An Improved International Law System - Essay Example

An improved International Law System Introduction A thorough analysis of the stipulations and interpretations of the international law reveals that it needs improvements on certain aspects. The formulation of the international law is not a recent occurrence, since history reveals that even prior to the description of the clauses that defined the first set of laws on a global system; countries had exhibited certain forms of agreements that applied to the nations involved. The current comprehensive system of laws governing independent states was implemented during the Renaissance period. The fact that there is evidence of existing clauses before this period, only serves to highlight that the conception of the idea had taken place earlier. The international law has a defined mandate, with its key priorities including the promotion of peace, justice, ecological stability and economic wellbeing. Although there are concerted efforts exhibited by different nations towards the promotion of these values, it is evident that some issues still require critical addressing. it is worth mentioning that some states have acted in ways that reflect a feeling of being constrained by the international law during times when they needed to develop their own intervention strategies when under threat. The international law also proves to be a disadvantage to some countries because they are not members of the intergovernmental organizations that formulate policies that define international law. Evidently, a design for an improved system of the international is an urgent requirement. This paper will focus on describing how the value of peace can be improved. Definition of Peace Peace is one of the critical representative values defined as a leading hallmark of the international law. However, for a long time, the usage of the term peace has denoted different aspects. Many scholars have used the term peace repeatedly, but have not taken much time to address its definition as they have done with words that for a long time have been used to denote the opposite condition such as violence and war. The term denotes a range of concepts depending on the context of its usage. Its usage in an integrated cultural-religious system, cross-cultural or secular context exhibits a level of variance in the concept denoted. However, in each of these different contexts, the usage of the term serves to place emphasis on one of the central principles that govern what many people define as peace (Bowett 67). The term peace has a Greek origin, and is the English translation for the Greek word Irene, which denoted the ‘absence of war’. In the western context, the term peace denotes the absence of any form of violence, but with a common reference to the lack of war. Peace denotes the condition that reigns at the conclusion of war, and that is defined by the emergence of a new level of interactions. This condition usually results in a state of order, law, or power as used in different cultural contexts. Other people use the term to describe the condition that reigns when the society is free from any form of conflict, discord, or revolution (Bowett 89). Philosophers such as Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein insinuated that peace was on a higher level than the ‘absence of discord, war, and conflict as many people have explained. According to these philosophers, peace denotes a condition defined by both law and order. In the international sense, prevailing of peace only occurs if states are not indulging in a struggle that involves military interactions. States exhibit peace amongst themselves when they indulge in diplomatic ventures, varied interactions, and depict power balance systems. The condition defined by limited or no interaction also passes for peace. Other informed authors have also placed emphasis on the passive nature of peace. If countries exhibit a level of concord in the way they interact, it serves as evidence that they are peaceful. In cases where countries have defined their interactions by agreements made either in duress or threat, they term peace may still be relevant. Experts use the term concord in reference to the friendly nature with which states depict. In a higher sense, peace denotes the ‘harmony and tranquility’ that societies depict. In the international sense, peace also represents a social contract where direct rivalry may not exist, but other competitive strategies to thrive (Bowett 231). Apparently, the term peace is highly elusive, a factor that leads to continued usage within different contexts, but with minimal direct connotation on what the term means. However, in the context of the international law, promotion of peace should not allude to the ‘absence of war’ as many people have assumed. In an improved system, the term peace should denote friendly interactions between states, effective diplomatic efforts supported by all the parties, and absence of the surging fear of terrorism, and nuclear weapons. Apparently, the globe has been living under threat of the accumulating nuclear weapon centers, and the potential risks that these highly dangerous weapons pose. Moreover, peace should denote a condition where nations are not aligned in the current order. In the current order, some countries act as hegemonies that represent powers beyond the control of other nations. The other countries only align themselves in allegiance to such hegemonies. Moreover, the peace promoted by the international law should free states from the compulsion of expression of support in ongoing conflicts and war. Many nations collaborate in retaliatory attacks in a false pursuit for peace, but on the contrary trigger more violence and war, distorting the harmony and tranquility of societies for no apparent reasons. Pursuit of peace does not need coupling with political and economic interest that surpasses the definitions of the law. True peace should promote order and justice as well.In its bid to promote peace, the international law does not support the war unless in cases where waging of war occurs for the primary reason of self-defense. Design of an Improved International Law As mentioned above, a new design of the international law system is critical. In a bid to promote international peace, the international community needs to establish