World Politics
February 1, 2008
The United Nations
The UN is better understood as a family of international organizations, or a system (or systems) than “an” organization. We focus on the Security Council, General Assembly and Secretariat, but in reality it is a web of organizations. The most important work the UN does is probably at the level of the functional organizations who are ‘on the ground’ in a variety of places helping deal with real world problems. UNESCO, FAO, WHO, UNICEF, and other sub organizations create good will and first world-third world cooperation, as well as save tens of thousands of lives. That may be more important than what the Security council does, and shows one aspect of international organizations: functional organizations focused on specific tasks are often much more effective than those with grand designs or some dream of ‘world governance’.
But let’s consider the UN with more depth:
UN CHARTER: equivalent of “constitution” of the United Nations. This is the one thing that limits the Security Council’s scope of action (for Chapter 7 interventions especially) and sets out the goals and framework of the UN. As with any document like that, interpretation is necessary. Whether you are talking about the US Constitution or any document, the words don’t just have obvious meanings. Just look at a dictionary -- many words have a variety of meanings, and they change in context. Language is inherently imprecise. That’s why lawyerspeak is so boring and long winded, they try to overcome the complexities. However, there are various ways of interpretation. That is even more difficult with the Charter which has a number of official languages, each considered equal. Often intricacies in translations (some times there aren’t exact equivalents for words in different languages) create disputes.
The charter does list the purposes of the United Nations. The book has the particular language, but in a nutshell it is to maintain peace and security, develop friendly relations between states, and lead to respect for equal human rights and the self-determination of peoples. It can only be amended by 2/3 vote of all member states (with Security Council permanent members having veto power over amendments). It’s been amended twice (enlarge Security Council in 1965, and ECOSOC in 1965 and 1973)
Sovereignty: Article 2 (7) puts sovereignty as the primary principle of the United Nations. The UN cannot infringe sovereignty except in cases of threats to peace, breaches of peace, and acts of aggression. This also has been interpreted over time to allow breaches of sovereignty in response to gross violations of human rights.
Acceptance: open to any peace loving state, with a recommendation from the Security Council and approval from the General Assembly. Withdrawal is not specifically allowed, though when Indonesia withdrew in 1961 (briefly) it was seen as permissible due to the primary state rights of sovereignty.
Security Council: As you know, most of the power lies with the Security Council, made up of 5 permanent and 10 non-permanent members. The non-permanent are usually represented with 5 states from Africa and Asia, 2 from Latin America, 1 from Eastern Europe, and 2 from West Europe or Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Permanent members have veto power over all non-procedural questions; otherwise nine votes are necessary to pass Security Council resolutions. Resolutions are binding. Originally there were 6 non-permanent members, that was expanded in 1965. The non-permanent have access to all the work of the council, which created problems in 1994 when Rwanda happened to have a seat on the Security Council at the time of the Rwandan genocide. It could communicate to the Rwandan government what information the UN had, and the likelihood of any UN action.
The Security Council had limited capacity to act during the Cold War. At first the Soviets were constantly vetoing measures, then the US became more active as the balance of power shifted to the third world. Note that while Britain and France are not shy about using their veto power, China has used theirs rarely (though pre-1972 China’s vote was controlled by Taiwan). China tends to identify with third world issues, and has determined that its economic relationship with the US means they should be hesitant to stop the US.
The US was the force behind the resurgence of the Security Council in the early 90s, and Boutros Boutros Ghali (Secretary General 1992-96) and Kofi Annan (1997 – 2007) pushed for greater Security Council responsibility. Any state (member or non member), as well as the Secretary General of the UN, can refer a matter to the Security Council. But the US, by avoiding the Security Council in 1999 in its war with Serbia showed that the remaining superpower did not want to be limited by Security Council decision making (NATO action faced certain opposition from Russia and China). This intensified with the 2002 inability of the US to get approval for war in Iraq, leading President Bush to say that if the UN wouldn’t do its job, the US would have to do it. Yet current problems in American foreign policy may create conditions where the US will shift its attitude again. Terrorism also is a problem that requires multilateral cooperation, and all Security Council members have concerns about terrorism (non-state violence is almost always a problem for states, who are used to having a monopoly of power!)
The possibility for enforcing international law and actively providing collective security is addressed in Chapter VII of the charter. The Security Council is given a monopoly of power on enforcing international law and maintaining the peace through military action, with two exceptions:
a) the right of self-defense;
b) regional organizations authorized by the Security Council to act.
Articles 39-42: the Security Council can identify threats to peace and security, (or breaches, etc.) and choose a response, requiring other member states support the Council’s actions. In Security Council cases there should be common control of UN forces involved in enforcement, lead by a military staff committee (article 47). Practically, this has been impossible to formulate. The structure is there for a UN military command and perhaps even a UN standing army (made up of contributions from member states). However, that hasn’t gone anywhere yet.
