'Citizen Choice' Software for
Evaluating International Treaties and Agreements
Description and Features
This application will enable users to systematically evaluate the impact of a
treaty on the well-being of individuals, social groups, and the environment in
all nations affected by it. If the treaty reflects religious or
philosophical views on the cosmic level that have some bearing on its political
implications, users will be able to evaluate these views as well.
We consider treaties to be special, more complex types of foreign
policies. This software thus has the same sections and subsections as the "Foreign
Relations" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and
Evaluation." In each
section, we first provide a set of "Assumptions" taken directly from
the General Framework. Users are then presented with a set of questions
that asks them to rate the likely impact of the treaty on the welfare
of the entities described in the Assumptions. For example, the Assumptions
in a particular section may describe the three types of social sectors -- the
state, the market, and civil society. The questions in that section will
ask the user to rate the possible impact of the treaty on
relationships between these sectors.
Users will respond to each question using numerical ratings. Thus, they
may rate the likely impact of a treaty on relationships between social sectors
on a scale from one to four. Each box under the rating levels (1-4) will
contain a button that can be clicked in order to register one’s response
for that particular question. Questions may be left blank
and will not be averaged into score summaries.
Since all of our software is organized
according to the same framework, it will be convenient for the user to go to our
web site and consult the Treaty Profile (see Application
6) for a particular treaty as they use this software. They may, for example, review the section on
international social sectors in the Treaty Profile as they respond to the questions regarding
these sectors in this application. Users may also, of course, consult
their own analyses of treaties as they use this application.
When the user is finished responding to the questions, a simple statistical program
will calculate the average score or
rating for each major section of the framework and report these average scores
on a separate Decision Summary Page. Citizens may then review the
average rating for each section as they assess the merits of a treaty. A copy of this Summary Page -- or a copy of the entire
evaluation -- could be printed or downloaded for future reference. Copies could
also be e-mailed to others if users wish to share their evaluations.
A database on the PEAC web site could enable to users to compare
their evaluation of a particular treaty with evaluations of the
same treaty conducted by other PEAC members. They could
compare their scores with the average scores of groups of members who share any
characteristic or affiliation that they report in their member profiles.
For example, they could compare their average ratings with average ratings
submitted by others of the same gender or political party. They may also
compare their ratings with the average ratings of all others who have used the
software on our site.
Introduction
The "Assumptions" from Introduction
to the "Foreign Relations" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here.
I. Evaluating a Treaty on the Individual Level of Organization
The "Assumptions" from section
I.A-D of the "Foreign Relations" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions exploring the impact of this treaty on personal
development in all nations affected by it
|
|
How would you rate the effectiveness of this treaty:
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
in promoting the physical development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
in promoting the economic or vocational development of individuals |
|
|
|
|
|
in promoting the political development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
in promoting the spiritual development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
in promoting the moral development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
in promoting the cultural development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
in promoting the artistic development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
Please respond to the following statements according to your level of
agreement or disagreement with them.
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
This treaty recognizes the developmental nature of
liberty and fulfillment |
|
|
|
|
|
This treaty recognizes the roles that both personal
initiative and social resources play in personal growth |
|
|
|
|
|
This treaty honors a full range of human rights and
recognize relationships between rights in the process of personal
development |
|
|
|
|
II. Evaluating a Treaty on the Social Level of Organization
The "Assumptions" from section II
of the "Foreign Relations" section of the "General Framework for
Understanding and Evaluation" will be provided here.
A. Institutions
The "Assumptions" from section
II.A
of the "Foreign Relations" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
1. Evaluating the Impact of a Treaty on Institutions
within Nations That Are Affected by It
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
How do you rate the impact of this treaty on the
effective, ethical functioning of the following types of institutions
within those nations affected by the treaty?
