Interpretation of International Law - Essay Example

International law, or some particular interpretation of international law, is sometimes found actually to hinder measures to maintain international order” Name Institution Date International relations are defined by the existence of world states or several independent communities with a sovereign government occupying a specific portion of a region with the earth and containing a segment of the world’s population.1 Several nations have thought over along time a way of coming up with a world order or an international order in order to safeguard relations and order among the existing governments. This as a result brought the idea of international society with the sole aim of building and maintaining international relations unlike in the past when nations strived against each other. International society aimed at reflecting cooperation among its member states. As a result, international law rose as a unique and recognized entity with rules, which rose as result of modern cooperation of modern independent governments or state. The international law and rules intended at calling for discipline and a common philosophy among its member states in order to foster world peace and harmony (35).2 The document explains how international law hinders measures to maintain international order. Bull3 regards international law as “a body of rules which binds states and other agents in world politics in their relations with one another and considered to have the status of law’. Bull (2002) further defines international law as to be body of rules which are of a specific nature. This means that there are specified rules which independent governments and other international bodies to the international society and politics regard to bind them without any doubt. Despite the enormous part played by the international law to foster security, concerns have been raised about some of its principles in maintaining international order. The binding of different states by the international law brings about the concept of international society. Bull4 argues that one of the major roles of international law is to act as a powerful and strong normative principle of political states and governments with the idea of protecting sovereignty of individual member states. But this has not been always the case. Developed countries and countries with more advanced military equipment have not upheld this principle of respecting another nations’ sovereignty in order to protect and uphold international order. United State for instance has been intruding sovereignty of a number of independent political states such as Afghanistan and Pakistan by carrying out drone attacks within the sovereign regions. Bull5 demonstrated a clash between international law and mechanisms believed by involved nations in drone attacks in maintaining power balance. The international law provides each political state with equal balance power. The drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan is a preventive case to counter terrorism as argued by the United States and its allied members. The drone attracts are regarded as a case of preventive war but international war expositions argue this as an illegal act against an independent political state. The international law provided a clear doctrine that there is no injury that the two nations have caused to the involved nations in drone attacks. The argument is that, there is no proofed evidence that Pakistan and Afghanistan have caused any harm to the involved nations in drone attacks. The international provides a clear doctrine for United States to restrain from any acts of drone attacks as this is an act of international law violation war prevention.6 But the point is about the imperatives of the balance is seen as a likely cause of drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan. This means that, more notably Pakistan is growing in relative military power which is seen as a threat to the United State and its allies’ balance of power. Is international law really law, this is a question asked by most people. Haust7 argues that the answer for international law depends on the meaning of it. Haust8 also states that “international law has no ready sanction for its breach. Because there is no international police force or army that can immediately step in, international law is often perceived as not really law.” Due to this factor is hard to contain the whole world in order to abide with the international law. For the international law to prevail and be effective among its members who are bind to it, measures of self responsibility need to be practiced.9 Individual states might begin threatening and using force against their other member states in a situation of no central authority governing the international society. The United States for instance, gives a good illustration of a central authority to control and coordinate the international law among members of the international society. Some nations benefit from international law by being immune and exercising more power over other nations. This countries for instance United States have a veto power in the international law agreement in that they can take any course of action or can intrude a less immune nation without any approval from the international society. This as a result, hinders the measures the international society has put in place to safeguard international order. The drone strikes violate the supreme principles of international law. The nations which are involved in strikes tend to violate the sovereignty of an independent political state by intruding into its territory and causing harm and injury to its citizens. The clauses of international law states that nations should not intervene or meander with other nation’s internal affairs. The drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan is an act of aggressiveness seen as other allied nations trying to meander with the two countries’ internal affairs. This is against the principles of international law and it hinders the measures in place in fostering international order. Drone strikes had done a lot in fighting terrorism, protecting the U.S from attacks but it has and could harm the involved allied nations. Plaw10 argues that drone strikes should be continued by providing a justified legal argument based that the involved government are also clear with the use of drone strikes. The use of drone strikes is caused less injury and has improved the security of humans especially the Americans. The use of drones weakens the terrorist groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan; as a result, the lives of citizens are protected. Plaw also argues that independent political states have a right to protect themselves and its citizens by use of any available means such as drone strikes.11 Despite the defined effects of international law to protect international order, international law has been a subject of a number of limitations. Some nations or countries have misinterpreted or disregarded the agreement of it and have committed activities beyond the requirement of international law. To consider is that, some political government states argue that international law is not a necessary condition in order to protect and uphold international order. According to Bulls (2002), some nations argue that international order requires international law to execute its obligations. However, there are a number of mechanisms in which the obligations can be accomplished. Also, According to Crawford (2006), international law gives clear provisions regarding interrelated doctrines which define the existence of international society with the aim of maintaining international order. 12 The use of drone strikes hinders the progress of international order. The use of drone strikes sometimes causes death of innocent civilians, the authority of international is subject to harm, and the Islamic world is separated from the rest of the world and the likely use of drone strikes in other parts of the world which can result in more deaths. For example, drone strikes have been already been used in Somalia to fight Al-Shabaab militants. The case in Drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan for instance give a clear picture of how the United States disregards the international law functions to respect sovereignty of the two countries by intruding into their territory. But the sole aim of United States believes that it is the best way of ensuring security by disregarding the normal principles of international law. This demonstrates a case of international law which has been interpreted in a way which hinders measures to maintain international order. Measures of maintaining international order has been hindered by interpreting international law have being not enough to ensure or exert international order. Several other conditions are not included in the agreement of international law among political governments and states of international society. As a result, the projected roles of international law cannot be achieved. Several other conditions which should allow flexibility to the changing needs of the society should be present or defined in order to be accommodated in case a problem arises.13 A functional international society should be in existence which should be the supreme organ to protect the principles of international law. The international order has been hindered in that, the ideas of international society member states cannot be identified to be of supreme principle. Our society today for instance depends on the power and functions of the United Nations. This is a body which comprises independent member states around the world with the aim of fostering and safeguarding peace and harmony by being a supreme organ of solving conflicts within and among member states.14 Some members of the UN Security Council have veto power which makes them to make block any decision made by other members of the UN Security Council. Most of the members with veto power have well equipped military organs. These members mostly contravene the agreed principles of international order and are mostly involved in drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan. To achieve international order, the basic rules of international law should be coexisting among the global societies.15 The factors of actual dealings of the international law must be present for each state to comply with. It is not sufficient enough to argue that international law is enough to strengthen international order and stability, but the increase and giving more power to international legal entities such as the international criminal court. The factors of international law should be prioritized and given more emphasis as part of empowering the process of achieving international order.16 Another interpretation of international law hindering the process if international order is that, people should understand that international law is guidance with purposes which are detrimental to international order. Political states can go against the purposes. Also to note is that, in order to uphold and protect international order, legal entities are for instance, justice for human, promoting international justice and respect for human rights. Some opinions of international law have actually hindered the process of international order. 17 Read More