a stringent control of nuclear weapons. Currently, the existing non-proliferation treaty has been highly compromised with the increasing discretion in the proliferation of weapons. Therefore, an improved design will require the formulation of new acts and sections that will exert control on the process of acquiring, proliferation, and use of nuclear weapons. Treaties are the commonest avenue for implementing new policies. All the countries currently involved in the proliferation of nuclear weapons need to sign a new, inclusive, and compelling treaty that exerts control on the possession and use of nuclear weapons. The international community has two options regarding the formulation of the improved system. In the new policy, the international law may introduce a ban on all nuclear weapons, and exert limitations on the use of nuclear power. Alternatively, the international community may opt to define new binding sections, exportation and importation tariffs that limit the procurement of nuclear weapons from one country to the other. On the other hand, the international community needs to define an extensive act that promotes the adoption of liberal sovereignty in place of the compromised Westphalia sovereignty. The convention of new treaties requires participation of all the intergovernmental organizations involved, and settles on the most viable solution for all the parties involved. All the nations affected by the nuclear weapons issue can present their cases, and the emerging new policies will consider these. Concerning the issue of liberal sovereignty, the international community should define policies that are fair to all the states, exerting only the relevant amount of external pressure, but promoting peace. This design will establish new platforms of interaction between nations and eliminate the surging war surrounding nuclear weapons. Hypotheses The globe is facing an immense threat of the potential destruction that can result from nuclear weapons. In 1995, the international court of Justice faced the compulsion of handling a difficult case that surrounded the possession and the use of the highly dangerous weapons. Although the court made it apparent that, the principles defining the international law were distinctively clear that the use of nuclear weapons contravened the international law; countries have continued to make huge investments into the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The evidence of the Nagasaki case at the conclusion of the world war is enough to create awareness of the potential detriment of nuclear weapons. This explains why regulating the use of nuclear weapons and possession is a central measure that can alter the current situation and promote peace. Most of the countries have acted in ways that contravene the non-proliferation treaty that imposes a form of control on both the procurement and exchange of both technology and materials of criticality in nuclear weapon manufacture (Gazzini 45). Current statistics indicate unconfirmed speculations that nine countries have an existing industry that focuses on the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Other intriguing statistics indicate that over 30 other countries have exhibited both the will and potential to access and manufacture nuclear weapons. Since 1648, many western countries have adopted the Westphalia sovereignty that emerged after signing of the Westphalia treaties. Other regions emulated that system of sovereignty, despite its obvious failures. The formulation of the Westphalia system of sovereignty happened under the compulsion of certain historical events that defined the West. These events only served to ensure that the system exhibited fraught, numerous messes, and multiple compromising factors. Therefore, this paper hypothesizes that for the international law to maximize global peace, there is a need for a stringent control of the possession, and use of nuclear weapons as well as the adoption of a liberal sovereignty system (Gazzini 87). Maximizing global peace is the independent variable in this case, because it reflects one of the hallmarks of the international law. Control of nuclear weapons proliferation and adoption of a liberal sovereignty are the dependent variables. Establishing effective control on the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of the strategies that can foster global peace because it has the potential of eliminating the surging fear of mass destruction. Moreover, the adoption of a liberal sovereignty will redefine internal and external sovereignties, and affect the global overview of the interactions of states. Models The models outlined in this section illustrate how the lack of effective control of nuclear weapon proliferation and adherence to the Westphalia sovereignty has compromised global peace. the models will elaborate how the existing treaties have failed, highlighting the need for a new system.The nuclear weapon threat has only increased in the 21st century with the emergence of more than 30 new centers of nuclear manufacturing plants in the globe. The recent terrorist attack in this century only serves to heighten the fear of terrorists gaining access to such weapons, seizing the technology or manufactured weapons and then utilizing them to perpetrate terrorist attacks. Despite multiple efforts geared towards the addressing of the surging terror attacks in rear of worse attacks in the future in the future, the tension for what the future may hold remains quite unclear. In a bid to promote peace, the united Nation’ Security Councils must give its consent for waging war motivated by the salient need for self-defense. However, the Security Council has demonstrated incapacity of effectively controlling nuclear weapons, explaining why peace has deteriorated. After the September 2001 terror attacks in the United States, many states aligned in similar correspondence and expressed intentions of the United States offering the required support for its superiority to prevail beyond the plots defined by the terrorists. The retaliatory attacks waged after such attacks and the overwhelming support offered to the global hegemony formed a new platform that saw the allies or the United Statescontributing to a plot to manufacture nuclear weapons (Gazzini 54). The states that are party to such an investment consider