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
Families
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labor unions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business firms
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schools: primary, secondary, vocational, higher ed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Civic organizations
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advocacy groups that represent the interests
of specific populations: the elderly, minority groups, consumers,
supporters of gun rights, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institutions that support the arts
|
|
|
|
|
|
The media
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political parties
|
|
|
|
|
|
Churches
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charitable organizations that serve the needs of
especially vulnerable populations: the poor, the sick, the elderly, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nongovernmental organizations that promote economic
justice, political justice, ecological stewardship, and human rights
|
|
|
|
|
1a. Special Institutional Focus on Governments
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
| This treaty strengthens democratic
structures of government in all nations affected by it, including those in your
nation. This treaty enables governments to resist corruption and be more responsive to
citizens' needs and interests. |
|
|
|
|
| This treaty enhances the ability of governments to
enact and enforce legislation that is just and environmentally sound. |
|
|
|
|
| This treaty helps national governments to efficiently maintain adequate military
capabilities. |
|
|
|
|
| This treaty helps governments to strike a balance between spending on
military programs and on those programs that promote human development and
environmental protection. |
|
|
|
|
| This treaty advocates fair
and prudent policies for the distribution of foreign aid by signatory nations. |
|
|
|
|
| This treaty reflects a broader, more enlightened view of national security that
focuses on environmental protection and improving of the lives of citizens both
within and beyond the borders of signatory nations. |
|
|
|
|
1.a.1) The Use of Force in the National Defense: A Special Issue for National
Governments
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
If this treaty involves the use of military force, is the use of force
prudent and justifiable? Do you
strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following
statements:
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
It is a defensive action that safeguards the well-being of individuals,
social groups, and/or the environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a broader context, it is a defensive action that is part of a just
and prudent set of foreign policies that affect the hostile parties. In
other words, the hostile party was not provoked to aggression by the
unjust policies of one’s own or another government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The violent means to be used are proportionate to the goals to be
achieved. In other words, the goals to be achieved justify the destruction
of human life, the environment, and physical structures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All nonviolent means of resolving the conflict have been exhausted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This response to aggression is a part of an explicit,
long-term strategy for addressing the causes of the conflict, whether they
be economic, racial, cultural, religious, political, or some combination
thereof.
|
|
|
|
|
2. Evaluating the Impact of a Treaty on International Institutions
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
How do you rate the impact of this treaty on the effective,
ethical functioning of the following types of international institutions:
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
international governing organizations such as the United Nations
|
|
|
|
|
|
international groups that serve needy or vulnerable
populations --
the poor, the sick, the elderly, victims of disasters, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
nongovernmental organizations that advocate economic
justice, political justice, environmental stewardship, and human rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
international labor unions
|
|
|
|
|
|
international alliances or blocs (such as NATO)
|
|
|
|
|
|
international religious bodies
|
|
|
|
|
|
international media organizations
|
|
|
|
|
|
international financial institutions such as the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank
|
|
|
|
|
|
other institutions that finance international
development programs
|
|
|
|
|
|
institutions that regulate international trade, such as
the World Trade Organization
|
|
|
|
|
|
international organizations that coordinate cultural projects,
including sporting events
|
|
|
|
|
|
transnational corporations that have manufacturing and marketing
divisions in more than one nation
|
|
|
|
|
3. Special Institutional Focus: Evaluating the Influence
of Political Parties on International Treaties
The "Assumptions" from section II.A.3
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here.
The "Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4) |
Agree
(3) |
Disagree
(2) |
Strongly
Disagree
(1) |
| The terms of this treaty do
not favor the supporters of any party -- in your country or abroad -- in a
way that is detrimental to the welfare of individuals, social groups, and
the environment in all nations affected by the treaty.
|
|
|
|
|
| The parties that support
this treaty are displaying courage and leadership as they do so.
|
|
|
|
|
B. Evaluating the Impact of this Treaty on Social Sectors
The "Assumptions" from section II.B
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3) |
Fair
(2) |
Poor
(1)
|
|
How do you rate the impact of this treaty on relationships
within the market sector, particularly on international trade
between nations and regions? |
|
|
|
|
|
How do you rate the impact of this treaty on relationships
within the government sector -- within national governments and
international governing institutions? |
|
|
|
|
|
How do you rate the impact of this treaty on relationships
within civil society -- among institutions that focus on education, the
arts, social justice, the environment, disaster relief, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
How do you rate the impact of this treaty on
cooperative and adversarial relationships between governing bodies and
markets on the local and international levels? |
|
|
|
|
|
How do you rate the impact of this treaty on
cooperative and adversarial relationships between governing bodies and
civil society on the local and international levels? |
|
|
|
|
|
How do you rate the impact of this treaty on
cooperative and adversarial relationships between markets and civil
society on the local and international levels? |
|
|
|
|
C. Evaluating the Impact of this Treaty on Different Levels of Social
Organization
The "Assumptions" from section II.C
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
How do you rate the impact of this treaty on relationships
between different levels of social organization in all nations affected by
it? How do you rate the fidelity of the treaty to the principle of
subsidiarity, which states that all human endeavors (economic ventures,
public policies, etc.) should be pursued and administered at a level that
is as local as possible but as centralized as necessary? |
|
|
|
|
D. Evaluating the Impact of this Treaty on Different Socio-Cultural
Collectivities
The "Assumptions" from section
II.D
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
How do you rate the impact of this treaty on opportunities for
advancement among persons of different
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
Economic classes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Racial groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ethnic groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
Genders
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
Religious traditions |
|
|
|
|
|
Sexual Orientations |
|
|
|
|
III. Evaluating a Treaty on the Ecological Level of Organization
The "Assumptions" from section III
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
How do you rate the impact of this treaty on specific
species? |
|
|
|
|
|
on ecosystems? |
|
|
|
|
|
on the biosphere as a whole? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
This treaty is able to integrate the goals of
economic development and environmental stewardship. |
|
|
|
|
IV. Evaluating a Treaty on the Cosmic Level of Organization
Since many political figures and institutions maintain that cosmic
beliefs should not influence political views, you should only complete
this section if the treaty attempts to integrate cosmic beliefs into its terms
and conditions.
