International Law in Engaging Armed Conflict - Term Paper Example

International Law in Engaging Armed Conflict Several civil wars and conflicts emerge from time to time. The results are fatal with loss of many lives reported and massive destruction of property witnessed in genocides across the world. Sometimes these wars go on with the fear of some tribes, religions, clan, race and other discriminating targets being eliminated[Eli09]. These atrocities attract the concern of the UN and other collective bodies responsible for promoting peace and justice to the affected. There have been several such occurrences in Sudan, Libya, Cameroon and many other nations. The fight for justice normally attracts the intervention of the UN and ICC with the aim of prosecuting the perpetrators of this genocide directly or indirectly involved[Gen13] To the extent of inhumane ways in which innocent lives have been lost in wars, the UN Security Council embarked the world to sign treaties and formation of courts for the justice and prosecution of serious crimes committed against the civilians[Ray07]. The intervention of these bodies has been facing a dilemma associated with the approach the bodies such ICC and UN may approach the state of ruin. The methodologies for ending the war are not clear cut due to the present number of issues that arise. The controversy occurs before and after the massive killings have occurred. For example, 1in 1994, the Rwanda experienced one of the worst genocide case that left many people losing their life due to tribal conflict[Eli12]. The bodies mandated to ensure security of the states is in good stature have failed over the past experiences that were experienced in regions such as Darfur, Rwanda and Cameroon. When states are in a conflict, it is the role of UN to involve the two countries in diplomatic measures before the attack happens. With the increased attack between counties in conflicts, there is a need to review whether the UN and other collective bodies have effective ways of constraining these conflicts. This paper evaluates on whether the Security Council and UN have played their role effectively in constraining violence between states[Tim06]. Collective security bodies and the United Nations play a great role in mediating between conflicts arising between states. This is the role of this study to determine ways in which these bodies play, their effectiveness, their defaults and possible strategic approaches that may be effective in controlling violence. Conflict does occur due to situations such boundaries, resources across the along the border and other unethical issues related to them. A sober approach to these conflicts may prevent violence, saving life, resources and properties[Rod01]. According to International Committee of the Red Cross (2011), the main causes of international armed attacks are triggered by factors such as global economic crisis, state oppression and competition for limited resources[Uni02]. These armed groups fetch attention by the global community on humanitarian concern and legal issues. Such groups may launch attacks on another group, government, a foreign state or a joined group of several states. These groups affect the state or region’s prosperity, development and stability. Unfortunately, the innocent civilians, women and children suffer more from such conflicts. This is a major drive that calls for international intervention[Rya13]. International law was created to determine the relationship between states. Such law is composed in highly statist doctrine that identifies States. These laws are stated in article 38 of the International Court Of Justice. Through the article, it is clear that there are legal obligations and non-legal obligations upheld by the court of justice. For consideration as a state, it has to have a permanent population, well-defined territory and structured government and ability enter into agreements with other states. In addition, it has to be globally accepted by other states as an independent state[Siv12]. Formed in 1998, the International Criminal Court abbreviated as the ICC has been in a dilemma regarding several cases that revolve around atrocities committed against the innocent civilians. It was formed with the view of making legal decisions as a court in cases involving serious crimes[Rac11]. The Rome Statutes have well- defined structure that outlines the measures to be taken to ensure justice has been served to the people. The court deals with cases such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war and aggression crimes. Although it was the idea of UN to constitute the ICC, the UN has no direct decisions on the matter before the court. The key players in the ICC did not sign the Rome Statute. These include states such as the USA, China, Russia And Egypt[Cat13]. It is the body formed to oversee collective security on a global perspective. The UNSC is mandated to cater for international security and in the promotion of peace, as recorded in the UN charter, article 24. However, despite this mandate it has been given, it faces a legitimacy crisis. For example, in the case of the United States, the UNSC is unable to constrain the unilaterally inclined hegemonic situation there. This implies that it is not only the UNSC that is in crisis, but the entire United Nations body[Aid10]. The current legitimacy crisis has been due to UN inability to handle the security issues effectively. It requires an effective security management framework that controls, security issues and conflict before emanating into a catastrophe of genocide of the innocent[Gar01]. To manage such state of deterioration in security crisis on a global scale, the UN must evaluate ways, such as expansive means of addressing the crisis and the correct interpretation of the mandate given to the council. It should embrace the powers given and commitment it is worth in ensuring that they fight these criminal and inhuman attacks on