Role of the US in International Legal Principles - Essay Example

"WHY DO S CHOOSE TO CREATE AND OBEY INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES" International legal principles consist of principles governing the relations and dealings of nations with each other. It includes the basic concepts on status, property, obligations and torts. At the outset, it seems to be difficult to determine why states voluntarily choose to create and adhere to international legal principles when they can opt not to. An examination of the following theories that support adherence to these principles could help in identifying such reasons: According to the theory of structural realism, states are in a condition of anarchy, although not exactly a total chaos. It provides that states, most often than not, find themselves totally or partially in conflict with each other, brought about by the differences in religion, economic condition, status, or interest. Since there is no common governing power that supervises all countries, despite the existence of international organizations such as United Nations, states find themselves unable to trust each other. Thus, they usually treat each other as possible opponent that could grab them anytime. On the other hand, the modified structural realists believe that since there is anarchy in international relations, the weaker states have to look for means in order to protect its security and interest, as opposed to the powerful states, which tend to resist regulation or control of their movements. Similar to the modified structural realists, neo-liberal institutionalists believe that adherence to international legal principles would help promote transparency in international dealings, reduce transaction costs in international trade, intensify strict monitoring and enforcement of contractual obligations, and eases imposition of penalties for violation thereof. Voluntary observance of the international legal principles would encourage more cooperation in the international arena that would somehow grant long-term benefits, especially in the financial aspects. The hegemonic stability theory suggests that that hegemonic state will obey international principles only if such principles would obviously work to its advantage, that is, to expand its existing powers. Practically speaking, all these theories point to only one thing: the creation and observance of international legal principles are supported by the quest for protection of self-interest by the international stakeholders. Clearly, an independent state would not want to impose upon itself a rule that would ultimately restrict its freedom, if it will not reap any benefit from it. It cannot be denied that this voluntary adhesion to certain legal principles is no longer governed or motivated by the spirit of altruism. States need to protect themselves. Nobody can do it better than themselves. In the humanitarian aspect for example, every state must choose to create a standard that would protect its people against unwarranted human rights violations. This is especially true in terms of physical violence where no specific ideology or religion could divert or amend the standards for all human beings because of the basic knowledge that all humans are equal in feelings. If a state for example would think of exempting itself from the international standards of human rights, common sense dictates that it should prepare itself for possible retaliation in the most inhumane way since the state itself does not observe any standards for physical violation of its citizens. A classic example on this one is the law on war. The killing of a war prisoner is generally prohibited. If the United States for example would kill an Iraqi soldier who was left by his troops during a fight and who was captivated by the American soldiers would be killed, Iraq would then have every reason to kill an American war prisoner because the United States in this case was the first one to violate the rights of such war prisoner. To create and obey this particular international legal principle is then more of a reciprocal benefit for the states. In the economic side on the other hand, observance of international legal principles is considered a paramount method for survival in international trade. Thus, liberal accommodations are usually imbedded in international treaties and agreements so as to maintain an open market for one's products and services. However, this one has different impact on the states, depending on the latter's financial status and power. Presently, the industrialized countries encourage a free trade agreement or complete liberalism since they need a market where they can easily dispose of their products. In exchange, those who welcome this proposition can also trade their products to these countries without much ado. However, adherence to this kind of principle or arrangement is beneficial only for the industrialized countries, which have so much products to dispose as compared to the products they accept in their market. On the other hand, the third world countries which are susceptible to this arrangement usually find themselves burdened by overflowing imported goods via free taxes. It is only in the end that they would realize that instead of gaining advantage in international market, the arrangement becomes disadvantageous to them. Another reason for the creation and adherence to international legal principles is the quest for uniform protection of the law. Observance of international principles in the municipal law of each state would prompt the other states to observe the same principles towards the subjects of such other state. For example, the principle behind the extradition treaties would benefit both parties in the prosecution of criminals in their own countries. Also, the way criminal prosecutions are handled, especially in the observance of due process, would promote justice in all parts of the world. Whether a citizen of state A is being prosecuted in state B, the former need not worry of bias procedure and decision since the basic principle of due process would be observed in the same way that his own country would do. It is worthy to note that this is more important since it is only in law that countries, whether rich or poor, could really be treated as equals. Creation and adherence to international legal principles is also a way to maintain international peace and security. For example, the observance of total ban on prohibited drugs and regulation of use and importation of regulated drugs would bring common advantage to all countries. Adverse effects of drug abuse have the same impact on states, whether developed or not. Thus, enforcement of laws governing this subject would be much easier for the governments since the suspected criminals cannot find solace in other countries by migration thereon. Observance of international legal principles could also lead to protection of the states' environment. For one, the latter subject is common around the world. It is considered of transcendental importance that must be given priority and full attention by all mankind. Thus, by creating legal principles that would govern this subject, cooperation among different countries would be less complicated as there would be common standards that would be observed. In fact, third world countries could benefit from the studies and experiments being made by industrialized ones with respect to protection of environment. Since God-given resources have similar characteristics wherever they may be found, third world countries need not pour its financial resources just to determine the proper ways of protecting their environment. By adhering to the principles enunciated by industrialized countries, they can easily adopt them in their own countries. To sum it all, it is well-enshrined that states indeed need to create and obey international legal principles to survive. Cooperation among nations is easier to achieve if there is a set of principles that is common to all, without much discrimination. It is by obeying these international principles that states become one, that true unity is totally achieved. In fact, despite the presence of numerous legal principles being observed internationally, there are still other topics that must become the subject of agreement by the states. Topping it all is the issue on banning of nuclear weapons. Despite the documentary adhesions of countries to totally ban the use of destructive nuclear weapons, practically, there are states which continuously deviate from this, as if they are not at all convinced by this principle. Thus, testing of nuclear weapons continue to proliferate. This is because of lack of trust on the part of some states. By analyzing the adverse effects of this testing, the impact of the lack (or shortage) of international legal principle on this subject would be better appreciated. If states were able to create one on this important subject, then the repercussion it brought could have been lessened, if not totally avoided. Realistically however, the true rationale behind the creation and observance of international legal principles is the pursuit to maintain self-existence of the states. However unethical or immoral it might be but states are compelled by situations to take advantage of others' cooperation for their own benefit. As commented by Eden Charles of Trinidad and Tobago during the Sixty-first General Assembly of the United Nations, "a rule-based international system guaranteed the protection of his country's rights, with respect to the trade in goods and services; assisted with protection of its borders from the nefarious drug trade and other illicit activity; and ensured the defense of its sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence. The promotion of the rule of law, at the national and international levels, was Trinidad and Tobago's only means of survival in an increasingly complex and challenging global environment for small States."1 SOURCES: Bradford, William. "International Legal Compliance: Surveying the Field." 36 GEO J. INT'L. 495 (2005). "Countries describe relevance for them of 'Rule of Law', as Legal Committee begins debate on national, international implications." http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gal3300.doc.htm. Retrieved 24 November 2006. Glennon, Michael J. "How International Rules Die." 93 GEO. L. J. 939, 988 (2005). Hathaway, Oona. "Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference" 111 YALE L.J. (1935). "International Law." Legal Information Institute. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/International_law. Retrieved 24 November 2006. Kreps, Sarah Elizabeth and Arend, Anthony Clark. "Why States Follow the Rules: Toward a Positional Theory of Adherence to International Legal Regimes." 16 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law. 331. Vagts, Detlev, F. "Hegemonic International Law." 95 AM. J. INT'L. 843 (2001). Read More