A. Evaluating the Cosmic Views of the Sponsors and Supporters of a Treaty
The "Assumptions" from section IV.A
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the questions below.
Since many public officials maintain that cosmic
beliefs should not influence public policies, you should only complete
this section if the treaty's sponsors attempt to integrate cosmic beliefs into
the policy.
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
If
any cosmic views are expressed in this treaty, they do not violate the
Constitution of my country in any way. |
|
|
|
|
|
If any cosmic views are expressed in this treaty, these
views promote the well-being of individuals, social groups, and the
environment. |
|
|
|
|
B. Evaluating a
Treaty from the Perspective of
One's Own Cosmic
Views
The "Assumptions" from section IV.B
of the "Foreign Policy" section of "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the questions below.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
Do you believe
that universal principles or laws govern human affairs, such as the
principles of yin-yang or the law of karma? Do you believe in some divine plan for the universe that
guides human history (such as the coming of the Kingdom of God)? Do
you believe in some system of divine justice that operates in human
affairs? If so, how do you rate the impact of this treaty on the
cosmic level of organization? If you believe in a divine plan, does it further or
hinder this divine plan? If you believe in a cosmic system of divine
justice, would you consider it to be a 'just' treaty according to this
system? If you espouse
universal laws or principles, is it consistent with these laws and
principles? |
|
|
|
|
V. Evaluating the Impact of a Treaty on Relationships between Levels of
Organization
The "Assumptions" from section V
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
| This treaty reflects an understanding of the relationships
between the different levels of organization. It promotes the common good
at all three levels of organization – the well-being of individuals,
social groups, and the environment -- rather than favoring one level of
organization – such as individuals -- in a way that damages the other
levels in the long term. |
|
|
|
|
VI. Assessing Whether or Not this Treaty Respects the Hierarchy of Values
that Exists among the Different Levels of Organization
The "Assumptions" from section VI of the
"Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
This treaty respects the hierarchy of values that exists among
the different levels of organization. |
|
|
|
|
VII. Approach to Policy-Making
The "Assumptions" from section VII
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
This treaty is part of an experimental approach to
policy-making (provided that the experimental approach is appropriate for
the issues that this treaty addresses). |
|
|
|
|
Decision
Summary Page
for International Treaties
The Decision Summary Page
will provide
average scores of all responses on
the individual, ecological, and cosmic levels. Average scores for each
'section' of a level will be provided in normal type; the average score for the
entire level will be provided in bold type at the bottom of the table of scores
for that section (see section II below). For the social level, average
ratings for each subsection are given, but an overall average for all of them is
not, since it is difficult to lump the different social subsections together
into a meaningful average rating for the social level as a whole.
The ratings for the questions
following the levels of organization -- those that deal with relationships
between the levels, the hierarchy of values among levels, and the experimental
approach to policymaking -- will all be provided in their own separate boxes on
this page.
Users may then determine the relative importance of
these scores according to their political views and priorities. We offer our own
understanding of the hierarchy of values that exists between the different levels of
organization (see section VII of the "General Framework for Understanding and
Evaluation"). According to this hierarchy, the average scores of
sections that represent higher,
more inclusive levels
of organization should carry more weight in one's evaluation of a treaty. For example, we propose that the long-term ecological
effects of a treaty are more important than its impact on social
groups, since all societies depend on the health of the environment for
their survival and prosperity. However, nothing on the Summary Page will reflect this view.
