National Sovereignty and International Organizations - Essay Example

Introduction International organizations, the pillars of global governance, are the official sources of global amity that would keep all member nations in good humor. When we think of a democratic system, we normally interpret it as a governing system of the people, for the people and by the people. When it comes to international organizations, most of them proudly claim to go by the democratic pattern of administration. Similar to a democratic system, global governance is nothing but an international governing system of the world nations, for the world nations and by the world nations. In this backdrop, the objectives of global / international organizations should be in tune with both the ideology and requirements of majority of the member nations to see that the results of their programs and policies would benefit majority nations. Simply speaking, international organizations should strive to fulfill the aspirations of majority of the world population. But, as in most of the democratic countries, most of the international organizations too have been conspicuously playing to the tunes of their richest and strongest member nations downgrading their very global objectives. But it may be wrong to say that the 'objectives of any international organization are identical to those of its strongest members'. It can be true with most of the organizations but certainly you may find some exceptions. The UNO Each and every international organization is formed with certain highest global objectives. For that matter, no international organization's objectives can be localized or regionalized as the very purpose is global and international. The United Nations Organization (UNO) tops the list of international organizations and its objectives are crystal clear. When the UNO was formed in 1945 after the disastrous World War II, its objectives were boldly declared. The very first point in the Preamble of the UN charter talks about its determination to save succeeding generations from the repetitions of war (Internet, Charter of the United Nations). The UN's other objectives included respecting the equal rights of men and women all over the world, treating all big and small nations with equal respect and creating suitable conditions under which all nations abide by the international treaties and principles of international law and justice. According to the charter, these objectives should be achieved by establishing good neighborly relations among nations, solving problems through peaceful means, and not resorting to armed force except for in the common interests. These objectives, call them UN charter or law, are no doubt very sacred in letter but they have lost their much talked about sanctity in spirit and practice. Over a period of time, the UN has lost its independence due to the arm-twisting tactics of its strongest members. In fact, the very purpose of the launching of the UN was severely defeated with the formation of the Security Council in which certain member nations were endowed with veto powers. The UNO should function in the most democratic manner and go by the majority decisions of the General Assembly but this veto power through which a few countries could reject the majority decisions or impose their will on majority nations has seriously denied the UN its due role in achieving its objectives. The launching of the UN formed part of the beginning of the era of international law and justice but due to the bullying nature of some of its bigwig members, the implementation of international law too has run into rough weather. It is an acknowledged fact that the USA, the richest country of the world, is the strongest member of the UN (Thakur, 2006, p. 53). Over a period of time, the US forced the UN to act as per its whims and fancies turning the prestigious international organization into a puppet. The UN, supposed to be the instrument for the global peace, became an instrument in the hands of the America. The influence of the US in the running of the UN was such that the objectives of the latter have gradually become identical with those of the former. But this transformation is not voluntary on the part of the UN. It is the result of the machinations of the US as the strongest member of the global body. At certain times, the US has been resorting to the tactics of blackmailing and threatening to force the other member nations to fall in its line. This behavior of the US and the planned silence of the UN have only helped in the further deterioration of the relations among the member nations. Think of the Iraqi issue. To pass a resolution in the Security Council, 9 out of 15 members should vote in favor but when the US resolution to attack Iraq was defeated in the final vote in the Council, the Bush Administration, defying the UN will, declared war on Iraq but well before that, it forced the world nations to accept its point of view. Rossignol (2005, p.11) argues to convey that the US military action in Iraq had no genuine consent of the majority of the nations. But in the same tone he says that most of the world nations supported it because of their economic ties with the former. He specifically mentions that some countries including Mexico have complained of the US warnings that the nations unwilling to support the war idea would pay a heavy price ultimately. Because of these blackmailing and arm-twisting threats, some countries might have agreed to go along with the US. But ultimately as the Institute for Policy Studies (Internet, Bennis & Leaver, 2005) pointed out in its report, the US action in Iraq had deeply undermined the authority and credibility of the UN. The highly respected world body had to keep silent while the US war machine continued to create havoc in Iraq. These developments have created a situation where the UN had to toe the line of the US unknowingly identifying its objectives with those of the US, This is the result of a deliberate design being