Does International Law Function Effectively - Essay Example

Does international law function effectively? Introduction A crime can be commonly defined as an act which goes against the social or moral rules of behaviour in any given society. In the western civilised society, community based laws are created and formalised for the regulation of conduct between individuals, legal entities as well as countries where a breach of said law constitutes a punishable crime1. Although technically speaking, all actions which are against the law may not be considered crimes since certain commercial activities can fall under individual contract violations which may not be legally defined as crimes2. If we expand the definition to include nation states and simplify it somewhat we can say that any particular act can be seen as a crime if the international community defines it as such3.This is clearly the state of affairs when one examines the current state and the historical foundations of international law where crimes were said to be committed when countries broke agreements with each other, went back on treaties signed with groups of other nations, ignored international decisions or behaved in a inappropriate manner4 for a nation that wishes to be integrated into the larger global cooperative system that is currently taking place in the history of civilisation5. While this may show that international law and regulations have failed, it cab be shown that the law itself has not failed rather it is application of the law which has missed the mark completely. Global Law Breakers As a basic element of civilized living, it seems that the idea for not breaking any rules and following the law is ingrained into the members of a group simply because without respect for and agreement on certain rules, a society could completely fall under anarchy. To maintain laws, there is also the intimidation of punishment linked to breaking the laws but if a country or a ruler of a country knows that they can get away with it then it would be unlikely that they would continue to follow the law without incredible self restraint6. Even on an individual level, a society where certain powerful members or the elite play give little regard to the laws of the collective, the society can eventually get to a position where the law is utterly powerless and in many ways, this idea certainly applies to the global arena7. Who makes the Laws? As there are lawgivers and lawbreakers in the global arena, there are also people and organisations responsible for keeping the law. In a city, town or country, it is relatively easy to enforce the law mainly because jurisdiction issues are not present. However, in the case of international law, the jurisdiction question often comes up since the sovereignty of nations has been established since the treaty of Westphalia. While it is commonplace to enforce the law where jurisdiction is clarified and officers of the law know what they can and can not do, international law enforcement becomes more difficult because certain bodies may not be recognized by other enforcers (Shaw, 2003). Forcing International Law In such tricky matters, it is possible that international force becomes more important than international law (Palmer & Palmer, 2004). The name given to a country head who does not respect international law is despot. The cases of Saddam, Gaddafi, Mussolini, and even Hitler himself are all situations where the ruler of the country broke international law. A despotic form of government places a single authority with total control over the government of a country and the term has come to be clearly associated with dictators and power usurpers. However, in some cases despots have cooperated with international bodies and gained acceptance as legitimate presidents of their countries. The case of President Musharraf of Pakistan is one such situation where a power usurper gained the trust and support of the international community. In general terms, as suggested by a famous international analyst8, despots come across as being rulers who have absolute authority and are often corrupt since they show a complete disregard for international laws. A cursory look at their behaviour shows that it is difficult to control them without resorting to the use of force. If a country is bent upon breaking international law, a treaty or an order from the international court of justice9 is hardly going to be enough to stop it. Removing a despot from his/her modern day throne takes years of internal strife, even a revolution or two and may need outside influences to facilitate the removal10. White Collar International Criminals While the clear cases of breakage of international law are dealt with in many different ways, there are certain situations where international laws have been broken by the same countries that have helped to form them. For instance, democratically elected governments in the U.K. and America have violated international treaties and gone against the dictates of international law. It would be possible to consider these nations as international white collar criminals since they are treated much in the same way as national white collar criminals would be treated. However, it must be remembered that a criminal is a criminal and differentiation between white collar crime and blue collar crime often hurts the purposes of justice in society. Just as a white collar criminal can ignore the laws when it is against her/his interests, a white collar country can ignore the laws when it is against their interests. The steps other countries take to make sure that such a situation does not happen are the factors which would make international law a failure or a success. One issue being discussed in the circles interested in international law is the case of Iran working towards the acquisition of nuclear material. The international community is trying to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and America as well as many EU members have come to believe that Iran’s behaviour towards the international community, a lack of cooperation with IAEA as well as the attitude of their president shows that the country is under a despotic system. Calls are being made for international support on the subject and Iran is increasingly being left secluded in the international circuit as well as being abandoned by her friends11. The Case of Iran The supporters of international law and many Europeans believe that a diplomatic resolution of the issue can be reached. However, even with economic sanctions and United Nations Security Council warnings, Iran is continuing on the path to uranium enrichment. Not too long ago, Iran warned America of harm and suffering if American continues to hinder Iran’s uranium enrichment programme. Since Iran is a major producer of oil, it has some say in the global oil markets therefore it comes across as a rich country which is not rich enough to be taken into the club. Iran could cut oil production levels and that would have a strong effect on the global oil market to the extent of causing major problems for the Americans12. While the problem which has been created could have been removed by the application of international laws, threats from both sides of the table have escalated the issue since both the American Vice-President and the American ambassador to the U.N. have talked about serious consequences for Iran and mentioned the use of all available tools with which they could prevent Iran from getting nuclear material13. A nation as developed and enlightened as America seems to be quite uncivilised when it has to resort to force and violence to maintain the status quo in the Middle East14. Iran, behaving as a despotic