General Assembly: Basically a forum for discussion of major world problems, with each state having one vote. The General Assembly also oversees the actions of organizations within the UN umbrella, receives and issues reports, can pass non-binding resolutions (but they can have some status in international law), and deals with the UN budget. States can lose their General Assembly vote if they are arrears in their payments.
The book goes into considerable detail over the functioning of the General Assembly, read through that. I’ll just emphasize a few points:
1. The General Assembly has seen a shift in power from the West to the third world, due to the number of states in the third world. This has led to confrontations between the UN and especially the US. Since the US has veto power in the Security Council, almost all criticisms of the UN by the US are criticisms aimed at the general assembly. The Uniting for Peace power, which the US is now critical of, was originally a western idea in order to overcome Soviet Security Council vetos.
2. The autumn session of open debate is central; Presidents and leaders from the world over attend and give speeches, and this becomes a focus of intense diplomacy. Here the General Assembly fulfills both the role of a “world stage” for ideas and leaders to speak, as well as the most intense place for multilateral diplomacy. No one knows how much this adds to stability and peace, but it could be considerable (this is beyond the resolutions that are passed, etc.)
3. The budget problems are constant. US 25%, Japan 19%, Germany about 9.5% -- the top three payers contribute more than half of the budget. The top five contribute 2/3. China and Russia pay a relatively small share
4. Note as well regional alliances; this is important in that committee memberships are usually divided geographically, with each regional alliance choosing its member. You get something criticized in the West (like Libya being on the Human Rights Commission) because of this, though the regions argue that outside powers, especially the US, shouldn’t try to dictate the choices of others. The General Assembly officially elects members to the Security Council (non-permanent, regional), ECOSOC, and other bodies.
The Secretariat: The “executive branch” of the UN employs over 7500 people world wide, with most in offices in New York, Geneva, and Vienna. It is head by the Secretary General of the United Nations, who is appointed by the General Assembly based on recommendation from the Security Council. Though hardly a “world President,” the Secretary General is more than symbolic; besides running the vast bureaucracy, he or she can act independently in the role of a “super diplomat,” and can bring issues to the Security Council for their attention. Ultimately, the Secretary General cannot act independently and balances initiative with a realistic appraisal of the possibilities. Secretary Generals:
Trygve Lie (1946-53), Norway
Dag Hammarskjöld (1953-61), Sweden
U Thant (1961-71), Burma
Kurt Waldheim (1972-82), Austria
Javier Perez de Cuellar (1982-91) Peru
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1991-96) Egypt
Kofi Annan (1996-2006)
Ban Ki-Moon (2006 – present)
Kofi Annan was seen as an effective Secretary General, trying to hold together the Security Council in a difficult era. His willingness towards the end to speak out against the US created some ripples here, but the US clearly is more focused on national sovereignty than using the UN as a primary instrument.
Ban Ki-Moon is just getting started; we’ll see how he does. The main issues facing the current Secretary General are: Secretariat reform (Annan did a lot, but there are still issues of corruption and inefficiencies that are pressing) and Security Council/UN reform. Clearly the Security Council composition doesn’t reflect modern political realities, but rather the perceived realities of 1945. Still, this is hard to do, given difficulties in amending the Charter.
ECOSOC: 54 members, each serves three years, 18 selected each year. This group is designed to address problems of an economic and social nature (not peace keeping), focusing on promotion of higher standards of living, employment, education, social progress, health care, cultural issues, and human rights. ECOSOC consults with UN subsidiary organizations such as the World Bank, International Labor Organization, Food and Agricultural Organization, United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization, World Health Organization, etc.
* It is common for people to consider these organizations ECOSOC to be rather powerless due to the difficulty in getting funding and action. However, the impact of organizations like the WHO on the real life conditions of third world states is immense. Also, they facilitate cooperation between countries in various regions, helping build trust. They’ve also focused on promoting first world assistance to third world states (not just in terms of aid, but problem solving), which helps facilitate trust and avoid north/south conflict. Ultimately, this may be the UN’s most important funciton, as these organizations have expanded cooperation for decades. They don’t get the headlines and can’t solve major problems that require Security Council enforcement, but sometimes the little things add up to make a big difference.
Discussion issues:
1. Reform of the Security Council
2. What should the scope of such a large organization like the UN be? Consider the nature of organizations like the FAO, UNESCO, WHO, ILO, etc.
3. Reform of the UN in general, and the Secretariat
4. Accomplishments and failures of the UN
So, in looking at enforcing international law, what is law?
One definition: A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement or authority. As we'll see, in international law there is no political authority capable of enforcing law (only the UN Security Council has that power, and it is difficult to use), therefore agreement and custom are important. That makes law in this sense inherently political.
