International law: Principles of Big States?

International Law: Principles of Big States?

Use of force to achieve or protect national interest of states has been an important behavioral attribute of states. It may include violence, persuasion, intervention in decision making of a sovereign state etc. Most of the works in international relations mention use of force to indicate war and military interventions which is a limited or narrowed view. Since the emergence of modern international law, states have driven by concepts of jus ad bellum and jus in Bello to define universal peaceful settlements of disputes. Though they are philosophical, justification of war has been narrowly and is also most accepted in realist realm - in two ways, one is justification to national security and other is a justification to state security.

As the entire discipline of international Law is hegemoniesed by western theories and scholars, we shall start from their discussion. European efforts to bring states around a common table for peaceful negotiations are seen from late 19^th century. In 1899, convention for pacific settlement of international disputes was formed with little success. Again, it was tried in 1907 Hague peace conference with the same outcome. According to article 11, article 12 of this convention, any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the members of the league or not, is here by declared a matter of concern to the whole league. Thus, it offered a form of collective security, the term which used in the formative principles of League of Nations after WWI. Even after the WWI, Under US leadership, there was pact of Paris, 1928 signed by 56 states which could not stop the next war.

The failure of any conventions or agreements of between any numbers of nations can be attributed to the very nature of states. According to E.H. Carr, rules and regulation in international system are accepted by states until they fall in their national interest. The moment they drift away from the latter, states no longer respect the regulations or any rules (if exist).

After WWII, certain principles have been agreed upon for peaceful settlements. According to resolution 2625 of UNGA, states shall refrain from use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. It lays 7 basic principles which points to the latter mentioned refrainment. But, these are just principles not rules. Which means these are just legal backers for the actions taken by any state. They are just reason for reaching conclusions. Article 2(4) provides for similar clause as in Article 11 of Hague convention 1907. It says

All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations. This also provides for use of force in self defence under article 51 and 52 which is seen as contradictory to article 2(4).  

United Nations authorization of force can be understood if seen from the spectacles of Copenhagen school of securitization where they say that securitization is political rather than it is being in existence. Robert Cox’s problem solving theory efficiently explains the United Nations conventions on use of force to uphold the global peace. Article 41 from chapter VII may be said to be in line with 2(4) as it imposes only economic sanctions without any military intervention. But, under article 42, it ‘may take such action by sea, air, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

If we look at the peace keeping operations which are hailed by UN with the hind sight of the latter mentioned internationally agreed norms, they work only in the regions where major powers of the world do not have any confrontation. They appear in Somalia, Cyprus, and Sudan etc. But, no such forces in Ukraine, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria as the position either will be occupied by NATO or Russia or any other country such as China in SCS (South China Sea).

The rules of UN are only applicable if major powers want them to be applied. It can be seen from numerous events across the world. According to National Security Strategy of Us, 2006 which extends their use of force against terrorists which is non-state actors considers using force against anyone which or who is seen as a threat to national interest. Also the right to use of force which is used against over whelming humanitarian catastrophe is subjective and can be used for further incidents such as US invasion of Iraq, 2003.

Even the Responsibility to protect which was adopted to make up for the failure of UN during the humanitarian crisis in Rwanda genocide, Kosovo and other incidents of 1990s have limited respect as states use to pursue their national interest but not really obliged for humanitarianism. Example is Uyghur issue. In this case no country says anything even if there is complete genocide of that community. Thus, all the conventions, principles act only in the interest of states and not make any international law.

Civil war in any states? Then is it the same condition when it is seen from the spectacles of international law?

Does international community consider state as belligerent or the civil uprising/ armed conflict against state? In normal conditions, external states would remain neutral in case of civil war as it is considered as domestic matter. Additional protocol II of Geneva convention which is first of its kind, talks about civil wars and protection of civilians from harsh use of force.  Article 4 of this optional protocol speaks about not harming any person who is not part of the hostilities. But the new phenomenon of internet and thus connected social media, brings in a question whether instigating the public by personal opinion is a direct involvement or not?

This is a million dollar question and is left to public and states to infer. According to me. The old rules have been set in a pre – technological period. Now in the generation where technology changes per every second, principles of liberty also changes. In the name of liberty we cannot sacrifice order of the society. Already following positive liberty must be modified in such a way that it takes all the masses happily with it.