country, has given little attention to the international community or international law and appears to be very confident in the fight against America or any of the allies. This entire situation simply represents a failure of the applicability of international law and has an interesting second dimension concerning the obedience to international law from nations who fail to recognise it, i.e. can international law be enforced on them? Secondly, who enforces the law? If the global police themselves commit a crime against the world, who punishes them? The Case of America Quite clearly, America herself was broke several international laws as well as human rights conventions with the prisoner of war situation in Guantanamo Bay. The treatment of Iraqi prisoners of war in Abu Gharaib and other prisons in Iraq has also irked the legal and human rights group working around the world15. The case of the POWs in Guantanamo Bay is very important because the United Nations Commission on Human Rights sent independent investigators into Guantanamo Bay who have asked America to immediately should down the detention centre and present prisoners as well as the charges against them before an independent and competent tribunal or to let them go if such procedures and rights can not be given to them16. Simply put, the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is against international laws and represents the worst side of western civilisation. The interrogation techniques which taught to U.S. soldiers and used by American interrogators are called torture by the UN inspectors. These methods are fully endorsed by the American Department of Defence (DOD) and are called degrading treatment by the UNHCR. During the interviews administered by U.N. officers, the prisoners said that they experienced extreme pain at the hands of American soldiers during interrogation. Interrogation techniques used by the American officials clearly amount to human torture as it is outlined in the first article of the United Nations Convention against Torture17. Legal Issues In all practical terms, this is a clear case of violation of international law, a situation where a strong country is able to torture and keep without criminal charges a number of men against their will. America is defying and breaking international law but the international community does not have the ability or even the drive to ensure that international law is not broken. While the U.N. and other human rights activists log their protests, the defiance of international law continues. That certainly makes the American President a despot and it should certainly move the international community to move into action so they can attack Washington D.C. and liberate the American people as well as shut down the prison in Guantanamo. However, we all know that is probably not going to happen any time soon. International Hypocrisy On the contrary, common blue collar criminals, or relatively weak countries placed in situations like Iraq while it was being controlled by Saddam or Afghanistan when the Taliban were ruling it became targets of allied forces because the governments of the countries failed to come to terms with international law. This clarifies the position of international law that if a weak county fails to cooperate with the rest of the world; or more exactly, the powerful countries of the world, the rule of is enforced on them18. Even though enforcement raises the question of national sovereignty, it is mostly sidelined when it comes to international law. Understandably, the international arena is merely a reflection of the local society we live in since the crimes of the powerful are invisible to the law enforcers. While international law and the global order exist for the harmony of nations, criminal acts continue to be done by countries of all shapes and sizes. The crimes of the powerful countries are ignored even if they are not invisible and they are punished with nothing more than a slap on the wrist while weaker countries have bombs falling from the sky which often hurt their citizens and civilians more than they hurt those who broke the dictates of international law in the first place. Might is Righter than the Law The nations of the world show clear evidence that they believe in might being right even though they might make political or social statements confirming the opposite. International laws can not be imposed on the United States or any other mighty power that decides to break the law. The American economy and military strength dictates to the world but the American government is not showing the noblese oblige which comes with great power. Being the sole super power of the world, no other country can hope to singularly move against America to ensure that it follows international law. At the same time, international law comes in handy when it needs to be enforced against smaller countries or in the less developed regions of the world since it becomes a mere tool to keep them in line. Nations like Pakistan or India can be pushed with sanctions, threats or promises of aid and they fall inline with international law very quickly. Countries that do not bend to the pressure can be attacked and made to follow the law. A three tier approach to international law is what defines our present international legal system applicability. The Microcosm The global village19 presents each country as an individual and international law governs the relationship which one ‘person’ has with another. However, as is the case in society, the ones with the greatest power also hold the greatest responsibility to uphold the laws. It must be clarified that the applicability of the law is what has failed since there is not much which can be objected to when it comes to law itself. International laws define ways in which countries can deal with each other and is very useful in governing trade agreements, establishing negotiation protocols and giving guidelines for countries to behave. Conclusion International law is certainly enforceable and functionally effective as it has been by situations in many situations. However, it is also clear that the process of making sure that countries follow international law is applied selectively. The laws do not fail; rather, it is the applicability and the ability of nations to accept the law which fails. Powerful nations remain white collar criminals who often able to get away with breaking or bending the law to their motives. Countries like America might even be able to outright break the law since there is no one powerful enough to enforce it on them. Works Cited Barak, A. (2005). Begin and the Rule of Law. Israel Studies, 10(3), 1-13. Cornell Law School. (2006). White-collar crime. Retrieved July 11, 2006, from Cornell University website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/White-collar_crime McCarthy, A. (2006). International Law v. United States. Commentary, 121(2), 41-48. Omestad. T. (2006). Truth or Dare in Tehran. U.S. News & World Report, 140(1), 33-34. Palmer, G and Palmer, M, Bridled Power (4th ed, 2004) Powell, S. (2005). Denis Halliday Calls for U.N. Reforms. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 24(3), 63-65. Reyes, S. (2006). Toward Re-engagement. Harvard International Review, 27(4), 22-26. Shaw, M. (2003). International Law. UNCHR. (2006). Does the Treatment of Prisoners at the Detention Facility in Guantánamo Bay Violate International Law? International Debates, 4(4), 106-109 Wikipedia. (2006). White Collar Crime. Retrieved July 10, 2006, from Wikipedia.org website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_collar_crime Zakaria, F. (2006). Time to Face Reality on Iran. Newsweek, 147(5), 31-32. Read More