International law is a legal collection of norms and standards that govern relations between sovereign states and other international actors. The concept was formulated by Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher, in the late 18th century. The original definition and jurisdiction used to omit individuals and non-sovereign international organizations, both of which are now critical elements of modern international law. With time, international law has come to provide a common language to international players- whether sovereign states or individuals. It is now a complex amalgamation of influential principles, practices, processes, and standards. The subject range has broadened to capture human rights, trade, and space laws, in addition to the original war, peace, and diplomacy issues (Mark, p. 308).
International law has developed through several major phases, with each phase representing an additional codification to it. Jeremy Bentham’s initiative triggered numerous attempts to codify international law through private bodies and governments. These groups could foresee the convenience that such a law would bring by removing regional uncertainties and variances, as well as providing a common conceptual framework for abstract principles. Several private codification efforts played important roles in the development of international law. Prominent amongst these are the proposals and codes sourced from the Institute de Droit International, Harvard Research in International Law, and the International Law Association (Charles, p. 43).
The Congress of Vienna in the early 19th century developed regulations between governments on issues such as international rivers, slave trade abolition, and diplomatic agent ranking. Afterward, diplomatic conferences helped develop international legal issues on land and sea wars, international disputes, maritime and aerial navigation, telecommunications, and intellectual property rights. A huge number of these conferences came up as sustained government efforts through successive, multilateral international conferences. Through such conferences, some concepts like industrial property protection have had their relevant laws revised severally.
In 1995, the member states of UNESCO drafted a declaration of tolerance. Within it, they defined tolerance as respect, appreciation, and acceptance of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures, our forms of expression, and ways of being human (UN). Tolerance is driven by knowledge, openness, communication, freedom of thought, and beliefs. It upholds human rights, pluralism, democracy, and the rule of law. However, it is not a concession, condescension, or indulgence. Tolerance plays a critical role now, more than ever before, as the world evolves towards globalization.
Within the greater framework of international law, the law of treaties specializes in legally binding interstate agreements. It is premised on the joint discipline between international relations theory and international law (Anne). It essentially makes pacts between two willing parties to be legally binding, and provides a legal recourse should one of the parties fail to live up to obligations. There are two main types of treaties: bilateral and multilateral. Bilateral treaties are negotiated between two parties, while multilateral treaties can bind more than two. Most treaties are self-executing – complete in themselves, but some are not, and require an external implementation structure.
Another important facet of International law is the Law of the Sea. Conceived in 1982 by the United Nations, this law provides an avenue for controlling activities in the oceans. Its core focus is navigation and transit issues. It also regulates deep-sea mining, marine trade, pollution, research, and ocean-related dispute resolution. It sets territorial sea limits and an economic war zone over which a country may claim jurisdiction. This claim, however, does not deny the non-wartime passage of ships from other sovereign states. (Itlos)
With globalization becoming more and more of a reality, the issue of international policing and security is becoming more significant. This has led to the introduction of International Security Policy courses in tertiary institutions. Such courses are meant to better prepare people for the increasing international interactions, with the attendant opportunities and consequences. They also attempt to match the high technical innovation with equitable distribution. They provide conceptual foundations for understanding international conflict and its management, military strategy, intelligence, negotiation, and peacekeeping (Bert 45). So far, no official international security policy body has been formed.
The concept of war features prominently in international law. In the international context, war is perceived as an intentional and widespread armed conflict between two or more political interest groups. This definition excludes friction between individuals or the normal street gang fights. The political angle is necessary for any conflict to be termed as war. Certain pressure groups may qualify to be called political communities if they aspire for statehood or drive towards the development of statehood. A state in this context refers to the narrow government machinery which organizes life in a given area, as compared to a nation, which encompasses any people who share such things as ethnicity, language, culture, and so on.