The problem of "grounding" law
How do you justify your law? This is important. We said that laws that reflect a culture are more successful; therefore, if you can convince people that the law is just and correct, you can help create the cultural conditions conducive to the law's effectiveness.
Many foundations for law are put forth. The most common is:
1. Natural law
Notion that as human a few ethical principles are inherent, and do not to be juistified by external means. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Natural law has the advantage that if something is to be considered realistically "natural law" it has to have widespread appeal. We couldn't try to say that it's natural law to force families to have only one child. However, natural law has a disadvantage in a number of ways:
* many laws are beyond its scope
* different cultures have different notions of what a national law is.
Proponents of natural law stumble over what I call the ‘rabbit in the hat’ problem. They make assumptions about human nature, and then argue that reason and a ‘correct’ understanding of human nature gives you the true set of natural laws. But if you mess with their assumptions, then the laws change. They claim it is rational and evident, but its more a bit of smoke and mirrors at times, as they often justify their assumptions with dubious claims. Yet, IF there is one discernable human nature there may indeed be natural law. Our inability to prove that any one set of laws is natural does not mean there is no natural law. But it does mean that attempting to ground law in it is dangerous -- if a small group believes they’ve found the “right” set of natural laws, they may believe it right to (even ethically necessary) to impose it on all.
Natural law is often closely tied to the idea of:
Divine law or God's will?
At least until the renaissance law was tied to the church and the notion of divine law. It is still that way in the Islamic world with the Koran.
This makes sense: one way you can generate public support is to say that it’s from God, and that you are risking your eternal soul to break it. From there the church would give powers to others in areas. Later on, after the whole thing started to break down, they still tried to keep the notion of divine law alive by anointing kings and saying that kings represent the church which represent God.
As with natural law, it has limited scope once you take away the assumption that the King or Sovereign is anointed by God and all he or she does must be treated as God's will (is it God's will that we drive 65 on the interstates?) And in a multicultural society, like the US or especially our planet, many concepts and notions of God co-exist.
Positive Law
Some simply saw that we can’t solve the problem of how to ground laws, and argue we simply have to treat law as legitimate on its own right. If the law exists, it is legitimate. That has some problems, obviously. Once slavery was legal, in Nazi Germany it was legal to discriminate against Jews. Is this law legitimate? Should you be expected to follow it if you live in those countries? Most who argue for positive law recognize that it is a pragmatic solution to a difficult problem, and note that in some cases individuals have to follow their conscience. However, they tend to argue that at least in a democracy with protected rights of participation, most law should be treated as prima facia legitimate, with the burden going to those who would argue it is not. Since in a democracy one can work to change the law, then one is obliged to follow it until it is changed. But again: the US democracy had slavery, interned Japanese in World War II, and had a draft until the early seventies. For most cases positive law might work as a starting point, but it doesn’t solve the philosophical issues, and may in fact hide them.
What do you think? How are laws grounded? Culture? Nature? God? Or positive law? Note: think about this BOTH philosophically AND pragmatically. If we can’t solve the philosophical question, what kind of pragmatic solutions might exist?
What is international law?
The common definition is that international law governs the relations between sovereign states; the world is a system populated by about 200 actors, the sovereign states. According to the American Law Institute: “International Law consists of rules and principles of general application dealing with the conduct of states and of international organizations and with their relations inter se, as well as with some of their relations with persons, whether natural or juridical.”
THAT, however, seems of limited value, which is why some say there is no real definition. If it is some persons, organizations, states...then at best you note at the outset that international law is complicated, and sometimes applies, but sometimes doesn’t. A definition is not enough.
If you need a quick definition, you probably can stick to the old one as a starting point. As a general rule, states remain the relevant entities in international law, and are privileged. They are sovereign: no international organization, federal unit, individual, or corporation has the benefits and rights of sovereignty. (Maine, for instance, is not sovereign). Only states can appear before the World Court, or make a claim on behalf of individuals.
But just as the international system is not really the kind of anarchy realists claim dominates, neither is international law easily defined. Remember, international law is like all political constructs dependent upon the actions and choices of the people who practice it (the states or their representatives). As states move from a state-centric world with clear lines of sovereignty to a system where interdependence and a sacrifice of many “rights” of sovereignty becomes the norm, international law will change in form too. Perhaps one reason why it is so hard to define international law these days is because its unclear what the nature of the international system is.
I’ll point out at the beginning like almost all aspects of international relations these days, from sovereignty, the nature of the nation-state, territoriality and legitimacy, international law is a European construct at base, building on concepts and ideas that emerged originally in Europe and spread to the rest of the globe, especially in the aftermath of colonialism. Thinking about the difficulties we discussed last time (natural law, cultural relativism, positive law, etc.), one issue that will be raised is whether or not the use of international law is almost neo-colonial, an attempt to enforce western standards on non-western cultures, or if regionalism and the changes that have taken place as law has become global made that objection unpersuasive.