themselves at a greater risk of terror attacks; of course, this excludes any third world country for obvious reasons that none has the financial stability to meet the ranges of funds made by western contributors. Whereas some of the states are evidently long-term allies that have progressively pursued similar objectives, others have been indulging in a competitive acquiring of nuclear weapons (Joyner 34). Nuclear energy is considered by many nations as a viable solution to the emerging reality that most of the natural energy resources are on the verge of depletion. However, there is salient urgency for a critical to re-examination of the control mechanism of nuclear power. Emerging trends reveal that most of the countries embarking on the nuclear weapon development mission have been spying on each other and obtaining new technologies without consent. For example, China has registered immense growth in the nuclear development sector, after gaining illegal access to the secrets and technologies developed in the United States. Moreover, other reports indicate that China also benefits immensely from leaking information on this subject from South Korea. The trend described above serves to threaten the peace of the international community because malicious people may seize the leaked information. In other cases, it proves extremely difficult to establish the motivating factors that drive the motives of these countries. It is impossible for the international community to define without doubt whether the globe will experience peace amidst such surging threats of nuclear weapons (Joyner 36). Most of the countries possessing and manufacturing nuclear weapons have proved to be discrete about the strategies they use in the development if such weapons of potential mass destruction. The surging threat of attacks using such weapons has compromised the interaction exhibited by different nations. The non-proliferation treaty that is an integral part of the treaty that defines some of the efforts demonstrated by the international law in pursuit for peace prohibits any discretion in the procurement of nuclear weapons, especially in cases where ulterior motives prove evident. The establishment of the treaty sought to place emphasis on the potential for nuclear weapons to compromise international security (Joyner 123). Nuclear weapons have the potential to halt the global economic, diplomatic and peace pursuits while causing insurmountable damage to the human population, property and other long-term effects. The Nagasaki destruction is a classic example of the extent of harm that nuclear weapons can pose to any society.The contravening of the non-proliferation treaty serves as a barrier to the achievement of the state of law, order, and concord that is highlighted in the definition of peace. Nuclear weapons pose a threat of destructive armed conflict that not only destroys life and property, but also alters the future of the people as in the case of Nagasaki. Therefore, establishing a compelling treaty, new policies, and acts that control the proliferation of nuclear weapons can change this trend, promoting global peace. The proliferation treaty resulted from an extensive understanding of the potential harm. The international community sought to ensure that it exercised a stringent control in any dealings between nations concerning nuclear weapons. This was in conformity with the realism ideology that the United States of America exhibited. Such stringency would serve to minimize the rampancy with which different nations were willing to acquire and proliferate nuclear weapons. On the other hand, some nation and critics have expressed the views of the idealist school of thought by opining that proliferation of nuclear weapons has increased because the demands of an existing market need to be met, a factor that contributes to surging proliferation. The years following the September 2001 terror attack in the United States saw a rampant rise of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in conformity to the perceived terror threats. States have indulged in certain alignments that facilitate the proliferation. Research reveals that such alignments include rings, circles, stars, and cliques. The states indulging in the proliferation process have exhibited the formation of stars, with the state being the central unit in the strategic alignment, and all the other networks depicting a connection to the central unit. All member states in this alignment exhibit a level of commitment in ensuring the highest discretion in the proliferation process. They cover the tracks involved in the proliferation process completely, making it difficult for the international community to discern their ways. Materials used in the proliferation process of nuclear weapons are often of critical purpose in other civilian functions, making it easy for these countries to procure them without any suspicion by the international community (Joyner 56). Compelling treaties and policies will have the mandate of disrupting these illegal procurements of nuclear weapons, and define new conditions that can promote global peace. It becomes evident that the international community needs to establish a stringent control of nuclear weapons as one of the steps it takes to promote peace. The secretive operations and proliferation that are an abject contravention of the international law only serve to highlight the cause of fear and uncertainty. It remains unclear whether the nations possessing the nuclear weapons would indulge in trial operations of their emerging technologies, causing destruction. However, the improved design of the international law will ensure that a level of certainty of security in the future, promoting global peace. On the other hand, the Westphalia treaties defined both internal and external sovereignty. Internal sovereignty denotes the authority exercised by monarchs in exerting control over their territories. It was mandatory for the people residing within the boundaries of the territory to recognize and appreciate the individual ruling the territory. External sovereignty accorded states and territories to exercise a ruling system that governed the state without any form of interruption from external forces (Jacobsen 99). This implies that each state had the right to formulate its own policies