War, in a sense, is ultimately about lordship- about governance. It is but a violent way of determining whose ideologies will prevail in a territory, especially as regards wealth, resources, and power. Sometimes, war suffices if other peaceful processes fail to work. The philosopher Carl Von Clausewitz once termed war as an alternative continuation of policy (Stanford). He refers to war as a duel on an extensive scale. However, mere threats of war do not qualify as indications of war. It is only when a deliberate move by armed fighters is noted that war can be considered to be in the offing. (Michael 127)
The Just War Theory plays a central role in the prevailing perspective about war and peace ethics. Its founders are considered to be Aristotle, Cicero, and Augustine. By now, most of its rules have been assimilated into International Laws such as The United Nations Charter, The Hague, and Geneva Conventions. The Just War Theory has three parts: jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and jus post Bellum. Just ad Bellum determines the justification for war in the first place, and its rules are initially addressed to heads of state. Political leaders who fail by the principles of jus ad Bellum are considered to have committed war crimes. Jus ad Bellum justifies any move towards war based on the cause, intention, authority, alternatives, probability of success, and proportionality.
Jus in Bello is concerned with justice during the war, once the war has begun. It hence primarily interacts with the military commanders, officers and soldiers involved. Such are held responsible if any breach of the rules occurs. Consequences for such breaches include trials for war crimes. There is an external jus in Bello and an internal one. The external applies between a warring state and its enemies. The internal concerns a state’s internal people during the war period. The rules of external jus in Bello cover obedience, target discrimination, proportionality, benevolence for prisoners of war, and reprisals in case a warring entity breaks the regulations (Michael, p. 130).
Jus post-Bellum comes into play at the end of the war when peace agreements are being worked on. It seeks to ease the transition from war to peace. Since there is little coverage from international law here, a lot of jus post-Bellum is drawn from moral resources. Its major principles include the publicity of the peace agreement, a vindication of rights, discrimination between soldiers and civilians, punishment for the unlawful aggressor, compensation, and rehabilitation for the victims of war.
Two main mindsets get to play during war times. These are the realists and the pacifists. The concept of realism is complex and usually contextual, but on the main, they tend to be against the meddling of moral concepts like justice to international affairs. They disengage moral concepts from state behavior in the international scene. They emphasize power and security issues. War is seen as an inevitable facet of an anarchical system, and one to be resulted to only if it makes national-interest sense. If war does start, realists disregard any moral or legal hindrance to their ultimate aim of winning. Realists see morality as a luxury, which can not be afforded by any state playing in the volatile international scene.
On the other hand, pacifists are anti-war. They reject war in favor of peace. Killing, in particular, is always objectionable, and there is never enough justification for war. Those against pacifists regard them as being excessively optimistic, and possible loopholes for the progression of unwarranted aggression, since they don’t curb it. Pacifists counter this by implying that organized campaigns, combined with international diplomatic and economic recourses, can just as effectively defeat the aggressor.
There are several thought groups as far as international peace is concerned, apart from pacifism. These include world government, sovereignty, tolerance, pragmatic feminism, and cosmopolitism. The world government thought group envisions all humankind being under one uniform political authority. It is a futuristic thought group since so far, a worldwide authority has not yet occurred. The eventual occurrence of such an authority is thought possible if small, incremental efforts were made by the existing sovereign states to create it. Realist thinking considers this thought group to be essentially utopian.
Cosmopolitans are distinct from proponents of world government in that they encourage the cultivation of the commonality of humanity, without necessarily imposing a ruling body on it. Their perceptions cover the broader issues of morality, relationships, shared markets, and cultural expression. They essentially challenge the commonly held attachments to the local populace or fellow citizens of particular territories.
Proponents of sovereignty describe a seat of absolute authority within sovereign territories. Theirs is a modern notion of political authority. The holder of such sovereign power would have the authority to command, and a reciprocal right to be obeyed. This is in contrast with most leadership today, which mostly functions on coercive power. Sovereignty legitimizes each command from the leader, and disobedience has been sanctioned.
Tolerance is the conditional acceptance of beliefs or actions that one considers being wrong but still tolerable. There are four concepts of tolerance relevant here: permission concept, coexistence concept, respect concept, and the esteem concept. The permission concept occurs between an authority and a dissenting subordinate. The subordinate is then tolerated as long as they remain within certain boundaries. Reasons for this kind of tolerance include the consideration that this may be the least costly option, and individual inclinations not to force others to give up deep-seated practices or beliefs. In this kind of interaction, both parties know their positions in the hierarchy and accept them.
