing, lower middle income country, with a population of 30 million people. It has a booming, exportoriented toy manufacturing industry and an up-and-coming steel industry. Many of its other industries, however, are unable to compete with foreign goods or services. The demonstration was organised by the Newland Coalition for a Better World (NCBW), representing Newland’s labour unions and its main environmental, consumer and human rights organisations. When small groups of radicals, led by a moustached farmer, attacked and destroyed a McJohn’s restaurant along the route, the police intervened to disperse the demonstrators with teargas. Three hours of violent clashes between the police and a group of about 500 young demonstrators ensued, leaving several people wounded. At an emergency cabinet meeting called on Sunday evening, the Prime Minister announced that he will invite the chairperson of the NCBW to a public debate on economic globalisation, international trade and the Government’s plan to join the WTO. On Friday, the chairman accepted the challenge. The Chairman of the of the NCBW is a professor of constitutional law. The debate is to be broadcast live on Tuesday or Wednesday afternoon. You have been working with the Chairman of the NCBW for a number of years and from the NCBW perspective he is likely to question why it would be in the interest of Newland to ‘squander its sovereignty’ and accept a host of new international obligations. The NCBW is likely to argue inter alia that the WTO fails to consider the needs to developing countries, that the core WTO rules and disciplines are about opening foreign markets for the benefit of multinationals, the EU and the USA. You know that some issues and questions are of particular concern to the professor and so you may wish to consider the following, as it is likely that the government will be prepped to respond: ï‚· Whether the WTO Agreement will prevail over Newland’s Constitution and whether WTO law will have, or should have, direct effect in Newland’s courts ï‚· The full impact of WTO membership ï‚· What is the traditional notion of state sovereignty? Why is globalisation forcing us to rethink this concept? The Prime Minster and her team are likely to focus on all the positive and negative aspects – economic, political and legal – of: ï‚· economic globalisation; international trade and development; and WTO membership. You are asked to prepare the Chairman for this important debate by briefing him as fully as possible for the debate.