International Law and Treaties - Essay Example

Introduction This study is concerned about the influence of great opinionated powers on international law. It reflects that law has never been a free lancer that can take decisions on its own. It has been a common exercise that every country having more political influence around the globe wants the world to be according to its perception. It is simple like municipal law, where a guilty body commits some crime and the intention behind that crime is to make things in its favor and as a consequence it gets penalized. On the other hand, international law is confusing because in it that guilty politically powerful state is so much authoritative that it can make use of law to pave its ways towards survival. Precisely, it has the capability to mould the jurisdiction according to its desire and enforce it to prevent any operation globally that it cannot stop without any legal procedure. History Of International Law Basic function of international law is to bring peace and calm around the glob. In the primitive ages when the world was not much civilized, there used to be constant wars usually for land acquisition, to strengthen an empire or an urge to conquer a vast area in order to leave a distinctive mark on the fabric of history. In those days it was easier to manage the municipal criminological affairs as compared to today's world, because the states had powers to handle the local problems. But unlike today, there lacked a system to manage peace among nations or states because the reason could be an intense sense of self esteem and great height of confidence on armies. Hence, the rulers preferred to ruin the weaker states and hold them under their empire. In this way they used to kill the peace and bust the basic human rights. As the time passed and with the development of human intellect, church began to mediate the international disputes. Particularly in the era when nations had a fashion to self govern themselves, church was the supreme power to handle international and to some extent local problems. This practice was also undertaken in ancient civilizations such as Greeks and Egyptian civilizations. Modern international law is often affirmed as a product of modern European civilization as well as Egyptian Pharaohs entered into treaties of alliance, peace extraditions, and the treatment of envoys with neighboring kings as early as the 14th century. But they could not make an adjustment with European law by all means. As a result the purpose of peace remained disputed. As Becker (2006, p.149) says, "International law is the product of special civilization of the Europe and forms a highly artificial system of which principles were not understood by civilizations differently civilized" Concept Of Sovereignty Further consolidations brought the international law to a phase where the idea of sovereignty came into existence. It was considered that peace was the major ingredient for the survival and progress. So in 15th century a new trend evolved, and that was, representatives of all the nations were gathered under one roof and every issue was resolved on the basis of treaties and debates rather than wars or by the use of powers. So in other words the trend of domestic law was reshaped into a broad spectrum or in modern sense international law. In the 14th and 15th centuries there was a modification that rather than self governing the states used to send their representative that reflects the problems of state in front of the sovereign authority and then a common treaty was passed in consent with all the representatives. Their motive used to be to avoid war and bring more peace. During 14th and 15th centuries the practice of establishing resident missions started in Italy. By this time the practice of arguing in front of adversary's council or assembly had apparently become obsolete. The envoy was expected to be in constant touch with receiving sovereign and to join or oppose intrigues in order to safeguard the interests of his master. Murty (1989, p4) demonstrates, "during the following two centuries, the institution of resident diplomatic mission spread to other parts of the Europe, and the French were the leading part in its evolution". So during these centuries the concept prevailed in Europe and French and a tradition that emphasizes the importance of good faith in negotiations was switched on. Also Joyner (2005, p16) quotes that, "The sovereign authority made decisions on the basis of what it believed the law should be, presumably through the prisms of justice, reason and morality". International Law In Modern Ages Every age had a will to bring peace for its future generations and many of them thrive hard for the attainment of this goal by applying different concepts of law. For example, the independent state law and the law of sovereignty. But it was impossible to prevent the war by all means because the lust of more and illusion of power knows no rule and order. All they knew was to make use of their powers. Until the beginning of 20th century this rule of treaties was practiced by the nations. Actually these treaties were there to prevent the conflicts among the states or in other words to prevent the wars. But again they were under pressure of leading nations like Russia, U.S., etc. when these nations realized that any thing from their opponents is becoming a threat or can harm their survival they just used to pass treaty to abandon the undesired act by other nations. But on the contrary they were free to violate the laws and mould them and remold them. By doing this again a reason of dispute was seeded that germinated in the form of world war -1, after this war again the need of peace was felt and a new plan was put forward that was given the name of "League of Nation". The idea behind this league was of U.S president but the wrangling of congress did not allow United States to join this League of Nation. Again this League of Nation happened to be a weaker survivor and could not bring peace and the world war-2 started off. As the war ended, again the need of peace was recognized and as a result of this need a new institution was established called United Nations, this was exactly like the same concept as was applied in 17th century when the representatives of the nations were gathered together in order to prevent war and resolve the issues by negotiations. Hence a new world order was established that is still in practice. Role Of United Nations The aim of all the above mentioned peace making efforts remained the elimination of war. The war can only be eliminated if there is no concept of armies. But is it possible that violations