Justice for All Persons All Around the World - Case Study Example

Outline Introduction A. Antiterrorism Law: Policies and Practices 1. Problems of Defining Terrorism 2. Misinterpretation of Antiterrorism Law 3. Examples of Terror Under the Cover of Struggle with Terrorism B. Recognition of New States and Governments 1. Definition and Types 2. Why is it Important? 3. Dollar Diplomacy 4. Double Standards in case of Prednistrovie Conclusions Description. In this paper we will try to determine whether international law fulfils its function of protection of all people. We will prove that, unfortunately, in contemporary world it’s impossible to promote justice to all people. We will exemplify our statements with recent events from different parts of the world. Contemporary historical period is characterized by globalization and high level of integration and cooperation between the countries. With regard to this international relations should be coordinated and regulated by appropriate legal principles. This led to the establishment of the international legal system. The main purpose of this system is to promote justice for all persons all around the world. This system has many advantages and benefits. However, many of the supporters of it seem to look through rose-colored glasses and ignore numerous shortcomings. In this work we will try to reveal positive and negative aspects of the international legal system with regard to the following issues: international antiterrorism law and recognition of new states. The urgent need for international legislation about the antiterrorism arose after the events of the 11th September, 2001. Before these events the international community relied more on diplomatic, economic and strategic means to manage international terrorism. But the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the United States and the other countries of the world began to muse over more effective means to fight terrorism and now the international community decided to introduce a military response to it /Lozada, 2006/. Since that time antiterrorism legislation became a matter of global concern and closer investigation. It appeared that drafting and implementation of international antiterrorism laws is not an easy task because this law “crosses boundaries between states and between domestic, regional and international law as well as traditional disciplinary boundaries between administrative, constitutional, criminal, immigration, military law and the law of war” /Ramraj, Hor & Roach, 2005/. We will list some main problems of the international antiterrorism law, which influence its effectiveness in protection of all people. The first problem is the absence of single international definition of terrorism. The International Convention Against Terrorist Strikes with Explosives (1997) and the International Convention for the Persecution of Terrorist Financing (1999) tried to provide the definition of terrorism. However, like the European Union’s effort it was devoid of clarity. This can be seen in wide number of definitions like: “... intentional acts that due to their nature or context could affect a country or international organization” or when “... the author commits the acts with the objective of intimidating a population”, or “... destabilizing or destroying fundamental political institutions” / Lozada, 2006/. The other scholars propose first of all to define the terrorism in regard to other actions like legitimate responses of authority to terrorism, national struggles for liberation and other crimes. Here there appears the other problem, which reveals itself in misinterpretation and misuse of two terms, which in fact ought to be antonyms. These terms are terrorism and antiterrorism. Terrorism and counter-terrorism bear numerous common features because both of them infringe the rights and lives of civilian population, use violence and force and are deliberate in their nature / Ramraj, Hor & Roach, 2005/ . Very severe antiterrorism acts are considered as terrorism by civilians. So, every country should bear in mind that the main aim of all antiterrorism operations is even not to punish terrorists but to protects ordinary people and promote justice to all people. One more problem resulted from the absence of common international definition of terrorism. Every country interprets this term in its own way. Some countries focus on the religious and political motivation of the terrorist acts. They are United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and New Zealand. The other countries resist this definition, considering it inhuman and harming the interests of other people. The United States, Indonesia, and majority of the Middle East countries define terrorism in regard to the nature of the harm affected by these acts / Ramraj, Hor & Roach, 2005/. So, we can see that the latter countries try not to focus on the religious and political aspects of terrorism and in this they act in less discriminatory way towards people that don’t share common religion or political views. One more problem is the attitude of different states to the application of military force to fight terrorism. International news media corporations expressed their support of