“When we speak in terms of International Law; then Law is a residue of International Politics”
- Hans
Morgenthau
Introduction to the Philosophy of Internationalism
Jingoism
and immense love for particular ideology; was one of the major outcomes of
struggle for power amongst nations which drove the world into ‘cold war era’
and therefore taught us all a lesson; which lead us to the most sophisticated
and civilised form of ‘internationalism’. The reasons for this can be in
thousands; but the main change we have experienced since five decades to now,
is the words like chauvinism, jingoism and ultra-nationalism; which were
symbols of pride at one time; has now become something; which is completely
opposed by philosophy of Internationalism.
Economic
cooperation was need of the time when we look at the war torn world and half a
decade full of casualties and frozen international relations.[1]
Therefore Internationalism or cosmopolitanism can be defined as; “a global
politics that, firstly, projects a sociality of common political engagement
among all human beings across the globe, and, secondly, suggests that this
sociality should be either ethically or organizationally privileged over other
forms of sociality.”[2]
And that was the major reason behind the separate discipline of International
Law.
International Law
International
Law, as we know it today, is that indispensable body of rules regulating for
the most part the relation between the states, without which it would be virtually
impossible for them to have steady and frequent intercourse.[3]
Thus; it is a by-product of the necessity of mutuality amongst nation. Efficient
Enforceability of the law is the major component of any legal system and upon
which the strength of the law can be questioned. Human beings at large are the
subject of any law in force; but in the scenario of International Law Sovereign
states are considered as international legal personality and concept of
sovereignty can be said to be a stable electoral college consisting of a
national territory and people who have given formal consent to their government
to represent as a state.
Sovereign Sanctity
Lassa Oppenheim
in his International Law: A Treatise,
Volume 1 while speaking about the mode of recognition of sovereign state as
a international person and therefore a member of Family of nations said that;
“It must be specially mentioned that
recognition by one state is not at all binding upon other state; so that they
must follow suit. But in practice such an example, if set by one or more Great
Powers and at a time when the new state is really established on a sound basis,
will make many other state at a later period give their recognition too”[4]
Therefore
international law can be said to be as a highly volatile law; but at the same
time the notion of interdependence, equality, international peace and
cooperation has made this institution of international law as a morally
enforceable to resist any kind of inequality which goes against any state
actors’ interest at given time.
International Law and
Principle of Morality
As
per John Austin’s view any rule of law have two sides, first, Validity of law
because of its nature as either issued by politically superior sovereign or
morally superior as custom and traditions and, second, application of that law
which mostly depends upon its enforceability and popular acceptance.[5]
International
Law which is conducted and to provide a system of rules facilitating
international intercourse; can be reflected as a public opinion or it can be
used as a matter of political tool to protect one’s interest; for an example; in
the case of Public support for a referendum on membership of the European Union
which has changed little since the last edition of the survey in Britain and
remains high at 60%, with 24% opposed.[6] Or
what United states did during ‘Cuban
Missile Crisis’ of 1962 where by referring to Inter American Treaty of
Reciprocal Assistance of 1947 as a legal basis for its ‘selective blockade’ or
‘quarantine’ of Cuba.[7]
Enforceability and Sanctions in International Law
If
law is not, by and large, a body a rule that are enforced at gunpoint, then the
major question arises in modern times is that; whether a command of the state
that is backed by the state’s enforcement power is a legitimate in nature? And
if so; then Can the rule of ‘Law’ (specifically in terms of international law)
disobeyed by particular nation, still hold a position of good law ? For example
The Security Council of the United Nations, which was intended to have such a
role in a sense, has at been effectively constrained by the veto power of the
five permanent members (USA; USSR, now the Russian Federation; China; France; and
the United Kingdom). Thus, if there is no identifiable institution either to
establish rules, or to clarify them or see that those who break them are
punished, how can what is called international law is law?[8]
On
several occasions we have experienced the assertion of nations at various
international conferences to make legal rules binding in more strict sense.
Coercive action within the framework of the UN is rare because it requires
co-ordination amongst the five permanent members of the Security Council and
this obviously needs an issue not regarded by any of the great powers as a
threat to their vital interests.[9]
Now;
there are plethoras of events and legal trajectories which can be examples of
bypassing uniform system of international law enforceable and sanctioned under
UN, WTO or various multilateral and bilateral Treaties.[10]
Thus; in the end it comes to morality as a major support system for sanctions
which can be bypassed due to national interest or national security reasons by
so called gentlemen such as politicians, lawyers, soldiers and diplomats.
How powerful is the
‘United Nations’?
The
UN Security Council unanimously passed the resolution, which quote “Condemns in
the strongest terms”; the attack that brought down the Malaysian Airlines
flight MH-17 over Ukraine and also demanded “Unfettered access to the crash
site” but they haven’t yet listed this resolution under chapter VII of the UN
charter and thus; the resolution is not enforceable and at the same time UN put
pressure on Russian Federation to change the phrase “Downing” which they use to
condemn the event of flight MH-17 instead to term “Shooting Down”; which is not
even a strongest term available to condemn an event like this.[11]
Now
these events pose a question what good is the UN? Or What Military Power does
it even have? The Short answer is that Depends. The UN is a coalition of 193
nations and if these all nation works together militarily, then they would
collectively wield incredible power, but it would be those nations wielding
power as a group and not the UN wielding power itself.
