The View That Relationships between States Lack Order - Essay Example

?Topic: Examine and assess the view that relationships between s lack order. Introduction It is d by realists in the perspective of relationship between states that it lacks order. The aim of this discussion is to examine and assess this statement, for which we need to analyse an international issue of critical importance that offers ample opportunity to verify the truth of realists’ statement. Piracy off the coast of Somalia is one such issue that affects the interests of various states whose vessels become a victim of piracy while crossing the sea off the coast of Somalia. There seems to be no ambiguity over claiming piracy to be an international issue. Recognising the global impact of the piracy issue, the role of states becomes significant in controlling acts of piracy, especially off the coast of Somalia for the notorious identity attached to the people of Somalia operating as pirates. Pirates have their own set of behaviour norms and operate without any legal control over their activities, as they do not adhere to global framework of law and order practised by the states. The role of the United Nations gains critical significance because of the legal notion that pirates belonging to any country can be impeached by any state. Piracy is one such crime, which is subject to international jurisdiction. In this related context of international jurisdiction it becomes important to define order, states and nation states. The issue of piracy can be a catalyst in understanding the relations among states progressing under the universal jurisprudence. Universal jurisprudence is a legal notion, a doctrine in the global law agreed to by all member states of the United Nations, as per which the culprits can be booked in any court of law, whatsoever be their nationality or the place of perpetration (Bromley, 2009). An analysis of the rights of states, nation states and the role of universal jurisprudence in controlling piracy can help in the evaluation of relationship between states lacking order. As piracy happens on the ‘high seas’ which do not come under the territorial or legal limits of a state, states have no jurisprudence over territorial waters away from their jurisdiction or range of territorial waters. Piracy cannot happen without gaining access to a land base. As all states have declared piracy an illegal act, states cannot allow pirates to use their land base, then it is carried out from such regions as in Somalia where the government control is very weak or non-visible that it helps such illegal activities to be organised unhindered due to weak regulating authority of the state, i.e. Somalia (Bromley, 2009). There are many such illegal activities in various countries that put at risk the global order enforced through universal jurisdiction. Such activities include other than piracy, the slave trade, hijacking, war crimes, mass murder and the latest being global terrorism (Bromley, 2009). Various states have the legal empowerment to uphold their individual laws within their territorial limits but universal jurisprudence becomes effective when piracy is committed on the ‘high seas’ over which no state has its control. This can be explained through legal principles. First is the territorial jurisdiction of the states over their own territories, irrespective of the fact that the offender is a state national or a foreigner. Each state has its own laws to control illegal activities occurring on its territory. Claim to such governance is the right of certain states, as stated by Weber. Such jurisdiction control is subjected to those travellers visiting a country on holiday or for business purposes. There is the possibility of some permission granted by a home state for certain activities but they are illegal activities in the touring states. Once, an individual is out of the geographical limits of the state of origin, the law of the other state, not the self state, will be functional and decisive in any matter of illegal nature. For example, there are specific drugs, which are permitted to carry in the UK but are not allowed in other states, which could result in imprisonment or can be awarded capital punishment too, depending on each state’s laws (Bromley, 2009). Another principle of jurisdiction is related to national jurisdiction, according to which a state’s laws are operational over its citizens irrespective of the fact where they are residing geographically, as it does not give any consideration to the laws of those regions where its citizens are residing. Take for example the case of UK law, which is functional, as based on the principle of national jurisdiction on having sex with those below the granted age limit. It means when such UK citizens return home, they can be booked for the breach of this law over its citizens’ activities outside the UK (Bromley, 2009). Working on the nationality principle over ‘home’ and ‘abroad’, no legal line of action can be drawn to differentiate between both the territorial and the nationality principles, thus, maintaining an edge-to-edge clash between the claims of the state to carry on its legal governance over its territory and people (Bromley, 2009). Thus, we see that laws of various states clash with each other over their jurisprudence in different situations, leading to asymmetrical relations between states. On the contrary to these principles, the concept of universal jurisdiction allows a state to take legal action anywhere and against anybody committing the offence, irrespective of the relation to territory or citizenship. Applying the limit of universal jurisdiction is a debatable issue as a number of states have agreed that there is a clash between the territorial and national principles, on the one hand and the principle of universality on the other. Thus, it can be stated that the principle of universality can only be functional when there is general consensus over what is to be prohibited and what is not. In the case of piracy, the disagreement over agreed norms is so overwhelming that it overlooks the fears of a number of states keen to serve their own territorial and national interests. Nevertheless, in most other fields where the legal control is applicable, states