The Role of International Law in the World Politics - Case Study Example

Name: Institution: The Role of International Law in the World Politics Introduction The theme of this review establishes from the apparent trend in use of force by superior economies of the world incidentally to achieve their state goals while conflating the provisions provided in the international statutes. The conduct of the United States and its allies in the past 15 years in which they have resorted into applying force without following the due code of the international relations as required by international law even when the legal basis of their actions is questionable underscores the scope of this review. The role of international law in the global politics has frequently been analyzed with critical inferences to the actions of the U.S. and other superior economies in Kosovo, Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan, and most recently in the North African state of Libya. The afore referred actions have borne contravening consequences for the international law particularly in the meaning and relevance of use of force and underlying political consequences. The increasing use of force has raised diverse issues in the context of the role of international law in politics. The international law has been an old instrument (Gray 2008) supposedly of inference when force can or cannot be invoked, which implies that the law has a traditional role of limiting unnecessary coercion of governments by external powers to achieve whatever ends. Important to note in this context is that other law matters notwithstanding, the emerging concern to protect humanitarian law that contemplates punishing its violators is increasingly complicating the conceptions of the international law. The relationship between use of force and the realm of international law is increasingly becoming complex, which makes the objectivity of underlying principles blurred. Entrenchment of the International Law in UN Provisions Much of the international law that concerns the context of international politics extracts from the articles enshrined in the UN Charter. For instance, the Security Council is a creation of the UN Charter and is charged with the global duty of maintaining international peace and security (Cassesse 1986). This premise explains the powerful mandate of the council that include disposition of coercive power if the act upholds the spirit of international law. Additionally, the council has been charged with international responsibility of oversight and control over the invocation of the right of legitimate defense, in case of which it should be informed of the course of action by member states. Essentially, forceful actions by any member state should be reported procedurally to the UN Security Council because it is the international organ that the international law gives authority to adjudicate legitimate use of force. The emphasis in this context is that the UN Security Council (SC) and the governing law represent a highly developed legal organization for maintenance of international security. Bourantonis (2005) provides that the primary purpose of the council is to ensure international law is followed for peace to prevail globally. This is to imply that it is its responsibility to ensure any use of armed force in the international relations conforms to the international law. However, there are systemic limits that incidentally gag the express oversight powers of the SC. For example, council is not facilitated to legally force respect for all of international law beyond the thin line of peace and security. It is imperative that the system of security established by the UN Charter is primarily anchored substantially on political than legal constructions. The inherent values of collective security, the right of states to ensure sovereignty by their own means, and the inherent principle of international police establishing on the monopoly of coercion for international peace and security cause controversy over the prevalence of international law (Williamson 2009). The question of illegitimate use of force characterizes the ineffectiveness or grey areas inherent in the UN Charter and the realm of legitimacy and legality in the international relations. Evolution of the Concepts Governing International Security There is emerging trend that evinces the continual change in the stature of international legal factors and state actions that govern the international security. Much of the U.S. and European Union (EU) international interventions have cultivate the evolution of different international relations conduct, which appear distant from the UN Charter canons of defending peace but instead promoting disguised use of force to achieve unclear interests. The contemporary international relations are characterized by emerging values of not regulating international use of force to defend peace of states but other interests greater than the state that in some incidences supersede the peace agenda (Weller 2010). Inference to the chronology of forceful actions perpetuated by the US and the EU in the name of guarding international peace gives an appropriate analysis of the prevailing stature of international role in the geopolitical realm. An analysis of the events instigated by the U.S. in the past two decades reflect an evolutionary curve of new intervention rights that conflate the provisions of the UN Charter (Byers 2002). The US and its superior allies have apparently advanced campaigns for expansion of the right to self defense particularly since the September 9, 2001 terrorist event: the consequence of this turn of event is mirrored by the invasion of Afghanistan. Additionally, the proclamation of the right of pre-emptive approaches in self defense without justification is another front in which the regulations governing international relations have changed. For example, the war in Iraq led by the US and NATO, and the 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo (Bjola 2005) have not ever been justified but only serve to exemplify the evolution in the use of international law to achieve defined political goals. As earlier stated, the humanitarian course has been the guise under which the legitimacy of the use of force is increasingly leveled. The imperative is that the evolving nature of the governance of international relations is characterized by utter vagueness that ultimately benefits the powerful states. Gazzini (2005) argues that the tendency by superior powers shelve the intended purpose of the international law for their self advantage is not new. To fulfill national or interests of crucial allies in the Western world, the US has continually softened the content of the international law that constrains its unquestioned use of force and the extension of the global dominance. The precedent emerging from the customization of the provisions of international law in favor of particularized ends of the superpower has impaired the clarity between the legitimate and illegitimate deployment of coercive power. Importantly, the manipulation of the UN decision making protocol has deprived the global institution of effective procedural mechanism of addressing emerging issues concerning international relations. The change in the provisions of the UN Charter has been