Student Led Tutorial: By Ratika Gandhi

Can International Law Deal with the Threat from Terrorism?

International Law is Not Up to the Task (NO)

By: Ed Morgan

Summary:

• The recent terrorist attacks have shaken the global community

• It is unsure about whether governments will abide by International “rules of engagement”
• The 1985 International Court of Justice’s ruling on paramilitary activities in Nicaragua did not solve the immediate problem, but instead hastily placed blame upon certain parties (US) without sufficient reason, and was unaware of the extent of the political strife in Central America.

Ø The court served to merely point fingers towards aggressors and seek out victims, while not getting to the root of the problem, resulting in many complexities being ignored, and the true problem remaining.

Ø The court decided that the United States was responsible for the arming, financing, and political aid given to the rebellious groups while the Sandinista government was not held responsible for encouraging and supporting anti-government rebels in El Salvador and Honduras

Ø These decisions were inadequate, for terrorism in Central America as well as the rest of the world has not ceased, because conflicts are not thoroughly evaluated

• International law tends to generalize terrorism, as specific cases are not evaluated individually and instead are dealt with by merely identifying an aggressor and a victim.

Ø The problem remains that the cause of such conflict is not analyzed and thus continues to occur.

• Despite the optimistic approach of peaceful conflict resolution through the United Nations, many factors stagnate success:

Ø The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force by states yet its rotation of Security Council members and the veto powers of the permanent members have too often resulted in “paralysis” in terms of the diminishment of violence for the wide scope of opinions and beliefs, and distribution of power tend to result in lack of effective action being taken

Ø Politics seems to take precedence over the law, for states often act in their own interest and the multilateral unity of members of the UN often does not exist (ex. Current war on Iraq: US went against UN)

• International Law has never been able to effectively deal with terrorism for specific states have not be identified as being the cause of such uproar, and thus terrorism continues, as non-state aggressors are difficult to deal with (ex. Bin Laden can not be identified with a particular nation, for he acts alone and in his own political interests)
• International Law is centred around a state-oriented structure which focuses on damage on particular states/territory but can sometimes overlook the harbouring of hatred and inequality by governments and groups
• Yet violations of human rights are more easily detectable for they often occur within a territory/state between particular groups, and thus can be tracked
• International institutions do recognize non-state actors when dealing with human rights violations but ignore certain aspects of the issue

Ø Condemn Serbians for being violent against Kosovars, while the Kosovars too are just as much to blame

• The state-oriented structure of international law does not work, and the numerous UN resolutions are too vague, thus governments find ways around them

• Treaties and pledges by governments to increase international law enforcement is insufficient; violations continue to exist
• International law ignores the smaller states who may not be directly involved with terrorism but still possess many links to nations that do harbour such atrocities
• Multilateral effort in Yugoslavia and Rwanda has worked to some extent, for politics has been able to be separated from the law
• The current terrorist crisis continues to exist without a solution because:

Ø There is no definite hold on non-state aggressors like Bin Laden

Ø There is too much focus on breaking apart fortress states, while vulnerable, weak states enveloped by terrorism are ignored

Ø Violence often seems to be the only way to get a hold on these problems, yet have not proven to mend anything

Ø International Law continues to condemn some states and protect others, for the law is dictated by politics and sovereignty and less by morality

Ø Personal interest/gain and bias are what initiate action or inaction

Glossary:

Word	Definition
1) Paradigm	A pattern/model/example; A set of assumptions/concepts/values/ practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them International norms are led by international law that is based on state-sovereignty
2) Paralysis	Abolition/loss of function, power and ability The United Nations seems to be paralysed by aspects such as veto powers, thus resulting in inaction.
3) Multilateral	Involving more than two nations/parties The UN is a multilateral organization.
4) Sovereignty	Complete independence and self-government. A territory existing as an independent state.
5) Depoliticized	To remove the political aspect from; remove from political influence or control International law is rarely depoliticized.
6) Vigilance	Alert watchfulness or caution Governments promise to be more vigilant in terms of international law
7) Terrorism	The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. (Ex. Sept. 11^th attacks)
8) UN Charter	A set of codified rules and regulations ratified by all UN members.
9) Non-state actors	Individuals/groups who do not specifically follow the political agenda a nation but instead act in their own interest. Ex. Bin Laden
10) International Court of Justice	The principle judicial organ of the United Nations located in the Peace Palace in the Hague.

Comprehension and Discussion Questions:

1) How have current acts of terrorism influenced the implementation and restructuring of international law?

2) How can the international community deal with non-state aggressors?

3) Are the current existing international organizations effective in their operation of dealing with global conflict and terrorism?

4) How can political interests of individual states be eliminated to better deal with international conflict?

5) What are some of the factors that stagnate the progress of the United Nations in its endeavours to promote and enforce international law?

6) What stance should nations take in response to those nations who employ terrorist activities?

7) Who should determine what nations are exempt from certain laws, and whether more powerful nations should be given such law-enforcing abilities?

8) How can international law and organizations prevent the spread of terrorism to weaker, vulnerable nations?

9) Do you think that the current “War Against terrorism” led by the United States of America is appropriate and beneficial to the international community, and the citizens of Middle Eastern nations?

10) What measures can be taken to eliminate political influence on the implementation of International Law.

Answers:

1) Terrorist attacks have posed a new form of global insecurity and fear among states. International organizations have the challenge of overcoming such insecurities and implementing proper measures. The unity of multilateral organizations must be promoted on a larger scale.

2) Monitoring non-state aggressors remains a challenge for nations, for such aggressors cannot be targeted through a specific geographic location. Yet nations and multilateral organizations must be able to pursue intelligence operations to overcome the secrecy of such non-state aggressors. Countries should encourage non-violent means of conquering terrorist organizations, and together with other nations, be dedicated to seeking out hidden terrorist operations.

3) Because of the reoccurrence of terrorism throughout the global community, it is evident that current organizations lack the structure need to enforce international law effectively. Often nations with hegemonic power (similar to US) try to overpass the law and thus go against multilateral decisions. This has proven to stunt progression towards implementation of global law.

4) Veto powers by the permanent members of the Security Council tend to result

in a stalemate in which important decisions are not made due to disagreement and conflicting power and opinion. In addition, the economic influence of a few stronger nations result in action that serves the interests of those particular states instead of the global community on the whole. Despite the effort of states to refrain from acting in their own interest, peacekeeping missions are often dictated by what specific nations agree with, and what their leaders deem fit under the circumstances.