can ever be stopped without the use of force It is again a question for the world's thinking tank that, if they eliminate armies how they could be able to prevail peace, according to White (2005, p10), "war is the continuation of politics by other means into a society where a world order would reign supreme." For this purpose, the laws of war were spread on the basis of United Nations charter. The major issue involved in these laws was the prohibition of nuclear material. White (2005, p10) propounds that the United Nations was formed to " organize international cooperation in a coherent fashion by bringing the united nations, invested with powers of general scope, into relationship with various autonomous and complementary organizations, invested with secretarial powers". The new face of civilized threat is the use of nuclear and biological weapons. This race was started in Russia and United States. After they were finished with their experiments with these technologies, they become more powerful and threatening for other nations particularly for those entities where these experiments were still in process. After performing a successful experiment of nuclear force on Japan the use of nuclear technologies was banned. A treaty was established that any one found to be involved in nuclear proliferations would be liable to get penalized. But, what about that experiment, that has done with Japan. And the consequences of which had to be tolerate by next generations of Japan for a long time. Is it so simple to establish a treaty after an intensive massacre International law has been going through transformations as a result of the phenomena that, in response to the specific demands of the newly independent states who have sought to remold or reject certain principles of international law where as law is only seen by them only protecting the rights of the western capital exporting nations which are exclusively responsible for the establishment of traditional law. As told by Lugo (1996, p.12) "self preserving states will never do any thing that would permanently detract them from their autonomous nature." Again it was a customary practice that was in practice in 14th century where states used to self govern. Is United Nations a Problem Solver Let us talk about South Asia, where recent trials against Afghanistan and Iraq have again raised security and peace questions for United Nations. The root of all these issues originates from 9 September incident. The dilemma of we people is that we only overlook the scenario and do not consider the bone of contention. Isn't it odd that only terrorism is getting a rise against the powerful political divines Why the terrorists are only concerned with destructions of these powerful nations. It is similar to the rebellions responsible for the fall of nations in the past. The purpose of these rebellions used to be to provide opposition a space to breath easy. One of the purposes of law of wars under the charter of United Nations is to prevent war for the acquisition of land or territory and should not include unnecessary destruction. But if we look in the recent coalition trails against Afghanistan the reason was purely political. And the destruction was main intention behind, by utilizing the full political influence and tailoring the United Nation as a spade to dig the threat of rebel. According to MacDonald and Johnston (1983, p.1001), "The Newly independent states emphasize, for example, the need for the elimination of outdated and unjust treaties by which colonial powers were guaranteed advantageous positions and assured economic, political and military privileges". Now here in this case, is it a commonsense that rather doing negotiations a straightforward war motive to kill was started in the name of to prevent terrorism. Who is older here; the law or the political powers Of course the political powers are responsible. Today a central sovereign does exists then why these powers are not challenged, just because of the fact they are the potent ingredient of sovereignty or in other words sovereignty is under their hold. In case of Iraq there was a charge that Iraq has found guilty in nuclear and biological proliferations. Now this is again a debate able issue that how U.S knew there exists a nuclear proliferation, of course by the use of spies. On the other hand there are clear punishments for spies in United Nation charter reflecting that they would be liable to kill if found working for personal interests of states and stealing the private secrets of nations. Keeping apart these phenomena about which no step were taken, Iraq was told to stop this operation or get ready for a war. Millions of people were killed in this war which was led by U.S. and U.K. in the name of aggressive attitude of Iraq towards foreign policy. United Nation followed the U.S. view point because it has Vito the Iraq. According to Danchev and MacMillan (2005, p131) "O. Burkman and J. Borger: war critics astonished as U.S. hawk admits invasion was illegal" and more he says " Tony Blair has made strong points to reform the UN and perhaps the international law". Again, the intention was not nuclear proliferation but the oil. So for attaining personal interest in terms of oil, millions of people were transformed into ice due to shortage of food, diseases, military strikes and many other factors. This is confusing whether the self interests are the main purpose of United Nation or the accommodation of peace. The concept of obeying a sovereign has been transformed into self interest of nations. So was this an experiment again Who is bigger the law or the subjects When the world politics will come out of this controversy And will quit playing games in the name of peace and will stop having personal benefits in the hide of a central sovereign. Discourse on issues of international law must be couched in language that allows everyone affected by its operation to make its voice heard, fully to grasp arguments invoked by others and thus to engage in meaningful dialogue permitting to highlight on a common basis of understanding any controversial issues. Bogdandy, (2006), "Discourse on what is right or wrong must be crystal-clear and should not fall into the hands of a few magicians who invariably are able to prove that law and justice are on their side". International Law: A Controversy The future of international law has again become the domestic law. The local governments has started copying the international political fashion, that in order to achieve personal benefits weak subjects are playing the role of scapegoats. The reason could be the justifications presented after September 11 incident, where it was projected that the virulent feature was non-state actor. Again this is the emerging aspect which was put forward by the great politics in front of United Nations. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were launched by a group of non-state actors operating from within the territory of Afghanistan; the massive ethnic crimes in Rwanda, Congo, and Sudan are, in large part, the product of rebel forces within states; the most dangerous examples of nuclear proliferation can often be attributed to non-state criminal networks such as those of A. Q. Khan. As Becker (1998, P.352) describe, "The state may hope to clandestinely achieve its own objectives while claiming that the terrorism was the product of private initiative unconnected to the state." Practical of this was performed by trails against Afghanistan. Here a new debate came into existence that in the name of satisfying the international law, states have started to extract there personal benefits. Now as a matter of fact basic function of United Nations was to bring peace and prevent killing and useless wars and also to stop destructions. Is it being met by the political bodies and nations The answer is: No it is not. So what is this central sovereignty working for, to stop nuisance or to portrait the present picture of the glob according to the will of political influences. Future Of International Law The law is considered as law. In recent times surgical operations are being performed on it to make it favorable for certain entities and on the other hand make it a curse for others. As we perceive from the above discussions that present international law is being questioned by every affected territory. The possible reason is to a greater extent the influence of Sovereign international powers and to some extent the inter-state problems. These inter state problems include limited economical resources, increased population, enhancing frustration due to shortage of jobs, lack of technologies, diseases and many more. The efforts have now taken a new dimension that rather putting questions on international bodies it is need to strengthen the inter-state jurisdiction. But this is again not being implemented accordingly. States have found a new tool and are using it to drag their personal benefits rather than listening to the people and strengthening their political structure. Mullerson and Fitzamaurice (1996, p.34) have a view that, "the system proposed by the constitutional commission is complicated, it does not resolve all problems but creates new one". Conclusion Actually it has become the human nature, that whosoever, is provided with the power to rule uses this power for its own interests. Or in other words starts thinking that law are for him but he is not for the laws. So this debate would never be ended unless self awareness would not be groomed individually. No system can bring this prosperity within nations unless they would not consider it by themselves. If these practices prolonged and the coordination among states remained absent, the future of international law would undoubtedly remain blurred. Ambiguity would persist and violations and nuisance would never come to an end. Hence, the need of future international law is sincerity but not the introduction of any new treaty or any distinct jurisdiction. Unless these things would be absent the sense of live and let live would not grow up the recipe of international would remain incomplete. And this would always lead towards confusion and destruction. Cooperation and coordination by custom have natural limits and treaties can help overcome some of these limits. They do so by clarifying the nature of the moves that will count as cooperative actions in repeated prisoner's dilemmas and as coordination in coordination games. Institutions associated with treaties domestic ratification processes and the default rules of treaty interpretation can also provide valuable information that promotes cooperation and coordination more effectively than international law. There are still limits what treaties can achieve, limits determined by the configuration of state interests, the distribution of state powers, the logic of collective action, and asymmetric information. It follows that some global problems may simply be unsolvable. This is a depressing conclusion, but is consistent with all we know of human history. This would be on the go unless there lasts an imbalance between the powers of the nations and this is the prime purpose of the United Nation to act as buffer among the nations in order to avoid those issues arising due to difference in powers. The intention behind this study was not to exhaust the subject of international law. Some of empirical and descriptive claims made in this study about international law and treaties are controversial and might turn out to be wrong or incomplete. It might turn out that there are robust international law and treaties that solve multi-state collective action problems, it has not been found any but other scholars might. But it can be estimated that this study has underlined the merits and demerits of international law and has scrutinized, unrevealed the foundations of international law. References: AlexDanchev and John MacMillan. (2005). The Iraq War And Democratic Politics, Routledge publishers. 131-133 Bogdandy, ( 2006). "Comparative Visions of Global Public Order", Harvard International Law Journal. Vol.2(Winter, 2006). 1-10 Bhagevatula Satyanarayana Murty. (1989). The International Law of Diplomacy: The diplomatic instrument and world public order, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 4-5 Christopher C. Joyner. (2005). International Law in the 21st Century: Rules for Global Governance, Rowman & Littlefield. 16-18 Luis E. Lugo. (1996). Sovereignty at the Crossroads: Morality and International Politics in the Post-Cold War Era, Rowman & Littlefield publishers 12-13. Nigel D. White. (2002). The United Nations System: Toward International Justice,Lynne, Rienner Publishers. 10-12 Rein Mllerson, Malgosia Fitzmaurice. (1998). Terrorism and the State: Rethinking the Rules of State Responsibility, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 352-354 Ronald Saint John MacDonald, Douglas M. Johnston. (1983). The Structure and Process of International Law: Essays in Legal Philosophy, Doctrine, and Theory, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 1001-1003 Tal. Becker. (2006). The Paradox of Consensualism in International Law, Hart Publishing. 149-151 White, (2006). "The Future of International Law Is Domestic", Harvard International Law Journal. Vol.1 (Summer, 2006). 1-10 Read More