Therefore;
one can think UN as more of a forum, than a force. In fact UN general assembly
is just the same where these nations comes together to discuss global and
domestic issues. Occasionally, recommendation can come forwards at this forum
but in the end its not binding at it up to the nation to comply with it accordingly.
There
is a smaller group within UN; which is Security Council, a group of 15 nations
responsible for assessing threats to the peace and to determine the actions for
the same which can be sanctions, communication disruptions or military actions.
Their decisions are binding when UNSC member nation says so and it is
obligatory of other nations to carry them out. But on several occasions there
has been disobedience as in case of Iran, when it denounces UN sanctions as
illegal.[12]
And the question of non-productive use of Veto power of permanent members to UNSC
has been a pertinent question in terms of sanctions and enforceability.
Thus;
this world’s most comprehensive global leadership forum, United Nation can be a
powerful coalition depending upon the interest of concerned member states. Well although the UN had their setbacks in
the past, the organisation, without a doubt, the strongest, most vide reaching
and well respected global peace initiative; the World has ever seen. As long as
they retain support and commitment from their members the UN could finally be
the one governmental entity which clears the path to the future peace.
Status of ‘Iran Nuclear
Deal as’ International Law
The
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is a nuclear agreement signed between Iran
and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security
Council—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—plus Germany), and
the European Union. This Agreement is considered as a milestone in the history
of Disarmaments.
While
endorsing the nuclear deal at presidential address; President Barak Obama while
quoting former president Nixon said that; “We shall not negotiate out of fear,
but we also shall not fear to negotiate”[13].
This statement can be regarded as the most powerful symbol for today’s
international politics for peace and shows the sovereigns strength for
cosmopolitanism. It has been said that; Iran’s trade with the European Union,
which totalled 7.6 billion euros ($8.3 billion) last year, could balloon 400
percent by mid-2018[14]
and that is the amount which not only denotes the monetary value of in terms of
money but also denotes the severity of ‘interdependence’ and ‘global
cooperation’ for trade, development and in larger terms peace.
Conclusion
Thus;
it can sum-up in brief that Internationalism and therefore international law is
such a need which can be called as necessary evil for someone like Russia and
for some it is the only driving force which is keeping the nation’s economy
stable like Ghana or Iran.
I
am therefore of the opinion that the mutual relationship of International Legal
rules create relationship amongst nation in such a manner that the only option
available to strengthen the enforceability and sanctions of international law
is to uphold the moral responsibility of sovereign to stand for those words
written in various agreements, treaties and charters for international forums;
and for the same these sovereign authorities have signed for.
[1] Hans
Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations,
Fifth Edition, 1980, chapter on Internationalism and International Law.
[2] James, Paul, Globalization
and Politics, Political Philosophies of the Global, Vol. 4, 2014, Sage
Publications, London. See < https://www.academia.edu/7547819/Globalization_and_Politics_Vol._4_Political_Philosophies_of_the_Global_2014_>
visited at 23rd July 2015
[3] Starke, J. G., Introduction to International Law, Tenth Edition, First Indian
Reprint 1994, Butterworth & Co Publishers Ltd.
[4]
Oppenheim L., International Law: A
Treatise, Vol. 1 ‘Peace’, 3rd Edition, 2005, Edited. By Roxburgh Ronald,
The Law book Exchange Ltd., New Jersey, P. 136. See at < https://books.google.co.in/books?id=vxJ1Jwmyw0EC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=indisputable+fact+that+this+conception,+from+the+moment+when+it+was+introduced+into+political+science+until+the+present+day,+has+never+had&source=bl&ots=Ow9-eGaVMq&sig=9q16MBNKiXUqWrKSWe_DpnwrkbI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIwuKF0ObxxgIVZ_NyCh2bqwvk#v=snippet&q=sovereign%20&f=false> visited at 23rd July
2015
[5] John
Austin, Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, Stanford, Centre for study of language and information, (2001,
February 24). See at <
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/austin-john/ > Retrieved July 23, 2015.
[6] Raines, Thomas, Internationalism or
Isolationism? The Chatham House–You Gov. Survey, European
Programme, Chatham House January 2015, Retrieved July 23, 2015.
See at < http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/field/field_document/20150129YouGovRaines.pdf> pg. No. 3, Retrieved July 23, 2015.
[10]
D'Amato, Anthony, "Is International
Law Really ‘Law’?" (2010). Faculty Working Papers. Paper 103.
Retrieved form < http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/facultyworkingpapers/103>
[11]
Herszenhorn, David (2015, July 25) Putin Rejects U.N. Tribunal for Downed
Malaysian Jet, The New York Time, Retrieved
from < http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/world/asia/putin-rejects-un-tribunal-for-downed-malaysian-jet.html>
[12] Reuters (2006, 23rd
December), Iran denounces U.N. sanctions as illegal, CNN.com, Retrieved from < http://archive.is/SnlWq#selection-707.1-707.41>
[13] Iran
deal set to become international law [Online Archives], (2015, 17 July),
CBS News, Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-security-council-vote-iran-nuclear-deal-resolution-us-congress-objections/
Referred on 23rd July 2015
[14] Billions
up for grabs if a nuclear deal opens up Iran’s economy, [online archive],
(2015, April 3), Fortune, Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2015/04/03/billions-nuclear-deal-iran/
referred on 23rd July 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment