International relations up until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1979 were based upon the realist paradigm and a bi-polar system. The realist paradigm claims that the only way to measure a states power is militarily and that soft power such as economics have little, to no say on a world scale. It also claims that the state is the most important actor in international relations. The realist paradigm views the world as being in perpetual anarchy. There is no world police to protect your country from invasion, which could occur at any moment, so you must protect yourself. Based upon Hobbesian political viewpoints in which when threatened with death man must do whatever he can do avoid it. (Also the main goal of states and Organizations is always first and foremost to stay alive.) This means you have a strong military, and you never enter into trade agreements, which might have you losing in the short term or long run. This made international negotiations near impossible because each state was looking to maximize their gains, thinking rationally. A bi-polar system is a 2-power system, in this case the Soviet Union and USA.
The idea of a non-governmental organization having more of a say in world politics was not yet fully adopted by either the United States, or the Soviet Union because they did not want some 3rd party trying to tell them what to do when Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was at stake with the launch of a Fission bomb.
Upon the fall of the Berlin Wall, tensions over international conflicts dropped substantially. Also, the fall of the Berlin Wall marked the end of the Soviet Union as a world power.
At this point the world, as we know it today, with the United States being the sole power came into fruition. The realist paradigm, according to many political scientists lost all validity because the United States started to use the United Nations much more, and it was at this point that technology in the 1980’s started to tie the world economy together. States no longer lived in isolation. The birth of the new-institutionalist paradigm occurred, and it was now seen as the most common way to study the world.
It states that although states have significant say in International Relations, the merging of the world economies has created a strongly unified world-state, and has placed more burden upon IO’s such as the UN. Power can still be measured militarily, but more and more influence is being placed upon soft power – economics. (Today when you deal with North Korea, you don’t invade them as you would have done in the 1950’s, you impose economic sanctions first.) It also states that NGO’s and international corporations along with IO’s are now the main actors in international relations.
Trade became much easier because countries were much more relaxed – literally. The realist paradigm viewed today’s ally, as tomorrow’s enemy, so any agreements always had to benefit you, or you had to break even. (But even if you broke even many states would cheat to try and get an upper hand over the other, thus ending the agreement. Game Theory.) The new-institutionalist paradigm, with its importance on NGO’s and the UN stated that cheating could be stopped with a 3rd party (UN) overlooking on both sides. Also, a 3rd party could make each side look more credible, and thus allow more international trade and agreements.
This sounds all peachy in theory, but states still cheat, and still use military to flex their power – although it really is becoming less and less important.
If you study things today by the new-institutionalist paradigm you can really see the role of transnational corporations such as Microsoft from America, and Airbus from Europe, and cheap labor in China shaping world economies, and the role of UN has grown today to unimaginable proportions – in fact it is over stretched. “The United Nations has become seriously overloaded with security issues.”
One major problem is that the realist paradigm and new-institutionalist paradigm are near polar opposites. They are more idealistic than true. The real state of the world lies somewhere in-between those two ideals, as some states still firmly operate under the realist paradigm. Although, according to many, the United Nations shapes world politics, and it is major enforcer in the world and keeping peace, this is not very true. The problem still lies in the anarchic nature of the world.
Nobody can stop a state from invading another state. There is no police to literally stop them. The only way it can happen is if an ally state spends its own money and military resources to help the country being persecuted. Since states in theory are rational thinkers, this WILL NOT occur unless they have economic reasons to intervene and help their ally. A state can invade another state and there is no “binding” law to impose sanctions against them. Sanctions are up to the states that wish to pursue them, and in theory the United States could invade Canada, and if nobody in the world wants to stop them, they will get away with it.
The problem lies in International law. International law is nothing like state-law. State law is binding, written clearly, and if you break the law in your state, whether speeding on the highway, or killing your neighbor there is a clear, and decisive document that states you will be fined x amount of dollars, and you will go to jail x amount of years. There is no legal binding document like to rule the world. The only world police we have are states national interests.
North Korea tests a nuclear bomb. Men in blue shirts, proudly wearing a badge with the letter’s WPO (World Police Organization) don’t knock on Kim-Jong Il’s door and arrest him. Such a group will never exist. And even if there was such a group, they could not legally operate since there is no legal document giving them the right to exercise that power. Also, such a legal document would mean that every state in the world would have to sign off on it in order for it to be completely legal as world law.
What do we have instead of a world police? A world Power. The United States. They act as the world police leading the world in stopping tyranny and spreading freedom.
But today with the world becoming smaller and smaller due to economic intermingling, international conflicts are becoming much more rare. States are for the most part cooperating and war is avoided at all costs due to cosmopolitan law.
Today, internal conflicts are the most serious threat to the world. Sunni vs. Shiite Muslims, wars in Congo, Chechnya rebels… the list goes on and on.
The problem? The UN charter was never written to deal with internal conflict, it was written to deal with international conflict.
The UN has no right to tell Shiite and Sunni’s from fighting because –
- They are not members of the UN.
- It is occurring internally, thus technically it is Iraq’s, Lebanon’s, and Israel’s problem.
- It is not international problem unless what happened this summer occurs, and then the UN has the right to say something. But until the blood shed spills over the borders the UN does not say a word until the problem is brought to the Security Council and general assembly.
It becomes and international problem because the United States decides to get involved. The World Police. At which point you have negotiations occurring on an international scale and the UN becomes involved.
Now, here’s the catch. Despite the realist point of view, the new institutionalist point of view, and the idea of the world police – states are still able to do what they want, when they want, how they want – that’s because of anarchy (the lack of a world police) and the fact that international law is 100% non-binding, and is 100% open for interpretation.
International law helps us in a few ways. First it is a common language, which all states understand. The word illegal, no matter what language you translate it into, still means something forbidden. It is also a common reference point from which states can base their arguments. The problem is that because it is not stated with 100% clarity on a document, each member of the international community interprets it differently. It is interpreted in such a way as to suit their needs (USA invasion of Iraq). The fact that it is ambiguous renders it almost useless. Since when to state-laws that are “breakable” work? The same applies on the international scene.
The International Court of Justice is an offshoot of the United Nations – and it should be upholding international law but it does not. How can Kofi Annan issue a statement the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and yet there is no legal action against the United States for what it did?
The Internaional court of Justice’s main role is to pacta sunt servanda – pacts must be respected. How can the United States go against the UN’s resolution of the Iraq war – and go against what the ICJ stands for and not have a single piece of legal action taken against it? The 2003 invasion of Iraq is widely regarded as a breaking of international law -BUT– depending on how you perceive it. From the U.S point of view, it was totally legal, - from UN’s point of view it was illegal.
Who’s right? That’s the dilemma of international law..
“International law is, at best, a farce, and, at worst, even a potential danger; what they tell us is that the nature of the international system condemns international law to all the weaknesses and previsions that is so easy to deride… in a fragmented world, there is no “global perspective” from which anyone can authoritatively asses, endorse, or reject the separate national efforts at making international law serve national interests above all…”
Hoffman, Stanley. International Law and Political Crisis. Brown and Company Inc., 1968.
The United States defying the United Nations and having no sanctions placed upon it surely opened the eyes of Iran and Ahmadinejad and many other radical leaders and people. The fact that you STILL can do what you want, when you want, and how you want renders the entire idea of the United Nations useless until it figures out a fair, and conformed way to deal with international law. The realist point of view still lives on in my opinion. Untill International law is non-debatable and 100% binding North Korea and anybody else who wants to rise up and defy the world can.
This argument goes on and on and on.. For example: if there was a clear, international law – and someone broke it, and the law they broke resulted in military action - who is to lead the military action? The UN does not have its own army. Once again a state will have to take the burden on of dealing with the problem – but in theory it only will from a rational standpoint, and if it has nothing to gain from entering the conflict it wont. This goes into another heated debate of Collective security but I think I’ll stop typing now since this is gone on long enough…
No comments:
Post a Comment