innocent beings. Engaging the US in multilateral machinery, global order would be realized[Jus131]. The international law was constituted to ensure that rule of law is set in constraining states from engaging in actions that would cause armed attack of the state(s) to another(s). However, despite the several amendments to the statutes upheld by the international law to suit the current global law enforcement of peaceful coexistence among states. Their intervention has been less fruitful due to several limitations and poor commitment to controlling the situations before they emerge into violence. In the justification of this claim, several cases are considered where the intervention was either too late or mismanaged[Vin11]. The situation in Darfur began around 1993. It was a conflict between the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA), Justice and Equality Movement and Janjaweed. The Janjaweed was financed and equipped by the government. It attacked the Darfur region, where it caused massive killings, rape and displacement of innocent residents of the region. With the intervention for creating of the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA), there was hope that was later tarnished by liberal groups that disagreed with it meaning it was not implemented[Rac11]. Due to its gravity in Darfur region, it attracted the international community in a move to restore peace in the region. This prevailing situation attracted the attention of the United States Congress that termed the situation as genocide in 2006. This led to the Congress laying sanctions to the Sudan government. With the trend of the situation in the region, the UNSC agreed on imposing an arms embargo to any non-governmental players in Sudan. In addition, the AU (African Union) pushed for compliance to ceasefire the agreement. In 2007, the UN and AU formed a joint peacekeeping mission that was intended for the protection of the civilians in the Darfur region (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2011). The ICC also intervened in the case in Darfur region. This was followed by the Security Council referring the occurrences of Darfur to the ICC in 2005. The court issued a warrant of arrest for Ahmad Muhammad Harun and Ali Kushayb after two years of critical investigations. The latter were the ministers for humanitarian affairs and Janjaweed leader respectively. However, despite those efforts to restore peace in the region, Sudan refused to cooperate with the ICC. In addition, the prosecutor also applied for the arrest of Al-Bashir. In this scenario, most people argued that such a process would halt the reconciliation process that was ongoing. (McCormack & McDonald, 2006). Syria situation is worse due to the humanitarian crisis that engulfed the nation. Brutality has been levelled against the innocent civilians who were on protesting. Innocent school going children has been faced with arrest, torture, and execution in the Daraa region. In addition, they have the Haula massacre has escalated the need for international intervention. Syria did not consent the Rome statute that led to the formation of the ICC. However, the brutality experienced by the opposition is worrying and that is what called for international intervention due to the use of chemical weapons on civilians who were in protest against the Assad’s security brutality. The gravity of the atrocities committed against innocent civilian in Syria is worrying. The UN Security Council has faced challenges emerging from the Syria crisis. Syrian case is highly discussed in the UNSC meetings where they trying to find a resolution to end the conflict. However, lack of cooperation between Russia and china who are against the intervention has halted this move. The UN has been keenly concerned about the Syrian case. Discouraging the use of chemical weapons in Syria can be a great move towards fighting the crimes committed. This is another case where UN has failed to intervene and restore peace in Syria. DRC is another region that has called for the intervention of the international security. International criminal court has failed in controlling the situation in DRC. In DRC, they are only carried out investigations in Ituri, but not in Nyankunde where the residents were ready to give their evidence. In the case of Sudan, they relied on information from the refugees who were hosted in Chad. In addition, the prosecution has been tough on some individuals and tough on others discriminatively. In DRC, Laurent Nkunda was immune to prosecution even after being the leader of a militia group referred to as CNDP in eastern Congo. In Kenya, the ICC process was treated as unfair to most Kenyans through their discriminating by failing to investigate those were directly involved and prosecuting those who were easily apprehendable (Bernard, 2011). The court has its intervention only when cases are serious. It can only carry its jurisdiction in regions where there is a judiciary system in function and access to the investigators from the ICC. Such situation denies the residents of regions that are prone to violence continuing. This is an unfair treatment and discharge of their services. For example, in the case against DRC Thomas Lubanga, the investigators failed to identify evidence regarding torture, rape and imprisonment that led to the allegations being withdrawn leaving him with only the charges on child soldiers. The prosecution only relies on the cases that are feasible. In fact, the prosecution fails in the establishment of the geographical scope of their investigations[Ray07]. ICC has also failed to investigate some leaders who are in power taking a political side. In the case of Uganda and DRC, they only prosecuted the liberal forces where the UN believes that the government troops raped innocent women and girls and other criminal activities[Aid10]. It has been argued that the ICC has been dealing with cases perpetrated in Africa and other