NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Analysis of International Law International law is the body of legal rules that apply between sovereign states and such other entities as have been granted international personality (status acknowledged by the international community). The rules of international law are of a normative character, that is, they prescribe towards conduct, and are potentially designed for authoritative interpretation by an international judicial authority and by being capable of enforcement by the application of external sanctions. The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, which succeeded the Permanent Court of International Justice after World War II. Article 92 of the charter of the United Nations states: The International Court of justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United nations.
It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter. The commands of international law must be those that the states impose upon themselves, as states must give consent to the commands that they will follow. It is a direct expression of raison data, the interests of the state, and aims to serve the state, as well as protect the state by giving its rights and duties. This is done through treaties and other consensual engagements which are legally binding. The case-law of the ICJ is an important aspect of the UNs contribution to the development of international law. Its judgements and advisory opinions permeates into the international legal community not only through its decisions as such but through the wider implications of its methodology and reasoning.
The successful resolution of the border dispute between Burkina Faso and Mali in the 1986 Frontier Dispute case illustrates the utility of judicial decision as a means of settlement in territorial disputes. The case was submitted to a Chamber of the ICJ pursuant to a special agreement concluded by the parties in 1983. In December 1985, while written submissions were being prepared, hostilities broke out in the disputed area. A cease-fire was agreed, and the Chamber directed the continued observance of the cease-fire, the withdrawal of troops within twenty days, and the avoidance of actions tending to aggravate the dispute or prejudice its eventual resolution.
Both Presidents publicly welcomed the judgement and indicated their intention to comply with it. In the Fisheries Jurisdiction case (United Kingdom v. Iceland, 1974) the ICJ contributed to the firm establishment in law of the idea that mankind needs to conserve the living resources of the sea and must respect these resources. The Court observed: It is one of the advances in maritime international law, resulting from the intensification of fishing, that the former laissez-faire treatment of the living resources of the sea in the high seas has been replaced by a recognition of a duty to have due regard of the rights of other States and the needs of conservation for the benefit of all.
Consequently, both parties have the obligation to keep index review the fishery resources in the disputed waters and to examine together, in the light of scientific and other available information, the measures required for the conservation and development, and equitable exploitation, of these resources, taking into account any international agreement in force between them, such as the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention of 24 January 1959, as well as such other agreements as may be reached in the matter in the course of further negotiation. The Court also held that the concept of preferential rights in fisheries is not static. This is not to say that the preferential rights of a coastal State in a special situation are a static concept, in the sense that the degree of the coastal States preference is to be considered as for ever at some given moment. On the contrary, the preferential rights are a function of the exceptional dependence of such a coastal State on the fisheries in adjacent waters and may, therefore, vary as the extent of that dependence changes. The Courts judgement on this case contributes to the development of the law of the sea by recognizing the concept of the preferential rights of a coastal state in the fisheries of the adjacent waters, particularly if that state is in a special situation with its population dependent on those fisheries. Moreover, the Court proceeds further to recognise that the law pertaining to fisheries must accept the primacy of the requirement of conservation based on scientific data.
The exercise of preferential rights of the coastal state, as well as the historic rights of other states dependent on the same fishing grounds, have to be subject to the overriding consideration of proper conservation of the fishery resources for the benefit of all concerned. Some cases in which sanctions are threatened, however, see no actual implementation. The United States, for example, did not impose measures on those Latin American states that nationalized privately owned American property, despite legislation that authorizes the President to discontinue aid in the absence of adequate compensation. Enforcement measures are not the sole means of UN sanction. Skeptics of the coercive theory of international law note that forceful sanctions through the United Nations are limited to situations involving threats to the peace, breaches of peace, and acts of aggression. In all other instances of noncompliance of international law, the charters own general provisions outlawing the threat or use of force actually prevent forceful sanction.
Those same skeptics regard this as an appropriate paradox in a decentralized state system of international politics. Nonetheless, other means of collective sanction through the UN involve diplomatic intervention and economic sanctions. In 1967 the Security Council decided to isolate Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) for its policy of racial separation following its unilateral declaration of independence from Britain. As in other cases of economic sanctions, effectiveness in the Rhodesian situation was limited by the problems of achieving universal participation, and the resistance of national elites to external coercion. With respect to universal participation, even states usually sympathetic to Britains policy demonstrated weak compliance.