Users may decide for themselves how much to weigh each score as they make their
final evaluation of a treaty.
I. Evaluation of the
Treaty
on Individual Development in All Nations Affected by It
|
Average of ratings related to the impact of the treaty on individual
well-being and development
|
x.x
|
II. Evaluation of the
Treaty
on the Social Level of
Organization in All Nations Affected by It
A. Evaluation of the Influence of Sponsoring
Parties on the
Treaty
The questions related to the influence of
parties on foreign policies are located in
the section on ‘Social Institutions.’ However, this section does not
evaluate the treaty's impact on institutions; it deals with the institution(s)
that sponsored the treaty. Therefore,
the average rating for questions related to the sponsoring party is listed separately from the
average scores related to the treaty's impact on society.
|
Average evaluation of the influence of the sponsoring party(ies) on a treaty
|
x.x
|
B. Evaluation of a
Treaty's
Impact on Society and Social Dynamics
|
Average evaluation of the treaty's impact on the effective and ethical
functioning of institutions within nations affected by it
|
x.x
|
Average evaluation of the treaty's impact on national governments
|
x.x |
Average evaluation of the treaty's adherence to norms regarding just war
and conflict management
|
x.x
|
Average evaluation of the treaty's impact on the effective and ethical
functioning of international institutions
|
x.x
|
|
Average evaluation of the treaty's impact on dynamics
within and between national and international social sectors
|
x.x
|
|
Average evaluation of the treaty's impact on relationships
between different levels of social organization
|
x.x
|
|
Average evaluation of the treaty's impact on issues related to
different socio-cultural collectivities, such as equal opportunity and
policies regarding diversity
|
x.x
|
III. Evaluating the Impact of the
Treaty
on the Environment
|
Average evaluation of the treaty's impact on species, ecosystems, and the
biosphere as a whole
|
x.x
|
IV. Evaluating the Treaty on the Cosmic Level of Organization
|
Average evaluation of the ways in which this treaty is influenced by the cosmic
views of its sponsors and signatory nations (if there is any discernable
influence)
|
x.x
|
Evaluation of the treaty from the perspective of one's own cosmic views
|
x.x
|
Average evaluation of the treaty on the cosmic level of organization
|
x.x
|
|
V. Evaluation of the
Treaty's
Impact on Relationships between the
Different Levels of Organization (individual, social, ecological, cosmic)
|
x.x
|
|
VI. Evaluation of the Impact of the
Treaty
in Light of the Hierarchy of Values
that Exists among the Different Level of Organization
|
x.x
|
Format for Comparisons of a
User’s Ratings of Competing
Proposals for a Specific Treaty
The following table presents a possible format for presenting one's users
ratings of alternative proposals
for a given treaty.
|
Section of
Treaty
Framework
|
Avg. Score for
Treaty
X
|
Avg. Score for
Treaty
Y
|
Avg. Score for
Treaty
Z
|
|
the impact of the treaty on individual
development and well-being |
x.x |
x.x |
x.x |
|
the influence of the sponsoring party(ies)
on the treaty |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the
treaty's
impact on society and social dynamics |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the
treaty's
adherence to norms regarding just war and conflict management |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the
treaty's
impact on species, ecosystems, and the biosphere |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the evaluation of the treaty on the cosmic
level of organization |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the impact of the
treaty
on relationships between the different
levels of organization |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the impact of the
treaty
in light of the hierarchy of values that exists
among the different levels of organization |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the role of this treaty
within an ‘experimental approach’ to foreign policy-making |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
Format for Comparison of One User’s
Ratings
of
a Specific Treaty to Other
Users’
Ratings of the Same Treaty
The following table represents a possible format that would enable one user
to compare their rating of treaty with average ratings of the
same treaty submitted by various groups of other users.
|
Section of Framework
|
Avg. Score
of User
|
Avg. Score
for User's Political Party, (Gender, etc.)
|
Avg. Score
of All Users
|
|
the
treaty's impact on individual development |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the influence of the sponsoring party |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the
treaty's
impact on society and social dynamics |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the
treaty's
adherence to norms regarding just war and conflict management |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the
treaty's
impact on species, ecosystems, and the biosphere |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the evaluation of the treaty on the cosmic
level of organization |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the impact of the
treaty
on relationships between the different
levels of organization |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the impact of the
treaty
in light of the hierarchy of values that exists
among the different levels of organization |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the role of this
within an ‘experimental approach’ to foreign policy-making
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|