Examine and Assess the View that Relationships between States Lack Order - Essay Example

? Examine and assess the view that relationships between s lack order Introduction The international order of the 21st century is radically different from that of the period prior to end of World War II. In this essay, I will argue that the relationships between states lack order. States cannot be considered to be projected on an equal platform as some states are more privileged and bear more responsibilities compared to others. Whereas the universal principle promotes the sovereignty of states, the rights that can be enjoyed by either state are not exclusive. A Short History of Relationships between States One of the prominent aspects in the period before 19th Century was privateering as a chief means of perpetrating violence. A privateer refers to a hired pirate by the state. In mid 19th century, the popular notion concerning employment of privateers changed; the practice was considered as counterproductive. This marked the end of state sanctioned private violence characterized by a steady suppression of private forms of violence by sovereign states (Bromley 2009, p.398). Ever since late 19th century, international law as well as diplomatic custom and practice fundamentally shifted towards recognizing the rights of states to make war and peace. States can hold each other responsible for acts of violence commissioned by each other’s citizen abroad. Pirates are not only subject to territorial or national jurisdiction, but also universal jurisdiction. From 19th Century onwards, states imposed principles of jurisdiction grounded in territoriality and nationality (Hume 1994, p.154). Guiding Principles between States Universal jurisdiction infers the right of any state to prosecute crimes committed by whomever and wherever and devoid of reference to any connection to the territory or nationality (Bromley 2009, p. 405). Some of the crimes falling under the universal jurisdiction include piracy, slave trade, hijacking, war crimes, genocide, and international terrorism. Territorial jurisdiction, on the other hand, infers the notion that countries possess the privilege to sustain their own laws within their own territories irrespective of whether the offences against the laws are orchestrated by nationals or foreigners (Lowenheim 2007, p. 24). The aspect of territorial jurisdiction consolidates the statement that relationships between states lack order. This is manifested by the notion of being “home” and “abroad”. What may be legal in a country may not be expressly so in another. National jurisdiction refers to the principle where a state asserts the right to execute its laws to its nationals wherever they are located territorially, sometimes independently of the applicable laws in territories held by citizens. In this case, nationals may be charged at home concerning an activity they did abroad. This is informed by the fact that states claim and advocate the nationality principle as what is “home” or “abroad” is not a concise phenomenon with the distinction between the two remaining blurred. This exhibits a lack of order in relationships between countries (Malmvig 2006, p.80). The above principles of territorial, national, and universal jurisdiction often lack coherence. The relationships between states lack order. This is compounded by the tension between territorial and national principles and the principle of universality. The principle of universality can only hold where there is uniform agreement on what is to be proscribed and permitted. This is espoused by proscribed violations such as piracy, slave trade, hijacking, war crimes, genocide, and international terrorism. These violations mainly embody breach of widely accepted norms. Nevertheless, in many cases, other aspects are subject to legal regulation whereby states are widely reluctant to endorse the principle of universality arising from fear of undermining their own territorial and national interests (Lowenheim 2007, p.22). The UN represents the wishes of the international community and is the guardian of the norms and rules developed and practised by its member states. The mandate of the UN encompasses promotion of the rights of all individuals regardless of the territory or nationality. Secondly, UN is based on the idea of sovereign equality, which infers that each state should recognize and respect the legitimacy of other states to govern and represent their territories and populations in respect to international order. Sovereign equality represents a formal notion in tandem with international law and organizations. Sovereign equality and mutual recognition also encompass states holding one another accountable for the violence that may be commissioned from their territories. Sovereign equality is crucial, especially when recognized and respected by other states, as it avails a set of privileges and responsibilities within the international community. Consequently, states possess formal equality (diplomatic and legal sense) under international law (Bromley 2009, p.412). The UN has formalized the rights and duties of the powerful states within the UN Security Council. UN Security Council is the most powerful authority within the organization. Each of the permanent members has a veto whereby any of the members can stop any proposed resolution of the Security Council. In essence, any of the permanent members (USA, UK, Russia, China, and France) can stop a proposed resolution of the Security