SLT Reflection: Can international law deal with the threat of terrorism?

X NO by Mustafa Humayun

This was a very interesting article that dealt with a number of current issues. The trend of globalization has caused the network of terror to spread among different nations of the world. The face of terrorism has changed and individual groups, not sovereign nations commit such horrific acts. The article was fairly open-ended and it was extremely short. After reading it one was left with a plethora of open-ended questions, and each individual would have to discover their own interpretation for the article. For this article I had to come up with numerous questions and then research them in order to create a proper summary. I could not explain the idea of ‘international law not being able to deal with the threat of terrorism’ by using the arguments presented in the article alone. I researched a number of cases on the internet to assist me in creating a summary for the article.

I had always believed that international law, in its current state, cannot deal with the growing threat of terrorism. The article helped me to research this opinion. It discussed that the face of terrorism has changed. “International law has never evolved in such a way that has acknowledged non-state sources of violence.” (Morgan, 499) International law is geared in such a way that it targets sovereign states and not individual organizations that foster terror, like Al Qaeda. There have been no real advances made in the fight against terrorism, as international courts have very little power. Most countries are willing to accept the rulings of the International Court of Justice, so long as they do not infringe upon the interests of the country itself. Also, countries circumvent international institutions when their personal economic or political interests are involved. “It [international law] continues to condemn some states and protect others based on sovereignty and politics.” (Morgan, 500) Organizations like the UN have not taken a firm stance against Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, yet they have enforced trade embargos against Iraq. In another case where double standards were used: the United States has defied the orders of the United Nations when it attacked Iraq, but it continually forces other nations to use it as a viable alternative to war. Such a double standard has reduced the effectiveness of the international legal system, where politics usually overshadow and defy the law. Morgan addresses this problem in his article: “Politics has been allowed to overcome the law, rather than the other way around.” (Morgan, 499) He argued that there are very few effective alternatives for countries to pursue when they want to resolve conflicts. Most countries find the United Nations an unnatural forum, because the interests of the five Security Council members have a significant impact on the resolutions passed. Therefore, a country cannot deal with its foreign problems without first gaining approval from the Security Council. This causes a great deal of malice towards the UN and thus, again, reduces its effectiveness.

The article left me with a great deal of open ended questions. There was one, however, that had troubled me for a number of days. If international law is not remodeled, how can countries protect themselves from the ambiguous threat of terror? “The bin Laden network [is] not directly linked to a given state …[or] any specific political conflict.” (Morgan, 500) We have no country to blame for the September 11 attacks and the international justice system is not highly regarded by most nations of the world. There is no notable anti-terrorist group that exists to combat such a threat. All countries, therefore, are vulnerable to direct attacks against their civilians. I chose to present this scenario to my group members and asked them to give their opinion on how international law can be remodeled. Everyone agreed that the only possible way for international law to work is if political interests are withdrawn and if all countries, unconditionally, agree to guarantee compliance to the rulings made by the International Court of Justice. This would be a bold move but certain people, Neil and Yiannis, argued that very few countries would be willing to sacrifice their sovereignty and give in to rulings made by a third-party. And we all agreed that this would be another deadlock that the international community will have to deal with.

I presented the aforementioned facts and opinions to my group. I felt that the discussion went extremely well as most of my group members were very familiar with the notion of international terrorism. Many of them agreed with the viewpoint that the article presented. The cases that I used (Iraq, Al Qaeda, Israel and Nicaragua) assisted me in clarifying some of the arguments presented in the article. And because the article was fairly open-ended, I created the summary in such a way that the students would not have to refer to the article to understand it. I highlighted the main arguments on my summary sheet and explained to the reader the inherent problems that these arguments suggest. I thought that such a methodical approach would be effective in helping the reader to understand the article.

The debate went extremely well. We decided that to encourage participation, I would take an extreme viewpoint when it comes to dealing with terrorism. I suggested the absolute destruction of the Middle East; as such an action would end many of the problems of international security that countries face. Such a suggestion spirited much debate: a few people tended to agree with my opinion but certain individuals were appalled and apparently disgusted with the lack of humanity such an action exhibited. Nevertheless, the tactic was successful as it presented the students with a solid viewpoint, which they could agree or disagree with. Many times, the media complicates an issue and by doing so they confuse the general public. People forget that most issues can be defined very easily and they refuse to take a stance because they are bewildered. By making such a statement we (Mr. Melnyk, Ratika and I) had simplified the issue to what it really is and the students could choose to take whatever stance they believed agreed with their morality.