Code of Laws in Countries - Essay Example

Why s obey the law Our world has become more organized and civilized, especially from the last century, mainly because countries themselves and importantly in coordination with other countries has formulated a set of laws and has become part of various international treaties. These laws and treaties have actualized an environment of self-regulations, so that the countries obeying it, have maximally minimized aggressive overtures against other countries as well as their own citizens. However, that is not the case all the time, as certain countries without obeying the international laws have acted or are acting aggressively and unilaterally. This gross violation of international laws by countries has raised doubts about the validity and efficacy of these laws. Even amidst these disobeying of laws, countries tend to obey laws due to certain reasons. States obey the laws and the related treaties and conventions due to mix of certain valid reasons, which mainly borders on self-interest and need for self-legitimacy, and also minimally due to coercion. Self interest constitutes various factors and one key factor is the want of the country to create a positive identity for itself. Participation in the transnational legal process and obeying all the laws helps “constitute the identity of the state as the one that obeys the law”. (Coleman). Importantly, they does not want to acquire the tag or reputation of a law breaker or a rogue nation, and thereby standing isolated and facing a barrage of debilitating sanctions. That is, if a nation continues to disobey the laws and thereby acts in a detrimental way against particular nations as well as global community on the whole, certain nations and also overseeing body like United Nations will impose economic sanctions, trade, food and other essential commodities embargoes, etc. These punitive actions will negatively impact the nation as well as its people. In order to avoid these scenarios, nations will tend to obey the laws. As another form of self interest, nations will obey laws to make or demand other nations to do the same. States will tend to obey laws whose underpinning political rational is clear and which they agree with, especially the laws relating to territorial integrity and inviolability of borders.(King 2005). Once obeying of law based on self-interest is done, then legitimacy will automatically fall into place. That is, states will always want legitimacy to its words and actions, and to get that they have to obey the laws. If they want other countries to be legitmate, they have to create and obey laws appropriately. This was validated by Professor Frank who states that legitimacy means that quality of law must derive from a perception, to those to whom it is addressed, that law has come into being in accordance with right process. (Rashid 2004). Even coercion and the resultant obeying of the law is also an extension of self-interest. When a state is coerced to obey laws through armed force or other means, they will accept it mainly from self-interest perspective. In certain cases, nations will obey laws as a form of nonconsensual coercion, but would like to exhibit as self-interest. The bottom line is, all states will want to live in peace, prosperity and in good coordination with other states and for that they will obey the international laws. When viewed from another perspective, certain States although generally act in accordance to the law, they do not always obey it. This happens mainly in the case of unilateral actions and importantly due to mis-interpretation of the laws according to their self-interests. Also, when certain States feel as they were not part of specific law making process, they are not obligated to follow that law. When states take unilateral actions to fulfil and pursue their self-interests, imperialistic ambitions, etc, they disobey and undermine the international laws. Although, they may be part of the law making process and could have acted in accordance with those laws most of the time, they could disobey. As an extension of this disobeyance, they could even misinterpret the laws according to their self-interest. According to King (2005), even when states disobey international rules, they often maintain that they are acting within the law. He lists out the key historical precedents when this happened including Hitler invasion of Czechoslovakia in the name of self-determination; then USSR invasion of Afghanistan claiming to be invited in by a newly established regime; and the United States’ attack on Iraq in 2003 claiming to be enforcing a UN resolution and for finding non-existent WMDs(Weapons of Mass Destruction). (King 2005). When States felt that their interest are being compromised and other states are gaining some sort of military or weapons advantage over them or transgressing their territorial integrity, they will launch aggressive actions not in line with international laws. Although, other countries could voice condemnation against these actions, they may not be able to completely rein those States and make them obey the laws. When viewed from the another perspective, apart from self-interests, these law breaking states could have reasons like that they were not part of the law making process that came up with that specific law. For example, non-European and Western Nations view that major parts of the international law are Euro-centric and were framed safeguarding their interests. Most of the Asian and African countries, after their independence in the later half of the last century, felt on the above lines and are still thinking the same leading to further disobeyance of laws. Many are not comfortable with the inherited international law because they do not meet their needs and values, and so they want to change some of the traditional rules of international law through the UN International Law Commission. (Rashid 2004). Apart from the disobeyance of these developing and small nations, the disobeying of law by the developed nation and big powers was and is a major issue. To manage that, Jus ad bellum and Jus in belloo has been particularly focused in the pre and post action period. The jus ad bellum, founded primarily on the basis of Article 2 and Chapter VII (articles 39-51) of the United Nations charter, insists that All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means (Article 2(3)) and that they shall refrain from threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Article 2(4)). (King 2005). Although, this law forms of key part of international law, it is disobeyed on many occasions, including the ones pointed out above, all under the pretext of self-interests. So, with jus ad bellum being under threat most of the time, jus n bello are being given more importance by other countries as well as UN. A more ‘humanely’ conducted war in line with jus in bello will lessen human sufferings, better relations with other states after the war and an easier task in the reconstruction of the disputed territory. (King 2005). As, Gartzke (2008) states “Once major military combat operations are over, the UN often comes into play as an actor in its own right, primarily through the direct administration and reconstruction of war-torn countries and the work of its specialized agencies like the UNHCR, WFP,.” The bottom line is, international laws are formulated by the States themselves and so it is up to them to respect and obey those laws. States especially Big powers has to obey the laws in all circumstances, without picking and choosing the laws that suits them. The best example is the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, without UN approval. “Had the Security Council been able to agree that force was warranted, it would have provided unique (and incontestable) legitimacy for U.S. military action” (Tharoor 2003). Thus it is clear that States has to follow the international laws for peace and well being of the global community without compromising their self-interests, taking unilateral actions as the last resort. References Coleman, DA, Why Do Nations Obey International Law? viewed on March 17, 2010 http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Do-Nations-Obey-International-Law?&id=5641105 Gartzke, U 2008, Irrelevant or Indispensable? – The United Nations after the Iraq War Int. Organisation und NGOs, viewed on March 17, 2010 http://www2.dias-online.org/direktorien/int_org/031115_13 Tharoor, S 2003, Why America Still Needs the United Nations, Foreign Affairs, vol. 82, no. 5, 67-80. King, G 2005, International law and the use of force, viewed on March 17, 2010 http://www.darkcoding.net/strategy/international-law-and-the-use-of-force/ Rashid, HU 2004, Why do states comply with international law? viewed on March 17, 2010 http://www.thedailystar.net/law/2004/08/03/index.htm Read More