Council. The UN Charter demands that states refrain in international relations from exercising their inalienable right of defending their territorial integrity or political independence; this should be until the Security Council has executed measures directed at maintaining international peace and security (Bromley 2009, p.411). Individual states are denied their rights as the determination of when and where force lies with the Security Council. This can be visualized as UN recognizing rights of individual states in one hand while at the same time taking the same rights. The UN, via its charter and operation of the Security Council, determines the conditions for international peace and security. This demonstrates that relationships between states are short of order since their international relations and rights are subject to approval from the powerful nations that comprise the Security Council. The exercising of vetoes complicates matters as resolutions that are favoured by the majority can be blocked by a single member of the Security Council (Bromley 2009, p.410). UN Security Council enjoys the right to map conditions of international peace and security. Since every Security Council decision requires unanimity among the permanent members, change is constrained as each of the states can decide for itself while holding the rest at ransom. States argue that, just as principles of the international community apply to international security, any state can actively participate in other people’s conflicts. The borderline for involvement in another nation’s conflict is, however, elusive and is scantly defined. For instance, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has engaged in various conflicts such as Libya. Engagement in such conflicts is touted as “a just war,” which is not inspired by territorial ambitions, but commonly held values to terminate appalling crimes committed in another country during conflicts (Gow 2005, p.4). There may be reasonable justification, especially in the intervention in another country’s affairs during times of conflict. Any direct challenge on a nation’s principles of state sovereignty and mutual recognition, especially on the authority of the state as a superpower, mainly leads to intervention. This is manifested by U.S.-Afghanistan invasion. The problem with this precedent arises when a powerful country seeks a regime change in another country. This renders the relationship between the two states to lack order. The lack of a definite definition of universal jurisdiction has unsettled the order between states. For instance, the question of whether a violation of basic human rights in a certain country warrant outside intervention. As demonstrated, the statutes that establish international relations are not clear cut and continue to undermine relationships between states (Malmvig 2006, p.77). The rule or norm of international order (universal jurisdiction) is confusing as it fatally compromises domestic sovereignty, especially to the principles of territoriality or nationality. The lack of coherence in the legal and diplomatic principles defining countries jurisdictions contributes to lack of order in the relationships between various countries. This is the cause of antagonism between states, which explicitly plays out in the UN Security Council. States do not always agree on the time that legitimate force should be used as exhibited by Iraq invasion in 2003 (Bromley 2009, p. 408). Moreover, some states such as U.S have used force devoid of authorization by the UN Security Council. This is a direct assault on international relations and questions the legitimacy of UN Security Council. What complicates this argument is that the supposed violators of the international code go scot free. This strains and ruins the relationships between states since some feel cheated by the perceived double standards (Gow 2005, p.3). This reinforces my argument that relationships between states lack order. Conclusion The lack of order between states is demonstrated by the fact each state regards its own use of force as legitimate; however, this view may not be shared across the other states. Relationships between states are disjointed as espoused by an ambiguous definition of what sovereignty constitutes. This is compounded by the fact that states do not always share identical characteristics. The lack of coherence of the shared principles breeds anarchy. Relationships between states are calculative, manipulative, and cosmetic. Each state calculates its actions accordingly to align with its interests. States adopt a pattern of interaction characterized by power balancing to reinforce political independence of states and foster peace. References List Bromley, S. (2009). ‘Pirates and predators: Authority and power in international affairs, in Bromley, S., Clarke, J., Hinchliffe, S. and Taylor, S. (eds) Exploring Social Lives, London, The Open University. pp. 398-412. Gow, J. (2005). Defending the West, Cambridge, Polity Press. pp.2-4. Hume, D. (1994). Of the balance of power in Hume: Political essays (ed. K. Haakonssen), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. pp. 154-160. Lowenheim, O. (2007). Predators and parasites: Persistent agents of transnational harm and great power authority, Michigan, University of Michigan Press. pp. 21-25. Malmvig, H. (2006). State sovereignty and intervention: A discourse analysis of interventionary practices in Kosovo and Algeria, New York, Routledge. pp. 77-82. Read More