military responses and assisted the states in establishment of the idea that the use of military force is a normal and the most effective means in managing terrorist problems /US Mis -strikes in Afghanistan: accidents or possible war crimes?, 2006/. In stead of solving the problem with the help of diplomacy and communication, many countries are eager to use military force, which usually lead to victims among civilians. Certain cases reveal the misinterpretation of terrorism law and extend the term to other crimes like in case of “The Convention Against Opium” (1912), “The International Convention Against Counterfeiting” (1924), and “The Convention Against Illegal Drug Trafficking” (1936). These are the examples of penal law, which aimed to punish violent acts irrespectively of beliefs or considerations of their perpetrators /Brown, 2004/. The change in public opinion regarding terrorism and violence gave birth to the range of other problems. The number of legal acts concerning terrorism constrains human rights. Sometimes in stead of promoting justice to all people international antiterrorism law even harms the right of the other. Usually this problem concerns the rights of people suspected of terrorist activities. The main problem of antiterrorism law is that it allows detaining without trial those people, who are suspected terrorists. Many countries of the developed West made antiterrorism amendments to their legislation concerning criminal, immigration, financial and administrative law. The shortcoming of policies of these countries is that instead of improving criminal law they make an emphasis on the immigration policy. Of course, it’s not the best way to secure from terrorism acts. Instead, these laws may infringe the rights of ordinary people, who are not citizens of the country or refugees and may be suspected of terrorist acts or assisting terrorism / Ramraj, Hor & Roach, 2005/. The other issue, which is in-between antiterrorism and human rights legislation, is the attitude to Islamic people and countries. This led to the fact that in numerous Middle East countries people really believe that the USA puts pressure upon other countries to implement anti-Islamic legislation under the cover of terrorism struggle. So, this looks more like nationalism more that antiterrorism. There are cases, which are even the worse. States may purposely misinterpret antiterrorism law for their own purposes. Sometimes governments apply international anti-terrorism law to suit their own ends, for example, to punish political opponents, who are called “extremist” /Ramraj, Hor & Roach, 2005/. Of course these cases reveal not the concern of the government about the citizens of the state. Here the authority uses the law to manipulate the community and restrict the rights of people. Let’s take several countries from various parts of the world to exemplify our statement. Immediately after the September events Binyamin Ben Elizier, Israel Defence Minister, boastfully stated that Israel soldiers have killed 14 Palestinians in Jenin, Kabatyeh and Tammum. The world authority seemed to have nothing against those acts and didn’t condemn those acts of violence. Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat “our Bin Laden”. After December 17, 2001, Sari Nusseibeh with several diplomats was simply detained for celebrating the end of Ramadan, which was interpreted by Israeli authority as a “terror-related” activity /Opportunism in the Face of Tragedy,2006/. Here the Israel state uses antiterrorism law in their war against Palestinians and with its help justifies its actions. The Indian government implemented the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO), according to which political opponents were subjected to optional detention. The other legal document supporting terrorism struggle, is Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). Opponents of this act still believe that this act was intended to legalize detentions, torture, and other violations against Muslims, Sikhs, Dalits and political opponents, Richard Boucher, State Department spokesman, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, stated that it was “within constitutional bounds” and aimed to strengthen the legislation of India and to fight international terrorism with respect to international principles /Opportunism in the Face of Tragedy, 2006/. Here like in the previous case the principles of antiterrorism law are used not for the sake of protection or promotion of justice but in order to fight national minorities, which only with their presence “undermine” the unity of India. The “Law of the Republic of Belarus on Fighting Terrorism” validated by the Belarusian Parliament in December 2001 presents one more example of purposely misinterpretation of international antiterrorism law, intending to limit and press freedom and to fight free-thinking within the state. It gives the right to those, who conduct antiterrorist operations, to “use for official purposes means of communications belonging to citizens, state agencies and organizations, regardless of their form of ownership” and freely enter “the houses of citizens” and “grounds of organizations of all forms of ownership” in order to “survey them while pursuing suspected terrorists”. This law also gives the people conducting antiterrorist operations a right to control Mass Media /Opportunism in the Face of Tragedy,2006/. The law also relieves from the responsibility people, participating in antiterrorist operations if inflicted damage in the course of operation and presupposes that participants may pose danger or cause harm “to the lives, health and property of terrorists” /Arnone, 2003/. The case with Belarus in much like with Israel or India with the only difference: here the government oppressed not the national minorities or war enemies but its own citizens, trying to use their right for the freedom of speech and thought. These cases prove that international antiterrorism law in spite of all good intentions has its numerous grave disadvantages. Antiterrorism law is intended to provide security for whole nations in general and every citizen in particular. But in some cases it fails to do this and instead of protection and promotion of justice it infringes with the rights of other people of even presents danger to health and lives of civilians. In this paper we will investigate one more important issue from the field of international law and international relations. It is the recognition of new states and governments which is a very important issue revealing the level of democracy and impartiality of states. The formal recognition of a state can be defined as a legal declaration of the intent, made by one state in order to recognise another one with regard to international law rules, when the newly recognized state receives the equal status on the international scene. Though it enters the field of international relations, this decision is a subject matter of each particular state /Recognition of States and Governments, 2006 /. With the end of the colonisation period the problem of recognition of new states lost its topicality but again revived it after the collapse of the Soviet Union and of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These two break-ups gave birth to a number of new states, which required recognition on the international scene. Now there exist more than 190 states, which were recognised in conformity with international law guidelines /Diplomatic Recognition, 2006/. But first of all let’s briefly define the main terms, related to the topic of recognition of new states. The state can be recognized either implicitly or explicitly, “de jure” or “de facto”. Generally, states recognise new ones with the act of explicit formal declaration. Sometimes the recognition of a state can be precipitate. This occurs in case when the state is recognized by the other state without actually possessing the necessary prerequisite features. That’s why precipitate recognition is often considered as intervention / Grant, 1999/. So, as we can see the recognition of new states should be carried out carefully and without any haste as the boundary between intervention in the affairs of another state and respect for self-determination in many cases can be imperceptible. Implied recognition can take place in case of conclusion of bilateral treaty, establishment of diplomatic relations, voting for state’s participation in international organizations or satisfaction of the state’s claim for territory /Recognition of States and Governments, 2006 /. If to compare de jure and de facto recognition, the former is naturally stronger. The states may require de facto recognition without immediate de jure recognition. The examples of this may be that the United Kingdom recognized the Soviet Union de facto in 1921, and de jure only in 1924. In 1948 Israel was recognized by the USA de facto. Only three days later Israel was recognized by the Soviet Union de jure /Diplomatic Recognition, 2006/. One more issue concerning the recognition of states is renewing recognition, which is necessary in case of change of the government in result of revolution or coup d'etat like in case of the Taliban government of Afghanistan, recognized by only three countries, the rest recognizing the government of deposed President Burhanuddin Rabbani /Diplomatic Recognition, 2006/. Sometimes the state can be non-recognized. This takes place in case, when the creation of the new state contradicts the principles of international law: “ex injuria ius non oritur”. After the Second World War the international community accepted the doctrine of non-recognition of illegal or immoral factual situation like territorial gains achieved by force. This doctrine is known also as the Stimson Doctrine. The examples of its implementation are non-recognition of Rhodesia in 1965 and non-recognition by the USA annexation of three Baltic States to the Soviet Union. In some cases even if the recognition was stated, it can be withdrawn, which implies breaking of diplomatic relations between states /Diplomatic Recognition, 2006/. Nowadays recognition of states is a matter of fulfilment of a number of conditions: observance of the UN Charter and maintenance of human rights and democratic principles /Diplomatic Recognition, 2006/. These principles may be regarded as optional under international law. But they are rather important in case of individual