Can peace be secured through international law and institutions?
The interwar period signified a time of great uncertainty and ambivalence for powerful stakeholders in world peace - not dissimilar to the present day’s political climate…
Let us write or edit the essay on your topic
"Were the liberal thinkers of the interwar period wrong to believe that peace can be secured through international law and institutions"
with a personal 20% discount.
Download file to see previous pages...
With the atrocities of World War I (WWI) still fresh in the memory of most politicians, and with world anarchy a realistic proposition, the only viable interwar option available in the war vs. non-war dichotomy appeared to be the “Balance of Power” strategy championed by some of the days’ great thinkers (Sylvest, 24). Strained international relations made “balancing” power in an equitable, mutually agreeable manner a lofty, but urgent, goal. Realistically, an international institution with multiple stakeholders, representing all major world powers seemed to be the way forward – considering the immense toll (human and economic) the war had taken (Sylvest, 28, Ranney, 4). From the outset, however, there was significant philosophical disagreement about the ultimate roles and goals of such an institution, both between and within governments. The British Labour Party maintained an internationalist (not dissimilar to the concept of idealism in many ways) perspective, having fought the war along nationalist lines. Specifically, the party maintained that world progress, the ultimate target, could only be achieved by way of global democracy and world law. In this way, the party, and the internationalists as a group, argued that a) the conditions of international politics were malleable and that b) deliberate reform was necessary to enact democratic conditions (Sylvest, 20). As with many burgeoning ideologies, some of the internationalist philosophies were divisive: a liberal faction of the party held that the state could not impinge on the inalienable rights of individuals, and a socialist internationalist faction, in Marxist style, argued that “working men have no state (Goldmann, 56).”Although the internationalist perspective became popular and gained momentum, it did not fully represent either of the dominant views of the day: idealism and realism. The realists maintained, (some would argue as a reaction to interwar idealism), that the conditions of international politics could not be changed, a nation’s main duty was to isolate and protect itself, nation states were primary actors in international politics, that the international system reached a dynamic but peaceful equilibrium via natural struggles for power (as opposed to a central governing body), and that nations must help themselves – as opposed to relying on assistance from others (Schmidt, 435). Conversely, the retroactively labeled ”idealists” of the time, bolstered and transformed by Woodrow Wilson’s commitment to American Exceptionalism and belief in the power of democracy (embodied and communicated through his “Fourteen points” speech), promoted an ideological that aimed to transcend the left-right divide and establish peace through ongoing commitment to moral and ethical concerns – even at the potential cost of negatively impacting the nation state. To many, the idealists’ belief in democratic peace theory - the concept that similarly democratic nations do not fight each other, was especially appealing (Hoogenboom, 190). Though much space and attention has been devoted in textbooks to the dichotomization of the realist and idealist viewpoints of the day, and the idea of a peacekeeping international institution is often synonymous with Woodrow Wilson, in truth, the origins of these ideologies and potential resolution strategies span back much further. Two centuries prior to WWI and Wilson, Kant’s (1972) Perpetual Peace posits that the natural position of governments towards counterparts is war – which creates problems because conflicts between humans are unethical and “inconsistent with the rights of humanity.” Kant argued that war could essentially be institutionalized and regulated in order to
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Major world power like USA, peace loving country like India and many other have been victimized by the current wave of terrorism that began in the late 1960's. The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produce terror in its victims1.
The relationship between these countries addresses various needs that these countries must have. However, historians and other analysts believe that the needs that one country seeks to fulfill should not act in a manner, which intends to imprison its free will (Simpson, 2004: 14).
The world today has become an interdependent place, where every nation must rely on others in order to achieve prosperity. In order to manage this interdependence, the world needs to be at peace and ensure sustainable relationships.
The Security Council has primary responsibility for a maintenance of international peace and security. Since the 1990s not only has the Security Council agreed to authorize humanitarian intervention, there have also been interventions without authorization from the Security Council such as the intervention in Northern Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, etc.
Due to the ever increasing complexity of the global economy, as well as the need for checks and balances to ensure that international business and trade are conducted in an ethical and beneficial manner, international organizations have rose to prominence which were created in an effort to serve as arbiters in commerce and trade disputes that cross the boundaries of nations, oceans and continents.
While there are pacifists and probably the vast majority of the world's citizens, who would like it to be otherwise, the fact is that international law, in the final analysis, is more accurately concerned with the regulation of the use of force, rather than its absolute prevention.3 That is why, although there is a general overarching obligation on states to refrain from the use of force in settling disputes, there are exceptions to this rule.
Recalling the scenario of 60 years ago, when the world’s most powerful leaders agreed on the formation of international institutions that will support in helping humanity, in order to preserve development and peace. The aims like ‘liberation from fear’ and
us violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, existing tensions in Iran, and the threat from the organizations of terrorists are good examples of the international organizations’ crisis and inability to establish peace. Some other problematic regions where these organizations have
It is for this reason that whenever there are any crises which might have an effect on peace; international organizations such as the United Nations are often called upon to spearhead activities which might lead to possible solutions for the