implemented in a systematic manner by the US. Even on Iran's nuclear issue, the US has been trying to corner the UN and convince it that Iran needs a lesson in shape of a war. China and Russia have openly criticized that the Security Council resolution introduced on Iran has eroded the confidence of Iran in the UN's impartiality (Internet, BBC news). Both Russia and China argued that the draft resolution resulted from the intentions of the US and its western partners to declare war against Iran. It has become a practice over the years for the UN to face such criticism. It is no exaggeration to say that the UN top leaders too have fallen in line with the US and behaved as if they were serving their American masters. The then Iraqi Vice President Taha Yaasin Ramadan accused the outgoing Secretary General of the UN of complicity with the US in the attack on Iraq (Walker, 2003, p.49-50). Annan has rightly pointed out in his last official speech that the present UN still reflects the UN of the 1945 (Stafford, 2006) and needs expansion and reforms. But he should have declared this long back and resigned from his plum post. The European Union (EU) Unlike the UN, the purview of the EU is limited to the European countries. Both are international organizations but while the UN is an overseeing and supervising authority for the implementation of all international agreements including the responsibility of preserving peace globally, the EU is the operational agency for implementing the unification policies enshrined in the EU charter. The EU also can be called a global organization for the entire comity of European nations trying for the European integration. While the sacred UN objectives are being derailed in a systematic manner by its strongest members, the final constitution of the EU is still in the making due to agreements and disagreements among its strongest member nations, even though its objectives are very clear. The EU has its own troubles, advantages and disadvantages too in fulfilling its objectives. But, it is really a welcome development that the EU has been gradually replacing the UN as an alternate international agency for maintaining peace and stability in the European region. The replacement of the NATO and the UN peace keeping forces with those of the EU in some troubled regions of the Europe has proved the relevance of this organization in the European continent (Drakulich, 2005, p.70). The objectives of the EU, as enshrined in its proposed constitution, are establishing peace, freedom, prosperity and solidarity among all the European nations (Morgan & Michael, 2003, p.96). But despite consistent efforts to achieve its objectives, the EU is bogged down in controversies putting a question mark on its future. The constitution, known as the constitutional entity and still evading consensus, proposes to replace all earlier EU treaties and outlines what it can do and what it cannot do in a single go. But there is a strong feeling among some member nations that the EU objectives and working rules are still favorable to the original six founding fathers of the organization Belgium, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, and Luxembourg (Internet, BBC news, 2004). That even after so many years of its launching and with its membership base expanding to 27 members with the latest admission of Romania and Bulgaria, the EU has been facing these controversies speaks of the absence of a full fledged democratic functioning in the EU administrative system. The Turkey's accession to the EU is still a pending issue. France once objected to its accession arguing that Turkey is not a European country and its admission would see the end of the EU. As latest as on December 17, 2006, its accession still remained a dispute and the EU bigwigs suspended talks of Turkey's accession enhancing the organization's controversial image (Internet, International). European newspapers are full of reports that the EU is divided into two groups as pro and anti-expansion blocks. Even in the latest summit at Brussels, the EU postponed its decisions on the sensitive justice and home affairs issues despite the best efforts by the Finnish EU presidency and the European Commission (Internet, Euro observer). Role of ICJ in disputes International Court of Justice (ICJ), a statutory and judicial body established under the charter of the UN in 1946 replacing the Permanent Court of International Justice is the global judicial authority operating from The Hague and settling international disputes arising among nations in the implementation of various global agreements. It plays a double role in the global judicial system in the sense that it settles international disputes and also renders judicial opinion sought by member nations on important issues (Amr, 2003, p.47). This highly respected institution is also part of the global governance and its aims and objectives are meant to see that various signatories to the global agreements would strictly adhere to them. Its responsibility also includes settling border and land disputes between nations when referred to it. Professor Lissitzyn (1951, pp. XVI, 118) aptly describes the International Court of Justice as 'an instrument for the maintenance of international peace and security.' Peace and security at international level get disturbed when countries feel offended thanks to the actions of other countries or when countries are bogged down in controversies in land disputes or in the implementation of global agreements. Most of the countries are always involved in some kind of dispute or other globally and the ICJ must act impartially to settle disputes amicably based on international law and justice when it is approached by the countries concerned. But unfortunately, this global governance organization dedicated to the protection of international law has also been facing allegations of partiality and loyalties in settling disputes, though we find some strong defenders too for its judgments. After it began its