The decentralization of sanctions remains one of the major weaknesses of international law. Although international bodies sometimes make decisions in the implementation of sanctions, member states must implement them. The states are the importers and exporters in the international system. They command industrial economies and the passage of goods across national boundaries. Furthermore, the UN is wholly dependent on its members on operating funds, so no matter what decisional authority its members give it, its ability to take action not only depends on its decision but also on means. Without the support, the wealth and the material assistance of national governments, the UN is incapable of effective sanctions.
The resistance of governments to a financially independent UN arises principally on their insistence on maintaining control over sanctioning processes in international politics. Despite sweeping language regarding threats to peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression, the role of the United Nations in the enforcement of international law is quite limited. Indeed the purpose of the UN is not to enforce international law, but to preserve, restore and ensure political peace and security. The role of the Security Council is to enforce that part of international law that is either created or encompassed by the Charter of the United Nations. When aggression occurs, the members of the Council may decide politically but are not obliged legally to undertake collective action that will have sanctioning result. In instances of threats to or breaches of the peace short of war, they may decide politically to take anticipatory action short of force.
Moreover, it is for the members of the Security Council to determine when a threat to peace, a breach of peace, or an act of aggression has occured. Even thi determination is made on political rather than legal criteria. The Security Council may have a legal basis for acting, but self-interest determines how each of it members votes, irrespective of how close to aggression the incident at issue may be. Hence by virtue of both its constitutional limitations and the exercise of sovereign prerogatives by its members, the security councils role as a sanctioning device in international law is sharply restricted.
As the subject matter of the law becomes more politicized, states are less willing to enter into formal regulation, or do so only with loopholes for escape from apparent constraints. In this area, called the law of community, governments are generally less willing to sacrifice their sovereign liberties. In a revolutionary international system where change is rapid and direction unclear, the integrity of the law of community is weak, and compliance of its often flaccid norms is correspondingly uncertain. The law of the political framework resides above these other two levels and consists of the legal norms governing the ultimate power relations of states. This is the most politicized level of international relations; hence pertinent law is extremely primitive. Those legal norms that do exist suffer from all the political machinations of the states who made them.
States have taken care to see that their behaviour is only minimally constrained; the few legal norms they have created always provide avenues of escape such as the big-power veto in the UN Security Council. Despite the many failures and restrictions of international law, material interdependence, especially among the states of equivalent power, may foster the growth of positive legal principles. In addition, as friendships and entities change, , some bilateral law may cease to be observed among new entities, but new law may arise among new friends who have newfound mutual interests. In the meantime, some multicultural law may have been developed. Finally, research suggests that the social effects of industrialization are universal and that they result in interracial tolerances that did not exist during periods of disparate economic capability.
On social, political, ane economic grounds, therefore, international law is intrinsic to the transformation and modernization of the international system, even though the law of the political context has remained so far. [ Back To the Top ] [ Essay Search ] [ Cyber Essays Home ] Statement on the Iraq Bombing Join the Demonstration in Austin by Andrei Buckareff [Demonstration in Austin: Friday, January 8 th, 11: 45 am at the downtown Post Office, 510 Guadalupe] The decision on the part of our President to bomb Iraq, and the determination of congress to stand behind this decision, should raise a plethora of questions in the minds of the American people regarding the wisdom of our so-called leaders in matters regarding foreign policy. For the last eight years our country has waged a war against the people of Iraq in the name of ridding the world of a tyrant tyrant, lest we forget, that the United States supported and kept in power throughout the 1980 s. While our leaders have stomped their feet and vituperated the Iraqi leadership for their horrendous record on human rights, they remain woefully silent about the fact that they did not raise such a stink during the 1980 s when Hussein used poison gas against the Kurds (no doubt using weapons technologies we supplied). Now that the red threat is gone, in the spirit of National Security Council Document No. 68 (dated April 14, 1950), the U. S. feels that it has an incumbent duty to remain the dominant controller / police officer of the world.
The document states that Even if there were no Soviet Union we would face the great problem... [that] the absence of order among nations is becoming less and less tolerable. Moreover, as William Appleman Williams noted, the prosperity of the nation and the military industrial complex was / is predicated upon this perceived threat: ... pointing to the experience of World War II... NSC- 68 confidently predicted that the increase in military spending would prevent the possibility of any socially and politically explosive real decrease in the standard of living. So bombing Iraq, and keeping Iraq as our number one pariah, provides us with an excuse to keep the military-industrial-capitalist-complex going.
