Law Vision
The role of international law in shaping global relationship
Md. Rizwanul Islam
During the very brief span of my career as an academic so far, in my classes on International Law, almost invariably, I have been bombarded with repeated questions from my pupils on the utility of studying international law in an 'unjust world'. Many radical students have even gone on to question the future existence of any sort of international law. Time and again they cite instances of breaches of international law and argue that this branch of law has lost its teeth and relevance in a unipolar world.
It's always encouraging for any teacher to see his pupils interacting with him. But when you ask your pupil at tertiary level that why he or she is studying a particular course and get the answer that the reason for studying is simply to complete the requirements of the degree, then of course as the course teacher you would be anything but happy. It's not just the students who have skepticism regarding international law. Perhaps the attitude of many lawyers and academics of our country towards international law would not be much different.
Given the fact that we are a geographically small, poverty-trodden, internationally insignificant nation rarely making an impact at global levels, this attitude of oblivion or disinterest towards international law is not inexplicable. However, I am among that orthodox bunch who do not subscribe to this view that international law is loosing its relevance as a discipline in a unipolar world, dominated by the USA. Let's first try to sum up the main arguments of those who advocate this view.
Many argue that international law today is followed more in breach than in observance. For example they refer to the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 as a failure of international law. People of this school of thought also claim that as there is lack of enforcement mechanism of the norms of international law, it has no efficacy. Another contention is that in the negotiation process of framing multilateral conventions creating binding norms of international law only stronger nations can properly participate and therefore final texts of the conventions translate their interests or at least tend to show heavy bias towards their interests. Of course these arguments bear some degree of truth, but these are also manifestations of misconceptions or a narrow outlook towards the nature and scope of international law.
It's true that at the beginning of the twenty-first century, we have witnessed with horror the invasion of Iraq, claimed to be necessary to destroy weapons of mass destruction (an allegation which was never accompanied by any credible proof) and for getting rid of a brutal dictator (whom the attacking powers had previously helped by providing arms) who made the life of his people miserable. But the suspicion always remained that the invasion was motivated by the quest of oil resource, not for any ideal goals as claimed by the occupying forces.
But the idea that international law is being consistently being violated only after the demise of the cold war at the beginning of the 1990s is not supported by the pages of history. The history of human civilization shows that mighty nations never showed much concern for humanity or international law. But still international law has continued to evolve and marched forward.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the rapid technological development in the western hemisphere created an enormous gap in military strength between the industrialized and agricultural nations. Taking advantage of their superior weaponry, the advanced industrialized countries gradually turned a significant part of the rest of the world into their colonies, which served as sources of food, raw materials for industrial production and as markets for manufactured goods.
Even at the beginning of the twentieth century the scenario did not change much. For instance in October 1935, Benito Mussolini sent an enormous army to attack Abyssinia (now known as Ethiopia). The well equipped Italian Army easily defeated the poorly armed Abyssinians, and occupied Addis Ababa in May 1936, forcing Haile Selassie, the Emperor of Abyssinia, to leave his country. The Italian Army even used chemical weapons and flame throwers against the Abyssinians.
The League of Nations condemned Italy's invasion and imposed economic sanctions on her in November 1935, but the sanctions yielded very little result. Ultimately, the sanctions imposed by the League were lifted on 4th July 1936. Many analysts think that the unwillingness of the major powers to respond to this flagrant violation of international law was because of their perception that the fate of this poor and far-off country, inhabited by non-Europeans, did not involve their interests.
With the establishment of the United Nations at the demise of the World War II, a system of international law was set up to replace the uncontrolled use of military force in international affairs. Article 2 (3) of the United Nations Charter provides that “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.” Article 2 (4) provides that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” In the light of these provisions of the UN Charter, most international lawyers would perhaps agree that the authority of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations has been challenged by the invasion of Iraq.
The contention that in the formulation of multilateral conventions the stronger nations take the leading role and therefore their interests get priority over others is of course true. But this is not something that is limited to international law but equally or may be to a greater degree applicable to the domestic legal system. In modern democracies the legislators are the repreprestatives of the people. But not all legislations reflect the will of the majority of the people.The myth that domestic laws are equal for all- is far from truth.
As already indicated, the invasion of Iraq was a defining moment for the authority of the United Nations. But a failure of the United Nations to respond to a gross illegality should not be equated with the collapse of tho whole body of interantional law. The world without any sort of internationl law would not be any better. When domestic laws are consistently violated by the powerful, we don't say that there is no tomorrow for laws. So it is inexplicable that why such a claim would be tenable for intaerantionl law.
If one carefully looks at today's world one would find that international law is not on the decline, rather gaining a more pervasive nature embracing more and more filelds previously unknown to be within its domain. In today's interconnected world international law has a different and greater impact; it affects a much wider variety of actors. The traditional treaty and customary laws, along with traditional inter-governmental institutions, are now operating in parallel with an ever incresing body of transgovernmental law.
International law is beginning to impact individual and corporate actors. The transformation of the Treaty of Rome from an inter-state treaty to a set of rules capable of being invoked by individuals through national courts throughout the European Community could be cited as an example of the overriding impact of international law. Another illustration of the pre-dominance of the international law is the evolution of the GATT into the WTO, with the authority to pronounce binding decisions delivered by the Panel and Appellate body scrutinizing whether a state is violating international trading rules. Nations even had to amend their laws to make them WTO-compliant. Theoretically these decisions are mandotory for states. But individual corporate actors are very closely connected with the outcome of these decisions.
Possibly fuelled by the internet and speedy travel opportunity, another feature of interantional realtions and law today is the involvement of non-state actors in international life, from multinational financial institutions and corporations to non-governmental organizations of every possible description- human rights activists, environmentalists, labour associations, women's association and civic associations etc. Many of these actors are playing a pro-active role in traditional inter-governmental organizations. In many cases they are offering an alternative outlook to the global issues and revealing many details of the negotiation process which once probably limited to only a group of privileged diplomats or state representatives.
Hence one might safely say it's now more than ever that the omnipresence of international law is more clearly felt. Despite all its inadequacy, as a discipline it would continue to exist and impact global relations.
The author is Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Northern University Bangladesh.