operations in 1946, it has settled some dozens of different cases. But as the allegations of partiality mounted against it, some institutions conducted research to verify the allegations. The University of Chicago is one such organization that conducted its research on the basis of statistics available and in a report discloses leanings on the part of ICJ based on different priorities (Posner & Figueiredo, 2005). The report outlines that there is strong evidence to say that the judges have been favoring countries which appointed them to the plum posts and countries whose financial status is equal to that of their own countries. The report also suggests that there is some evidence to suggest, though on a weaker level, that some judges have been favoring countries whose political system is similar to that of theirs and countries whose culture is very nearer to that of theirs. In my view, the ICJ can not be alleged to be partial in its working based on these findings as they do not stand scrutiny. The reason is that the judges of the ICJ have to hail from one country or the other and settlements or judgments must be in favor of one of those disputed countries. At certain times, a bench of the court could consist of two judges who might belong to two different countries involved in the dispute. And at certain times, the judge delivering the judgment may not be belonging to either of the disputed countries. In such a case, the allegation of partiality based on loyalties does not find logic. Proximity of financial status or cultural similarities of the countries also can not be cited to show partialities. For example, most of the European countries share similar cultural values. Majority of nations in a certain region share similar financial status too. When a dispute is settled in favor of one nation in a dispute involving two African countries with similar financial status, how can one describe partialities based on these yardsticks The ICJ can not therefore be attributed with the partialities in its judgments and settlements as there is every chance of it being accused of bias by the country losing the dispute. A clear example for this is the judgment given by the court in favor of Palestine in 2004 against the security wall built by Israel. (Internet, Introduction, 2004). This judgment forced the Israel Government to accuse the ICJ of partiality. In this case, the judgment was delivered by a two judge bench. One of them belongs to Japan and the other hails from the USA. Entire world knows that the USA has close relations with the Israel and yet his loyalty to his country or his country's relations with Israel could not influence this American judge to rule in favor of Israel. The allegations of bias against the ICJ are therefore without any reason and it can be safely said that the court has been striving to achieve its objectives and uphold its dignity without showing any fear or favor towards any country. International organizations and sovereignty of nations International organizations are made up of memberships by independent sovereign nations. Any international organization's existence would face a question mark when its members tend to disregard its authority in the international sphere. In the same token, a nation's sovereignty faces trouble if its views are not respected or taken into consideration by the concerned international organization. It would also lead to unnecessary mistrust and animosities among nations. The sovereignty issue should be studied in this backdrop. Of all the international organizations, the UN is the most universally accepted one and its charter, known as the San Francisco Charter, does not intend to impair the sovereignty of its member nations (Martinez, 1996, p.71). Martinez refers to the Law of International Institutions and points out that the UNO is not a supranational organization but only a traditional organization and does not intend to eat away the sovereignty of its member states. He however hastens to add that it nevertheless imposes certain restrictions on their freedom. In my view, there is much more to it than the above mentioned meaning. It is true that the UN in no way denigrates the sovereignty of its member nations directly but as the guardian of the freedom of member nations, it should take full responsibility for protecting their sovereignty. Instead of observing silence, the UN must take suitable steps to see that each member nation respects the other members irrespective of their financial status and international standing without which the very purpose and objectives of the UN go unfulfilled. The UN must use its chartered powers to protect the sovereignty and integrity of smaller nations against the aggressive and threatening postures of some bigwig countries. The entire world knows that the USA has been forcing the Iran Government to give up its nuclear weapons program by hook or crook. The reasons are very clear. The US leadership fears that Iran might use its nuclear weapons against its soil and populations. But it is not allowing the Iran leadership to entertain and cite the same reasons of 'fear of threat' for its going ahead with its nuclear program. By playing the role of a mere observer and allowing the US to unleash threat after threat against Iran, the UN is turning into a catalyst that would gradually undermine the sovereignty of smaller nations. By satisfying itself with the role of an observer, it is trying to prove the words of Martinez (1996, p.81) who thoroughly dismisses the argument of the International Court of Justice that the UN has implied powers to act against erring countries. Martinez rightfully argues that the so called implied powers of UN lacked constitutional support. He concludes that there is no provision in the UN Charter that bestows on it the much talked about implied powers to act against faltering member nations. ECOSOC, IMF/ World Bank The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are also the instruments of global governance. They