The difference between reality and documented law and regulation are an omnipresent phenomenon. In this respect, the presence of rule of law and international organizations to advance the peace process in conflict driven regions has been the argument posed by many theoreticians. In this respect, one must understand how do the various theorists compare and/or contrast with each other?
As has been argued by Louis Henkin and Terry Nardin (1993), the rule of law and international organizations, respectively, are the basis for state relations. Then argue that “law includes the structure of that society, its institutions, forms, and procedures for daily activity, the assumptions on which the society is founded and the concepts which permeate it, the status, rights, responsibilities, obligations of the nations which compromise that society, the various relations between them and the effects of those.” (Henkin and Nardin 1993, 14). Hans Morganthau (1978), Keohane and Nye (2001) as well as the pluralists identified other dynamics as the basis of state relations.
However, a closer look at the issues related to the Middle East show that these arguments fall short in face of reality. For instance the conflict of Palestine and Israel. Relations between the two regions has been tensed for many decades. The reasons are mostly based on cessation of land and religious identity. So here the relation between nations has been disrupted due to the lack of recognition and establishment of diplomatic relations. Here though an idea presented by Henkin and Nadin is that of “property”. Here the concept of territory and territorial sovereignty where the reason for conflict has been boundaries of territories between nations. In the case of the Middle east the dispute over Palestine is related to the territorial issues which has been turning law and flouting international regulations and treaties.
Another reason for the conflict in the Middle East has been the fight over control of resources. As the region holds a very strategically important position geopolitically, due to its natural resources, especially oil. Oil, today has become the backbone for wealth for any nation. So the fight over the resources, and the stronger nations with more economic and military power trying to gain control of the land. Even the international organizations have not been able to control the conflict as there has been almost no rule of law even though many countries like Iraq have a democratic government.
Here one must understand that the state or the body that runs the state is the “principal actor” and the international relations between nations are dependent on them and not on transnational organizations like the United Nations. Further international intervention in certain parts of the Middle East, though has been able to restore peace, but a completely peaceful land devoid of any irrationality are acceptable.
The reason one must understand here is that there has been a successive process of intervention and conflict. However, it has always been the will of the state, which has prevailed. Now the will of the state may have been with the true rulers, democratic government, or the group, which is in power as is case of Palestine.
The other issue which pertains from the study of the theory related to law and regulation between nations arises is the question of idealism, realism, neorealism and pluralism. Each of these has a descriptive and a prescriptive element.
According to idealism, the political system can be based on morality and the baser human desires and instincts are dominated by the higher desire to build something in national or international interest (Kauppi and Viotti 1999). War according to the idealists was for greater good.
According to realists and neorealists, the need to expand the paradigm of power of human beings arises out of the desire of humans to maximize power (Kauppi and Viotti 1999). Therefore, this argument is ideological and has some social underpinning.
Pluralism is a theory in international relations, which posits that politics as well as policy making are the product of the self-interests of the involved parties and thus depriving the state of any independent status (Morengenthan 1978, Terry 1983). This poses an anti-realist vision where the state assumes central power. Here the idea of non-state actors as important participants in world politics is identified.
According to the pluralists, the state is not considered to be a unified entity, rather different factions, groups, international organizations, etc. are considered to be separate entities. Further, the pluralists think that the realist assumption is based on rationality of state and that all conflicts are means to attain rational decision-making. Further, the pluralists also believe that international agenda are not limited to national security rather to economical, social, and environmental issues.
From the above discussion, it is clear that in the case of the Middle Eastern region, the argument posed by the pluralists is most applicable. The reason being the conflict in the region is not solely based on idealistic views or human rationality. Rather it is a conflict, which has its roots in the socio-economic construct of humans. The conflict is caused through the self-interest of nations who are driving to capture the region either for its rich resources, or in the name of religious unity or mere rivalry through history.
Reference
Henkin, Louis, and Terry Nardin. Ethics & International Affairs. New York: Hoffman, 1993.
Kauppi, Mark, and paul Viotti. International Relations Theory: realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1999.
Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye. Power and Interdependence. New York: Longman, 2001.
Morengenthan, Hans. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978.
Terry, Mardin. Law, morality, and the Relations of States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983.