irrespective of whether such policies impressed other states. The Westphalia definitions of sovereignty served to give rise to states that exhibited the desire to exercise leadership with little consideration for the people and their rights. However, the emergence of the liberal sovereignty has revealed the need for the international community to exert a level of control that breaches its freedom to pursue certain objectives. Although states exhibit independence, the objectives they pursue must conform to existing international standards. The international law is an integral determinant of those standards. Each state must conform to the defined democracy levels, and uphold human rights to all citizens. Evidently, the Westphalia sovereignty granted some of the states the freedom to pursue objectives that were evident barriers to peace because they promoted conflict. Despite the emergence of the liberal sovereignty system, nations have maintained certain aspects of the Westphalia sovereignty, projecting themselves as hegemonies that operate expecting no form of interference from the international community. Some of these states are determinants of both political and economic trends therefore have a higher standing among other states. Such standing explains why they have chosen to contravene the non-proliferation treaty and other conventions defined to establish global order. This places emphasis on the need for the international community to work towards implementing the ideologies of liberal sovereignty (Jacobsen 67). Liberal sovereignty has the potential to introduce a global order and concord by controlling the polity system. Therefore, this dependent variable has the potential of altering the independent variable of maximizing global peace. Recommendations As described above, the international law has exhibited concerted efforts towards establishing peace. This is evident from its prohibition of war and conflict, which are the main factors that compromise peace. However, the salient state enmities and fears surrounding nuclear war threats, as well as secrecy with which nations proliferate nuclear weapons highlight the need for an improved international law system. As mentioned above, different states have contravened the non-proliferation treaty, and indulged in secretive missions of obtaining nuclear power. The possession of nuclear weapons by about nine countries and the potential of 30 others to establish industries of nuclear war proliferation are an evident threat to global peace. The internal community needs to establish strategies that can monitor the emerging networks in nuclear weapon proliferation. Exerting a form of control on the use of nuclear weapons will present the globe with a new level of security (Joyner 56). Under the existing secret proliferation, individuals with ulterior terrorism motives may seize nuclear technologies and weapons, a factor that increases the terrorism threat. However, an improved international law system should introduce appropriate measures that serve to reinforce the non-proliferation treaty. Moreover, the international law should work on establishing policies that promote the liberal sovereignty system that will promote global order and concord. The Syrian conflict is a classic example that highlights the need for an improved international law system. The Syrian conflict brings into focus the two dependent variables described in this paper. The Syrian dictatorial government has declined the aid offered by the United Nations Security Council to resolve the ongoing civil war. Moreover, the civil war has resulted from the country’s resistance to the Shia influence exerted by Iran, and has attracted allies that have revived the cold war global alignment. The new system of the international law should be able to address this complexity and promote peace. Addressing the issue of nuclear weapons will increase the chances of societies to exhibit tranquility, replacing the existing fear, and making conditions more favorable for the development of peace. Therefore, it is only rational to endorse the hypotheses described above. An improved international law system needs to exhibit stringent measures, in its bid to promote peace as one of the integral values. Establishing control of the possession and use of nuclear weapons as well as reinforcing the liberal system of sovereignty has the potential of registering progress in the promotion of peace. Evidently, the definition of peace that should exist in a functional global order should surpass the definition of ‘lack of conflict or war’ to represent a global society exhibiting concord, with clear laws. Conclusion The international law has a defined mandate, with its key priorities including the promotion of peace, justice, ecological stability and economic wellbeing, as some of the values that can promote global order. Although there are concerted efforts exhibited by the international community towards the promotion of these critical values, it is evident that a room for improving the international law system does exist. This paper has addressed how the international community can address the issue of peace. The paper has supported its hypothesis that controlling nuclear weapons use and adoption of a liberal sovereignty will foster global peace. As described above, the definition of peace has proved highly elusive because of the multiple factors that determine its existence. True peace should promote order and justice as well. In its bid to promote peace, the international law does not support the war unless in cases where waging of war occurs for the primary reason of self-defense. However, it has become evident in the paper that establishing a control over the proliferation of nuclear weapons and reinforcing the liberal sovereignty system can define an improved international law system. Work Cited Bowett, D W. Self-defence in International Law. Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2009. Print. Gazzini, Tarcisio. The Changing Rules on the Use of Force in International Law. Manchester: Juris Pub, 2005. Print. Jacobsen, Trudy, C J. G. Sampford, and Ramesh C. Thakur.Re-envisioning Sovereignty: The End of Westphalia?Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2008. Print. Joyner, Daniel. Interpreting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print. Read More