The blood of innocent Iraqis provides the oil for the machine, and the industrial bourgeoisie are the chief beneficiaries. This most recent incident, then, should come as no surprise in light of our countrys initiatives in the past and interests in the present. Finally, in the spirit of the cynicism Ive adopted here towards U. S.
foreign policy, Bill Clintons domestic problems, his prevarications aside, have a role to play in this matter. Lest we forget, back in August, when things heated up for him, he decided to blow up a pharmaceutical company in Sudan and bomb a few strategically insignificant sites in Afghanistan. At this point, resistance is crucial. You can e-mail the white house at and give them hell. Also, protests started in Austin Wednesday, December 16 at 9 pm.
The protests will continue every day at 5 pm (at 11 th and Congress, in front of the State Capitol) until the bombing stops (editors note: the demonstration on Saturday, December 19 has been rescheduled for noon). We must pursue peaceful means of conflict resolution in the Persian Gulf region. The very fact that we are attacking right before Rammadan can only upset the people of Iraq more. (Imagine bombing Christians right before Lent, leaving them to clean up the mess. ) This can only dehumanize the Iraqi people more. Violence will only perpetuate more violence. And continued violence against the Iraqi people can only galvanize support for Saddam Hussein something, I suspect, our leaders want to avoid. 19 February 1998 Iraq caught between the US and the UN The current crisis in the Gulf might look like bully-boy tactics by the US and Britain, but in fact is a product of the institutions put in place after the crushing of Iraq by the Allied forces, argues Donna Kingsley Iraq should expect bombing raids once the moons cycle is darkest after 24 February. This was the message spelled out in a major speech by US President Bill Clinton and lengthy debates in both the House of Lords and the Commons in Britain.
Despite some pacifists posturing there appear to be few if any barriers to Clinton and Blair having their way and teaching Saddam Hussein a lesson. The emphasis on Saddam's alleged nuclear potential has placed weapons of mass destruction at the centre of the debate. The setting up of the UN Weapons Inspectorate in the months after Desert Storm marked an important shift in international relations. UNSCOM, the United Nations Special Commission set up to identify and destroy Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities, has the power to interfere in Iraq on the pretext of global security, turning global policing into a humanitarian issue, policed by a neutral body, the UN. The image of international inspectors bravely negotiating their way, armed only with clipboards, into the arsenals of a tin-pot dictator seemed to mark a shift away from the era of Storm Norman and US arrogance.
In reality of course, behind the men in white coats is always the threat of being turned into a charcoal briquette, as North Korea was told in 1995 and as Iraq is finding out at the moment. It is inevitable that the process of weapons inspecting results in periodical acts of defiance by the inspected and to the flexing of the muscles behind UNSCOM. Despite all the protestations about the use of force, the demonization of Saddam is more entrenched now than ever before. Whether the chosen solution is the diplomacy of the UN chief Kofi Annan or the military threats of the Clinton and Blair brigade, the underlying belief is that Saddam is the problem. There is a consensus that something must be done about Iraq. Pacifist slogans in the UK say sarcastically First we arm dictators then we bomb their citizens.
There has been a disturbing absence of disbelief in the increasingly ludicrous claims about the kind of weapons Saddam is alleged to have at his disposal. Like something from a science fiction novel, in an article in the liberal-leaning Observer, prime minister Tony Blair described in gory detail the likely affects of Saddam's stores: anthrax which makes people drown in their own body fluids'; the gas gangrene Clostridium and Atafloxin which induces liver cancer. The opponents of the proposed bombing do not seek to expose these fantasies, but claim that there is a greater risk from bombing the presidential palaces than from disarming Saddam by negotiation. That Saddam needs disarming is unquestioned. Those who see themselves as progressive may have an instinctive suspicion of the naked bullying tactics of the US and Britain. For them, the crude threat of smart missiles and ground troops reeks too much of old fashioned national self-interest.
The bleating's from British commentators about the hypocrisy of war-mongering by the New Labour proponents of an ethical foreign policy miss the point: ethical foreign policy and bombing Iraq go hand in hand. Ethical foreign policy is all about identifying and punishing those states which do not fit into the etiquette of ethics and humanitarianism as defined by UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook or US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Of course there is a tension between the ethical claims of Britain and the US and the nasty reality of blowing peoples heads off, but the consensus that Saddam is a threat who needs to be dealt with is the other side of moral outrage. Shouting hypocrisy is no answer to the self-righteousness of Cook and Co. War without end To explain the crisis in the Gulf, you need to look no further than London and Washington, argues Brendan ONeill Why was Iraq the big international issue of 1998, culminating in British and US air strikes in December? Bill Clinton and Tony Blair would have us believe that Iraq poses a threat to world peace by continuing to build weapons of mass destruction.