In coexistence tolerance, there is no hierarchy, and the parties involved are roughly equal in power. These parties result in such coexistence upon realizing the need for tolerance of each other if individual interests are to be successfully pursued. This kind of arrangement is tenuous at best, since if one party ever gets the upper hand, the tolerance may lose its relevance. It can only continue to exist if it involves the respect variety, whereby respect between the parties is duly reciprocated. Respect tolerance recognizes the differences between the parties and works out a way of living around these differences. When this respect is compounded with ethical esteem between the parties, esteem tolerance is born. In esteem tolerance, the differences between the parties are actually perceived for their benefit.
Feminist pragmatism is mostly sourced from historical women figures like Jane Addams, Jessie Taft, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Emily Greene Balch, and so on. Understanding their standpoint calls for knowledge of the cultural and philosophic context. Pragmatists perceive theorizing as part of individual interaction with the environment. Pragmatism is used as a base for female theory, especially when dealing with justice and democracy.
How countries participate in world peace or war depends on many factors- economic, political, leadership, and so on. The emerging trend the world over is that wealthy countries usually invest more towards maintaining control of the international markets. Sometimes, the methods used to maintain this control are not above board, from a moral point of view, and strife occurs. But with the increasing state of globalization, blatant moves towards such radical seizes of power are being reduced, or at least moderated. Nowadays, even the so-called superpowers have to abide by some regulations; otherwise, they aren’t entirely beyond the reach of international sanctions. And hence the overall trend is the advocacy of peace – whatever shapes this advocacy takes.
Several international organizations have formed e.g. the United Nations, the European Union, the Arctic Union, Asian Productivity Organization, Commonwealth, etc. These organizations have managed to unite several state bodies, but none has so far managed to unite the whole world. What countries join a certain organization is also dependent on many factors – intrinsic and external. Some factors are historical – previous British colonies later became members of the Commonwealth Association. Other factors are demographic, while still others are geographic or regional. Where all these factors are irrelevant – as happens with some more recent organizations – a country’s unique leadership and economic considerations may determine whether or not it joins a particular association. Additionally, some of the international groups are special interest-oriented like the environmental groups. If a country has no vested interest in a particular organization’s prime interest, chances of being a member reduce.
The European Union is an economic union having 27 member states, most located in Europe. Established in 1992, the European Union has developed a single market avenue for its member states, and introduced a common currency, the Euro, currently adopted by 15 member states. Though mainly economical, the EU also has a political element, functioning mainly through a combination of inter-governmental concessions and supra-nationalism. Supra-nationalism applies where certain decisions are made without complete agreement from all members states. The EU was formed after decades of dissension between member states through the integration of existing unions like the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community, and the European Atomic Energy Community. It originally had six member states, but with time, others joined in, some, like Romania and Bulgaria, joining as late as January 2007.
The EU legal system is based on a series of treaties. These treaties set broad objectives and then establish institutions to implement them. As far as security is concerned, member states are left to cater for their own defense. However, the EU is affiliated with the Western European Union, whose primary objectives are security-related. In 1992, the EU assigned the “Petersberg tasks” to the Western European Union. These responsibilities include peacekeeping and crisis management. But in 1999, the EU increased its military capability, notably through the Helsinki Headline Goal. Nowadays, the military operations of the EU have backing from the European Defense Agency, the Satellite Centre, and Military staff (EU).
Works Cited
- Anne-Marie Slaughter Burley International Law and International Relations Theory: A Dual Agenda. p. 205.
- Bert Chapman. 2004 Researching National Security and Intelligence Policy. Washington, D.C.CQ Press. p. 45.
- Charles Beitz (1979). Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey pp. 40-52
- EU: European Union’s Key facts and figures. Web.
- Itlos –International tribunal for the Law of the sea.
- Mark Eugen Villiger (1997) Customary International Law and Treaties: A Manual on the Theory and Practice of the Interrelation of Sources 2nd Edition. Martinus pp. 308 332
- Michael E. Brown (1998): Theories of War and Peace. pp. 127-132
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy War. Web.
- UN- Declaration of Principles on Tolerance. Web.