The Implications of Scholars or Students of International Law - Assignment Example

Q THE IMPLICATIONS OF SCHOLARS OR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY MAKERS IN RELATION TO DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW Rajagopal have alluded to the books and statements of the scholars of international relations in his book, who have presented their suggestions and opinions for the development and growth of international law. The author seems to have learnt many things from these scholars. The writer has consulted the theorists Michel Foucault, Fanon, Gramsci and Chatterji in order to articulate his resistance theory, which is, according to him, highly supportive while making an in-depth analysis of international relations. The main focus of all these scholars above mentioned is on resistance movements active in contemporary societies. It is not a state or a government, according to the famous French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault, which runs the affairs of a country. Rather, individuals play most important role in making as well as influencing political, social and economic policies of a country. It is therefore the states give importance to public opinion. The government machinery must concentrate on the activities of the individuals, especially the lower stratum of society, which is the most significant fraction of resistance movements. No policy against any gender or stratum particularly against females and the poor should be made. It may lead towards the embarking of a resistance movement. In addition, any such an act may be against the provisions of International Law, which guarantees human rights to one and the all without favoritism and biased ness. Frantz Fanon, the reputed French thinker and political analyst seriously condemns colonialism wherever and in any form it exists. In his wonderful works under the title “The Wretched of the Earth”, Fanon raises his voice in favor of equality. Social injustice and inequality of every kind, he argues, is the root-cause of revolts, rebellion and revolutions. It is therefore the humans must be got free from the shackles of inequality. Colonialism is a kind of despotism and division of individuals on the basis of caste, clan, tribe, race, region, religion, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic status give air to resistance movements in a society. The focal point of the Marxists, Fanon believes, is equal distribution of wealth to avoid conflict and confrontation between haves and haves-not. But mere national liberation or economic equality do not mean independence. Rather, suppression of some specific culture, civilization, religion, race and ethnic group are the factors that cause resistance movements within the purview of a political structure of government. International law does not allow anyone to suppress individuals on the basis of the race or religion etc. Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci stands for the difference between the war of position and the war of movement. He refers to the non-violence movement launched by Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi during his campaign for independence in the last decade of British rule in India. Gramsci opines that strikes and boycotts stand almost on equal footings and both of them cause revolution in a society even many classes do not participate in the campaign very actively. Boycotts are the reaction of suppression and if these are observed collectively, these may lead to silent revolution because of conflict between powerful and suppressed strata of society. Angana Chatterji, the Indian theorist and professor, argues for the need of equality and justice particularly in contemporary societies consist of many ethnic and religious groups. He states that all the classes and groups must be given equal platform of growth to combat resistance movements and thus statutes of international law will be given way demanding equality for human beings. He views a state’s ideology of development very significant one in respect of the instructions of International Law. He states that it is not the state which is the neutral actor in the procedure of society’s growth; rather, social movements are the principal organizers that supply the shape of development process in a society as well as affect international law. Q 2: DO YOU AGREE THAT THESE SYSTEMS (THE MANDATE SYSTEM, UNCTAD AND NIEO) HAVE IMPROVED INTERNATIONAL LAW? WHY? International Law was formed to combat the social, cultural, financial and political exploitation of human beings and to provide them with the safety in respect of life, honor and property without any discrimination. Similarly, the Mandate system was introduced in the aftermath of WWI by the League of Nations, at a critical moment when the victorious countries including USA, UK, France, Italy and others were in a fix regarding administration of the occupied non-European territories seized from the defeated nations i.e. Germany and Turkey. France and Italy favored the annexation of these territories, while the UK stood for the international administration in such areas so that sovereignty of Germany and Turkey could not be affected. Only a financially strong Germany, according to the then British Prime Minister Lloyd George, would be in a position to pay war indemnity. On reaching at no decisive point, the Mandate System was brought in that simply argued in favor of authorizing self government to the native people in non European countries all over the globe, which had been the European colonies in pre- war era. Mandate system was applied for the political freedom of colonies, whereas two other institutions i.e. United Nations Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and New International Economic Order (NIEO) came into being for the growth of trade and commerce activities as well as economic uplift of these countries that had been under the control of European nations in past. All these three above-mentioned systems have been introduced for the betterment of humanity and liberty of human rights. The international law has also been devised to protect the same rights. It is therefore these systems have supported international law in respect of freedom and sovereignty, yet unfortunately none of these institutions could bring socioeconomic development in these countries. The provisions of International Law demand equal rights for humanity without prejudice in respect of caste, class, race, region, religion and others, and condemn slavery of all kinds. The Mandate system, on the other hand, condemns slavery at governmental level and censures colonialism and imperialism. It is thus mandate system is theoretically supportive in the implication of free sovereign states without any perils of foreign domination that is the part of the Charter of Human Rights written in the International Law. In the same way, the sub-ordinate institutions of the UNO including UNCTAD and NIEO were established to raise the economic condition of the developing countries so that they could also be able to provide their subjects with better standards of living. As the charter of International Law aims at prosperity of the world, UNCTAD and NIEO offered financial assistance to the third world states; thus acting upon the acts of the law. But in fact, these sub-ordinate institutions are not in work as directed in the charter of the UNO. All these institutions only protect the interests of European countries, leaving the developing countries in wait of development. The development schemes are planed on the instructions and policies of the institutions working under the instructions of the UNCTAD and regulate the financial activities of third world economies. The third world economies strangulate themselves in the snare of loans, and they have to devalue their currency in the international market as well as increase the price of odds and ends of daily use. It raises the inflation rate to a dangerous and purchasing power of common man almost diminishes. All that causes uncertainty and chaos in a developing country and the masses start arranging strikes and movements against their political system. It further destabilizes the economy and political and economic situation remains at a perplexed condition forever. If a developing country introduces some reformative activities both financially and politically, the problem of ethnocentrism is elevated in such societies. As the developed countries have the power to control the external and internal strategies, they ask the rival state of the developing nation regarding war threats. In such a sorry situation, the state has to comply with all the terms and conditions of the developed countries just to survive in the list of the sovereign countries. It is therefore, they cannot observe financial independence and remain under influence of the dictation of big powers. That is why the mandate system, UNCTAD and NIEO have added more injury on the very countenance of freedom and the nations have surrendered before the ex-masters of colonialism and imperialism. They have least supported the imposition of the true spirit of the international law; rather, they have done their job of increasing gulf between developed and developing nations acting upon the real wishes and commands of the western powers. REFERENCE Rajagopal, Balakrishnan. International Law from Below: Development, Social Movements and Third World Resistance. Cambridge University Press, 2003 Read More