According to Blair, Decembers air strikes were an attempt to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (Sun, 17 December 1998). Yet after seven years and more than 2400 inspections, UNSCOM (the United Nations Special Commission to Iraq charged with locating the weapons of mass destruction) has failed to find a single prohibited weapon. Asked what he thought Iraq's arsenal consisted of, Charles Duelfer, deputy chairman of UNSCOM, said, Thats a good question We have enormous uncertainty (Impact, CNN, 4 March 1998). In the nine months since Duelfer made that comment UNSCOM has still not found anything incriminating. But on the uncertain notion that Saddam Hussein is developing deadly weapons, Iraq has been bombed and subjected to crippling sanctions. In reality, the conflict between the British and US governments and Iraq has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.
The only such weapons that we know for certain exist in the Gulf are those used by the British and US forces. Last years air strikes were justified not by the discovery of Iraqi weapons but by the fact that the Iraqis failed to submit documents about their factories and chemical plants to UNSCOM. It seems that the only thing Iraq can really be accused of is hiding memos of mass destruction and wanting to keep its internal affairs private. The British and US governments seem to be in a permanent state of war with Iraq.
Last year the Gulf crisis was the major theme of British and US foreign policy and looks set to be the big international issue of 1999. Already this year there have been dog-fights between the Iraqi army and US fighter planes and Blair has once again warned Saddam not to get ideas above his station. This is a war without end. The Gulf crisis can never be resolved because it is not about what is happening in Iraq and not about weapons of mass destruction or Saddam's threat to his neighbours.
It is driven entirely by what is happening in the West. The weapons inspectors of UNSCOM play an important part in sustaining the permanent state of crisis between the West and Iraq. The real role of UNSCOM was exposed by ex-member Scott Ritter, who has been doing the rounds of the US and British media, describing the weapons inspectors as being like spies. UNSCOM inspectors have gone from demanding access to factories and chemical plants to demanding access to Iraq's presidential palaces and the Baath Party headquarters in Baghdad.
By its very nature the search for weapons is ongoing and can never be satisfied, at least not until the weapons inspectors give Saddam himself an intimate body search. UNSCOM is an open-ended licence to create a crisis between the British and US governments and Iraq. According to Iraqi minister for oil General Amer Rashid, The policy within UNSCOM is always to have an issue under consideration. So always the technique is to make it endless, this tunnel without a light at the end; the goal post is always moving. This is the reality of UNSCOM; not as a body with a definite brief that can be achieved over a certain period of time, but as an ever-present force which can move the goal posts when it feels like it and muster up a crisis.
This ability to conjure up a crisis at any time serves Britain and America well. The endless war with Iraq is driven by internal US considerations. Many cynics questioned Clintons motives in taking military action against Iraq, accusing him of trying to deflect attention from the impeachment procedures which were due to take place just days later. But military intervention abroad points to more deep-seated problems in countries like America and Britain. At a time when not very much goes right for Western leaders they need the international arena in which to assert their authority. This is an ongoing crisis of authority which existed before Clinton and will exist after him.
The permanent state of crisis with Iraq gives Clinton the ability to turn to the Gulf whenever he needs to bolster his position as the worlds moral policeman and counter the US view of the president as Sick Willie. New Labour has become involved in the Gulf crisis as a result of its natural inclination to assume the moral high- ground on every issue. Tony Blair has not only been able to improve his relationship with Clinton through the Iraq crisis, it is also the perfect issue on which he can deliver a sermon and look down his nose at those beneath him. Hence all his language about degrading Saddam and putting him back in his cage.
The Gulf crisis goes on, not because the weapons inspectors have so far failed to find (non-existent) weapons, but because the crisis continues to serve the purposes of the British and US governments. The transparent and self-serving nature of Britain and Americas policy on the Gulf has rarely been so exposed. This was illustrated in December by Americas isolation in launching the missile attacks on Baghdad. The UN secretary-general Kofi Annan registered his opposition to the air strikes by saying that his thoughts were with the men and women of Iraq. Other members of the UN security council were either openly hostile, like China and Russia, or quietly hostile, like France. Such differing views among the leaders of the international community exposed the artificiality of Britain and Americas campaign.
For the British and the US governments, Iraq has become the one place where they are sure they can stand tall and look down on the world. In their pursuit of this moral authority Clinton and Blair have clearly decided that Iraqi lives are worthless and expendable.
Free research essays on topics related to: international court of justice, weapons of mass destruction, permanent court of international justice, war with iraq, world war ii
Research essay sample on World War Ii Weapons Of Mass Destruction