can be described as the economic, financial and monetary wings of the UN respectively and have their independent programs and policies being implemented from time to time as per their objectives. The objectives of the ECOSOC are conducting international level discussions off and on with regard to economic and social issues affecting the world and formulating policy recommendations for the member states and the UN (Internet, UN economic and social council). There are no clear reports on how far this broader economic and social wing of the UN has been able to fulfill its objectives. A deeper research is required to study how its recommendations are being implemented in different countries and at the international level. But its 2006 High Level Segment made recommendations to all member countries of the UN to make the full and productive employment and decent work as the main and central objective of their national employment policies. The World Bank, popularly known as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and IMF are the brotherly financial institutions governing the global financial and monetary matters. The World Bank, originally the brain child of the American officials, now caters to the needs of majority of the countries. Economic affairs analysts point out that the World Bank's original objective was to help in the reconstruction of the Europe (Internet, Hardy) with the objectives gradually changing to help in the developmental process of the developing countries too. He explains that these changes in its objectives took place, not overnight but in a period of more than 50 years. The World Bank must be appreciated for reaching out to the small and big countries as well but its conditions to finance the developmental projects in various counties are attracting criticism across the globe. In fact the fiscal reforms in various countries involving the removal of subsidies began gradually with the directions of the World Bank only (Gelb, 2000, p.187). This part of the reforms has been causing distress to some sections of societies in developing countries. I strongly feel that the reform process must be beneficial to all sections of people and not to some classes. Conclusion The role of international organizations in the global governance has been increasing day by day but the institutions involved in this governance have certain objectives to achieve and certain policies to implement to achieve those objectives. No international organization should behave as per the whims and fancies of some dominating member nations as it would cause heartburn to some countries. The objectives of all international organizations are aimed at growth and development of all countries. When these objectives are hijacked to the advantage of certain countries, the existence of these organizations faces a question mark. This is the prime reason that we find a ever growing demand for reforms in the UN. Bibliography Books: Amr, Mohamed Samesh M 2003, The role of the international court of justice as the principle judicial organ of the united nations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Netherlands. Drakulich, Angela 2005, A global agenda 2005-2006: Issues before the 59 general assembly of the United Nations, United Nations publications. Gelb, Alan H 2000, Can Africa claim the 21st century: English, World Bank Publications. Lissitzyn, Oliver J 1951, The international court of justice: Its role in the maintenance of international peace and security, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York. Martinez, Magdalena M. Martin 1996, National Sovereignty and international organizations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Netherlands. Morgan, Roger & Michael, Roger 2003, Choice and representation in the EU, The Federal Trust for Education and Research, London. Rossignol, Don 2005, Guilty or Innocent: People vs. the Bush Administration, Trafford Publishing, Victoria, Canada. Thakur, Ramesh. 2006, The United Nations, Peace and Security: From collective security to the responsibility to protect, Cambridge University Press. Walker, Martin 2003, The Iraq war: As witnessed by the Correspondents and photographers of the United Press International, Brassey's publishing, USA. Journals, news paper reports and articles Posner, Eric A & Figueiredo, Miguel F.P.de 2005, 'Is the court of international justice biased', The Journal of Legal Studies, volume 34 (2005) pp. 599-630. Stafford, Margaret 2006, 'Kofi Annan criticizes US policy in his last speech', Press Telegram, 11 December. Internet BBC news, "Q & A: EU constitution.", http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3252628.stm ( accessed on 17 /12/2006). BBC news, "Criticism of UN Iran draft mounts", http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4979832.stm, (accessed on 19 /12/2006). Bennis, Phyllis, Leaver, Eric & the IPS Iraq Task Force, 2005, "The Iraq Quagmire: The Mounting Costs of War and the Case for Bringing Home the Troops", http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/ accessed on 17 /12/2006). Charter of the United Nations, "Preamble", http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ accessed on 17 /12/2006). Euro observer, "New EU 'consensus' over enlargement highly fragile", http://euobserver.com/ accessed on 17 /12/2006). Hardy, Jean. "The history and changing objectives of the World Bank", http://www.greenspirit.org.uk/resources/WorldBank.htm (accessed on 19 /12/2006). International, "Tony Blair goes on Mideast Tour after Turkey", http://www.zaman.com/bl=international&trh=20061216&alt=&syf=butun (accessed on 17 /12/2006). Introduction , "International Court of Justice - Ruling on Israeli Security Wall - Justice Owada -concurring opinion July 9, 2004", http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/ICJ_owada.htm accessed on 18 /12/2006). UN economic and social council, "Background", http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/ecosoc_background.html accessed on 19 /12/2006). Read More