are not interested to follow the principle of universality for their concern over their own territorial and national claims (Bromley, 2009). The political and economic realities of Somalia have further deteriorated the piracy issue, compelling the United Nations Security Council in 2008 to issue a resolution identifying ‘the lack of capacity of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) to interdict, or upon interdiction to prosecute pirates or to patrol and secure the waters off the coast of Somalia, including the international sea lanes and Somalia’s territorial waters’ (UNSC, 2008, Resolution 1851, p. 1)). As per the resolution, all the states, regional and global organisations were given the shared task of controlling piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia. The leading phrase of the resolution points towards the nature of the UN, which is to attain a level of order over relations among states. It is about the condition around the coast of Somalia, which is ‘a threat to international peace and security in the region’ (Bromley, 2009). The concept of global community is based on adherence to a set of rules and principles enshrined in the United Nations organisation, that control the behaviour of states towards one another globally; it constructs the basis of the liberal approach to global order or liberal internationalism (Bromley, 2009). The problem of piracy is different from other global problems such as terrorism. Piracy is a plundering economic action, flourishing in such situations where the state governance mechanism is poor but all global states are not the target of piracy, leaving aside the idea of waging a war against the strongest state through piracy (Bromley, 2009). It is the notion of fear, which is the leading cause of bringing order on the global platform. Fear is considered to be the traditional claim in theories of global order. Various UN organisations, it is assumed, are playing a role to order relations among states by referring to the commonly agreed rules and regulations, which is the central claim and concept of the UN as a global organisation (Bromley, 2009). On the contrary, realist theory believes in the notion that there is no legal power working globally and order is established by power and fear of power, not on legally sanctioned command. Realists stress on the way of thinking about the states-system and global order by pin-pointing the lack of legal power at global level and the use of power to manipulate things according to the wishes of the most powerful state. Whether this approach of the realists is close to reality or not, is a leading question for theories of global order. Working on the realist theory, although mostly, the Security Council decides to take action against any threat to the world peace and permits the use of force, as in controlling the acts of piracy off the coast of Somalia but member states do not always agree over the use of force and follow their own ways. States live in continued state of fear and hostility with other states because of their increased military power; this is central to the realist idea that power equilibrium is central to sustained order among states (Bromley, 2009). Counting anarchy in the realists’ list of the causes of world order being power and fear of power, anarchy is not synonymous with chaos; it is caused due to the lack of centralised rule with state-like traits. An anarchical states-system can be ordered or disordered, according to realist theory, as it is subservient on the balance of power. As per the realist theory, all states live in an anarchical states-system, fearing attack from the other state’s armed forces. States are always engrossed in the survival tasks against the more powerful states in the system (Bromley, 2009). Realists’ claim of disorderly relationship between states is quite strong, viewing the global happenings as the Soviet and American intervention in Afghanistan without the approval of the United Nations. What further evidence of it can be seen when the allied forces of the UK and US raided Iraq in the name of finding nuclear installations. The world is governed by super powers by showing utter and shameful disregard to the overall peace and sovereign rights of the less strong nations by adopting aggressive military and economic strategies to align the global order with their political and military interests. Order can be seen only between two allied super powers such as Britain and the United States. Claim of the realist theory is quite coherent, with the stated evidence given above and is totally applicable to the world order among various states. But one cannot totally disregard the liberal internationalists, as the world order is moving ahead with positive changes in governments’ perceptions and outlooks to the causes of humanity, as explained through the national security strategy of the UK, widening its focus to include risks to citizens and ways of life from global terrorism, nuclear weapons, conflicts and failed states, pandemics and trans-national crimes (Bromley, 2009). Conclusion While evaluating various arguments over global relations based on realist and other theories on claims of establishing order in the society, questions arise whether the problem of piracy off the coast of Somalia is the outcome of fear and the balance of power among various states working behind the behaviour of states in governing such issues of global repercussions. Using force to suppress piracy creates in mind the economic compulsions of the people of Somalia and creates even sympathy over its poor state of economic affairs. Piracy puts a challenge to both of the leading principles of global order. The notion of global community as enshrined in the United Nations is to manage global issues based on set procedures although major decisions over the use of force are taken by the most powerful states. This is the basis of liberal globalism but one can not deny the right of individual states’ perceived threats, causing worry over their ranking in the balance of power. Reference Bromley, Simon. ‘Chapter 9 Pirates and predators: authority and power in international affairs’, Exploring Social Lives (Course Book, Open University, 2009), pp. 396-434. Read More