instigated by the continual interference by Western countries especially the U.S. to ensure that they validate political justifications. Additionally, the enforcement mechanism at the UN has been paralyzed and often fails to question the actions of the powerful actors. This premise points at the increasing political manipulations of the international law without neutrality as required in the peace maintenance mother law of the UN Charter. Political Causes are Superseding Legality in International Relations It is increasingly becoming implicit that the sanctity of international law as traditionally posed under the UN provisions is gradually ceding ground for dominance by political causes. There is little literary synthesis to justify the interventions in Kosovo, the war in Iraq, Afghan invasion, and the toppling of the Gadaffi regime in 2011 (Fenton 2004). The favoritism and the disguised “what is in for U.S.” element in the use of force for protection and preservation of peace in the mentioned instances of rapid coercion is mirroring clearly from the handling of the ongoing Syrian war that is characterized by unimaginable humanitarian law violations. The war in Syria is a case scenario that paints the bipartisan services of the UN Charter that has been utterly doctored to favor Western powers at the expense of the deliverance of the intended purpose of the international law. It is common knowledge that politicization of the UN SC has drastically altered the influence of international law on geopolitical realm. This premise reflects from the political contests constraining uncontestable action by the UN to intervene for humanitarian cause and restoration of peace. Although the U.S and EU have been fast in invading Kosovo, Iraq, and completely dismantled the Libyan government, there is seemingly a systematic lack of constructive invocation of the UN resolution to restore peace and prevent loss of civilian lives in Syria. In this context, because Syria is aligned with Asian political powers (China and Russia), the West has developed cold feet in rushing into the matter. This appears to be the only defining scenario for social and political academics to contextually conduct a meaningful investigation on the role of international law on global politics. It is apparent from the Syrian example that geopolitics annuls the real purpose of international law particularly of protecting human life from illegal use of armed force and maintaining peace. Politics have taken precedence over law at the international perspective. One of the most explicit elements defining this context is the inability by the U.S. to intervene in Syria despite the apparent need. In other events, the U.S. has intervened without care for support from the UN SC, and the legality of the actions has never been a priority. This context implies that legality is a necessary composite of legitimate use of force, and should not be dominated by politics. International law bolsters the cost and allied support in a forceful intervention, and often sets precedents that can greatly influence future military actions and the potential for future wars (Henderson 2010). It is clear that without the manipulative influence of the superpowers, the international law enshrined in the UN Charter gives a sustainable and workable conceptual framework of addressing the issues of political accountability as regards use of force in the international relations. However, there are characteristic weaknesses in the Charter that render the legitimate use of power rather a divisive tool. Balance between Legality and Legitimacy of use of Force is Lost The intervention on Kosovo and the war style innovated by the U.S. and United Kingdom after the September 9th event reversed the past precedents in which standards of legality dictated legitimacy of the use of force. Legitimacy, which is often defined by political tones, appears to have overtaken the course of legality in the international arena as regards the use of force. Many coercive interventions without doubt are being invoked without due regard for legality and this stance is explained by various case scenarios. The Libyan U.S. and NATO intervention is a recent case scenario in which political legitimacy superseded legality. The fact that the force was used without appropriate authorization by the UN SC indicates the apparent use of force by Western powers to protect national interests at the cost of the civility and peace (Henderson 2010). This apparent ignorance of the relevance of the values enshrined in the UN Charter that seek to prevent future war sets a precedent in which in total violation of the law, force is bound to be used selectively thus blurring the cause for humanitarian-based interventions. The intervention in Libya may have been the root cause of the slowness being witnessed in the adoption of the UN Resolution in addressing the humanitarian crisis in Syria. The rationale of the deteriorating balance between legality and legitimacy extracts from the view that the Charter has been modeled to favour interests of the Western states. The developing economies that are the primary targets of the interventions are increasingly doubting the international legal processes because political interest are overtaking the primary humanitarian drive for the international law. Conclusion The international law especially the provisions of the UN Charter initially served great purpose of establishing sustainable geopolitical environment. The 1999 intervention by NATO in Kosovo and the post 2001 interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya by the U.S have set a wrong precedent in which Western powers appear to have raised the legitimacy rhetoric over legality. The controversial invasion in Libya by U.S. and NATO did more harm on the international political cooperation than did in legal terms. The ongoing Syrian crisis is a necessary test of the contemporary status of the balance between international law and the geopolitical arena. References Bjola, C 2005, ‘Legitimating the use of force in international politics: a communicative action perspective’, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 11, no.2, pp. 266-303. Bourantonis, D 2005, Politics of UN Security Council reform, Routledge, London, UK. Byers, M 2002, ‘Terrorism, the use of force and international law after 11 September’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 51, pp. 401-414. Cassesse, A 1996, The current legal regulation of the use of force, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, New York, NY. Fenton, N 2004, Understanding the UN Security Council: Coercion or consent? Ashgate Publishing, Surrey, UK. Gazzini, T 2005, The changing rules on the use of force in international law, Juris Publishing, New York, NY. Gray, CD 2008, International law and the use of force, 3rd edn., Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Henderson, C 2010, The persistent advocate and the use of force: the impact of the United States upon the Jus Ad Bellum in the post-Cold War era, Ashgate Publishing, Surrey, UK. Weller, M 2010, Iraq and the use of force in international law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Williamson, M 2009, Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001, Ashgate Publishing, Surrey, UK. Read More