continents are immune to their processes. This is because warrant of arrest has always been issued top African leaders, including Kenya 2010, DRC 2004, Uganda 2004, Sudan 2005, Libya 2011, CAR 2007 and carrying preliminary investigations in states such as South Korea 2010, Gaza 2010, Afghanistan 2007 and Iraq 2006. In Iraq the court dismissed investigation on the ground of the gravity of the conflict[Rod01]. Regardless of the efforts made by the UN and ICC, there has been several multilateral and bilateral differences that have been experienced in the process of conflict resolution, justice provision and prevention of any future occurrences. For an effective system, both bodies should deviate from discriminating politics that has continually influenced the decisions of the ICC. Earlier in the chapter it was seen that, the discriminative and poor background research on the cases involving incorporation of international laws in prosecuting the perpetrators, definite measures should be undertaken[Jus131]. Financing these organizations well would facilitate the movement for justice where they are in a capacity to carry out the causal agents and focus on geographical understanding of the crisis. Poor financing measures are risky as they may encourage poor investigation and corporation with the perpetrators bribing the prosecution channels[Rod01]. In addition, proper financing would aid the prosecution in hiring security in to help them in getting to the war torn regions to gather first-hand information on the massacres. Poor financing has led to poor investigation that has left free some of the direct perpetrators of these crimes free and unattended by the legal judgment that befall them[Gar01]. There is a change in approach that should be undertaken by the UN and ICC in providing justice and prevention of the humanitarian crisis in regions or states experiencing armed conflict that is in an increase today. They should not only focus in solving the conflicts that have already happened, but should one, hand in hand with countries concerned with encouraging mediation. Such measures would reduce constrains with their peacekeeping missions and facilitate the process of healing and reconciliation. Focusing on the cases of Darfur and DRC, inadequacy of the background investigation has borne fewer fruits towards ending the conflict. Such measures have denied mediation and reconciliation process. Secondly, it would be effective when the UN and ICC mediation and investigation teams engages the residents to consider long term solutions to the prevailing situation. They should focus on mediation approaches that facilitate the process. The path to these bodies takes may be a solution or create more separation if they take sides and one side feel oppressed than the other international relations skills are important at this point to ensure one provides a solution and not creating more division and separation. There are several approaches that relate to the prevention process and diplomatic mediation. The right based approach may create a pathway for addressing a long lasting and a sustainable solution to these conflicts. Inclusion of human rights specialist and international relations skills in the mediation team may be fruitful to provide a lasting solution to prevailing challenges. In fact, such approach will encourage the growth of civil societies that are vital in the process of peacekeeping, mediation and conflict resolution. These standards ensure that the teams involve are impartial of neither side in the conflict. In addition, it is important for the reconciliation and peace building teams to engage in breaking the cycle of impunity in the war torn regions. Impunity has been the key driver of violence and massive killings of innocent people. The politics that are incorporated with the grouping of armed conflicts have most of the time brought led to the failure of international humanitarian law in achieving its key responsibilities. As a result of states’ interests, conflicts take place due to breaches of human rights that lead directly to death and destruction of property. For international humanitarian law to achieve its agreed on mandate, there is a need for the adoption of continuously evolving policies that caters for the dynamics of conflicts prevalent today. With the cases being concentrated in Africa, lasting solution should be enforced to ensure that the continent is secure and safe from attacking each other. An indiscriminate process in engaging these conflicts should be well structured and incorporate comprehensively all the relevant authorities. Preventive military operations should also be introduced to countries where violence is expected. In the case of Rwandan genocide, the UN was aware that there was increased enmity between the rival tribes and deployed a small group of peace keeping soldiers. Strict adherence to prevention would reduce the number of deaths experienced. In addition, it would control the situation within a short period hence encourage mediation talks. Bibliography Eli09: , (Mrema, et al., 2009, pp. 21-26), Gen13: , (Zyberi, 2013), Ray07: , (Murphy, 2007), Eli12: , (Wilmshurst, 2012), Tim06: , (McCormack & McDonald, 2006), Rod01: , (Grams, 2001), Uni02: , (United Nations, 2002), Rya13: , (Ryan Crocker, 2013), Siv12: , (Sivakumaran, et al., 2012), Rac11: , (Bohlen, 2011), Cat13: , (Gegout, 2013), Aid10: , (Hehir, 2010), Gar01: , (Evans & Sahnoun, 2001), Jus131: , (Morris, 2013 ), Vin11: , (Bernard, 2011), Bush, G. W. (2001), „Bush Announces Military Strikes in Afghanistan‟, 9 October, available online at www.usinfo. Org, accessed 27 July 2004 Bull, H. (1984b), Justice in International Relations (Ontario: Hagey Lectures, University of Waterloo). Caney, S. (1997), „Human Rights and the Rights of States: Terry Nardin on Nonintervention‟, International Political Science Review, 18(1) Chesterman, S. (2001), Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Read More