recognition of the state or its government by each separate state. So, we can make preliminary conclusion that in matter of recognition of new states and governments the international community stick to the principles of democracy, non-intervention, respect of self-determination and rights. But still there are some policies, which do not match into the concept of international justice. The example of this is dollar diplomacy, which a common name for the policy of the USA to use economic power for the sake of political influence on other countries. But now this term is not confined to the American policy but also to other countries, which use aid and donor grants to support favourable part. Among such countries the leading position is occupied by Great Britain, Germany, Denmark /Dollar Diplomacy, 2006/. According to some researches, in 2005 the USA provided funding for about 5,000 non-governmental organizations in different parts of the world. In spite of all good intentions, dollar diplomacy look more like grey or even black propaganda or even black propaganda. This resulted in 2005 decision of Russia to amend a law restricting third parties to accept foreign funds /Dollar Diplomacy, 2006/. Now let’s have a look at one particular example of the dollar diplomacy and double standards of US policy. This is the case, very urgent now, which touches upon the problem of Pridnestrovie. Just a small survey of history shows that Pridnestrovie never constituted a part of independent Moldova. Pridnestrovie was joined to Moldova in “Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic” as a part of the Soviet Union. After the breakdown of the Soviet Union all its former republics were recognized by the international community as independent states /Caplan, 2005/. But strange as it may seem, the USA supported Moldavian claim for keeping Pridnestrovie as the part of its territory /Dollar Diplomacy: U.S. Embassy funds anti-independence propaganda, 2006 /. Moldova tried to make Pridnestrovie its part and invaded it in 1992 was not a success. And nowadays the struggle takes more peaceful form of clandestine propaganda war, backed by a whole army of shadowy supporters. Instead of supporting democracy, as it is presented to the international community, the propaganda actually undermines the functioning of the democratically elected parliament /Dollar Diplomacy: U.S. Embassy funds anti-independence propaganda, 2006/. This situation shows the real purpose of American dollar diplomacy, which restricts independence and nation-building in Pridnestrovie. It looks as though for fifteen years U.S. taxpayers gave their money for support of Romanian or Moldovan activists, who are in favour of keeping Pridnestrovie under the control of Moldova /Dollar Diplomacy: U.S. Embassy funds anti-independence propaganda, 2006/. The U.S. government provides funding for a range of anti-independence disposed TV stations (TiViK-Asket, Tiraspol, Elita TV), radio stations (Lik Television and Radio Company, New Wave Radio) and newspapers (Novaia Gazeta, Oleg Nagornii).The USA directed a flow of dollars for “information campaigns” organized by radical Moldovan nationalists, who don’t accept Pridnestrovie’s independence /Dollar Diplomacy: U.S. Embassy funds anti-independence propaganda, 2006 /. This is a vivid example of the preference for double standards over democracy. Here we can notice the variance between the words and actual deeds. Though supporting the independence of self-determination in the whole world, the United States does actually the opposite. Noble intentions of the international community to help in establishment of new independent states can be substituted by the selfish ends of certain states, which use its political and economic power to achieve its own goals and pay little notice to international documents and relations. So, we can see that though the international law intends to provide justice for all nations and people, very often it hurts the interests of certain individuals in particular. References Arnone, Michael. Antiterrorism Law Under Debate Again. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2003. Brown, John. It’s a Crime: euro law wrongly defines terrorism. NY: Oxford, 2004. Caplan, Richard. Europe and the Recognition of New States in Yugoslavia. University of Oxford, 2005. Diplomatic Recognition. [Online]. Available from: [22 May 2006]. Dollar Diplomacy. [Online]. Available from: [22 May 2006]. Dollar Diplomacy: U.S. Embassy funds anti-independence propaganda. Public disclosure documents, U.S. Embassy, 2006. Grant, Thomas D. The Recognition of States: Law and Practice in Debate and Evolution. Oxford, 1999. Lozada, Martin. International Antiterrorism and the Rule of Law. Universidad Fasta-Bariloche, 2006. Opportunism in the Face of the Tragedy. [Online]. Available from: < http://www.hrw.org> [20 May 2006]. Ramraj, Victor V., Hor, Michael and Kent Roach. Global Anti-Terrorism Law and Policy. Cambridge University Press, 2005. Recognition of States and Governments. [Online]. Available from: < http://www.eda.admin.ch > [22 May 2006]. US Misstrikes in Afghanistan: accidents or possible war crimes? [Online]. Available from: < http://thenation.com> [20 May 2006]. Read More